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.
Still given that the ratio of DM to players is something like 1:4 - 1:6, it would seem not too wise from a business standpoint to work hard on an expensive book only to intentionally target it only to 14-20% of your possible customers. Why not try to entice all your customers to purchase it by giving them all a little something in it?
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.
Gods, please no! :)
Creative Director
|
Still given that the ratio of DM to players is something like 1:4 - 1:6, it would seem not too wise from a business standpoint to work hard on an expensive book only to intentionally target it only to 14-20% of your possible customers. Why not try to entice all your customers to purchase it by giving them all a little something in it?
Although the theory is that there are fewer GMs to sell to than players... in practice, it's the GMs who buy the most stuff. Players tend to pick and choose. Is it better to sell EVERYTHING to 1/4 of your audience? Or to sell 25% of Everything to Everyone? It's a complicated problem, that's for sure.
We saw some evidence of this when back in the day we relaunched Dragon and Dungeon magazines. At that time, the theme was "Dragon is for Players, and Dungeon is for Gamemasters." And lo and behold, sales for Dragon declined and sales for Dungeon rose.
I know for a fact that the gamers in my own groups tend to follow this theory pretty well—players buy FAR fewer products than gamers who are GMs. Even if they're only GMs part time or in theory only.
|
Still given that the ratio of DM to players is something like 1:4 - 1:6, it would seem not too wise from a business standpoint to work hard on an expensive book only to intentionally target it only to 14-20% of your possible customers. Why not try to entice all your customers to purchase it by giving them all a little something in it?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.
If we assume then that "most" of such a book is for DM's and "some" is for the PC's. Now I ban any other races other than those in the PHB. So now as DM I buy a book that has some useless pages in to (the PC related stuff that I won't allow). Still not an ideal situation really.
No win really, Paizo made a choice - just happens I agree with it, others won't...
S.
I haven't seen this anywhere for sure. Does PF have any official way to convert PCs who have Templates?
If not, I'm sure it won't be a huge deal to figure it out between me and the DM but just wanting to know if PF has any way of handling it yet.
At this point I want Paizo to put out a monsters-as-PCs book just to stop the incessant Kvetching. I will instruct my players not to bother purchasing it at least until the NEXT campaign in 2 or 3 years.
At this point I want Paizo to put out a monsters-as-PCs book just to stop the incessant Kvetching. I will instruct my players not to bother purchasing it at least until the NEXT campaign in 2 or 3 years.
Well, there you go. You suggest they should put in the effort and then you hint that you won't reward that effort by buying the book and neither will any of your players.
Posts like these will drive the last nails into the PC Bestiality project. At best, you might have helped them establish a timeline for when they might want to release such a book, in 2-3 years, if at all.
That's no way to stop the incessant Kvetching...
.....Kvetching...
Gesundheit
Irony is a literary device which I may have used in a rather heavy-handed manner.
Irony is a literary device which I may have used in a rather heavy-handed manner.
And which I certainly used in a more subtle manner.
I know, I know, subtlety is way out of character for a tarrasque. What can I say, I'm a tarrasque demogogue.
A monster book? I'd buy one.
I've seen the comments--yes, it's time and resources, it's focus...and it's less interest.
Count me in for someone who'd like to see a monster book and who plans to pay for it. Count me in for someone who'd like to see it published by someone with a passion for it. I do like Paizo, but I'm minded to look more for a 3PP for my monsters.
It just has to do with passion. :)
So, I'll just hold out my wallet here, and say, heyo. 3pp's? If monsters are something you love. And something you'd do well, I will buy a copy of your book.
And...I always did hate LAs.
A massive over-generalization of LA systems
Comment on LAs in general: Most of the options I've seen go with the idea that monster abilities get less impressive over time, so there's some sort of "buy off" option that goes on. We've seen it in:
UA
Paizo's CR suggestion
Paizo's XP debt suggestion
In both of the latter two, they gain additional levels at certain points as the game progresses (and the monster abilities become less impressive), or eventually work to pay off the XP.
Maybe this is onto something. I think what it's suggesting is "scaled phase-out system." Now that CR means something, perhaps this is more possible.
As long as the creature choices are reasonably even you can balance it out by giving the other players in the group a small boon. Maybe a magic item they can start the game with or just a small attribute boost or SLA they can use. Then everyone progresses at the same rate which is IMO the best way to go.
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 have to agree and disagree with this one. While I really want a Tian Xi source book, a setting neutral book would be nice. NOT to add new classes mind you -I do agree that Samurai, and Ninjas, and several other "iconic" Asian style classes can be done with the current classes- but to advise GM's and players on how one might build these classes using the existing rules, as well as adding some new feats and spells that fit a more Asian style campaign (as well as new class variants.) While it is possible to research much of this stuff yourself, it would be nice to have a book on hand with this information already in it (and game relevant at that).
But that is my two cents.... and now I'm broke.
As long as the creature choices are reasonably even you can balance it out by giving the other players in the group a small boon. Maybe a magic item they can start the game with or just a small attribute boost or SLA they can use. Then everyone progresses at the same rate which is IMO the best way to go.
Maybe, but that's not ideal.
For example, it would be about the same thing if you houseruled dwarves to have +4 natural AC, 10 extra HP, and the natural ability to cling to walls and ceilings like a spider, and you balanced it by giving all the other PCs in the group +2 to any ability score and a bonus feat at level 1.
No race comes with a racial ability to give everyone else (but not themselves) extra abilities. It's not even clear how my racial ability should give you some new "racial" ability too.
Besides, mechanically speaking, you're assuming that the monsters are extra powerful, and that we compensate by making the non-monsters just as powerful. That's going to seriously overpower the PCs and make any level-appropriate challenges meaningless to them. A party of 4 of these monstrous PCs (or even just one monstrous PCs and over-compensated core PCs) could theoretically wade through every encounter in Council of Thieves in about an hour, with no resting or downtime or recovery of resources being needed.
I don't think that's what the game intends by balance.
Although the theory is that there are fewer GMs to sell to than players... in practice, it's the GMs who buy the most stuff. Players tend to pick and choose. Is it better to sell EVERYTHING to 1/4 of your audience? Or to sell 25% of Everything to Everyone? It's a complicated problem, that's for sure.We saw some evidence of this when back in the day we relaunched Dragon and Dungeon magazines. At that time, the theme was "Dragon is for Players, and Dungeon is for Gamemasters." And lo and behold, sales for Dragon declined and sales for Dungeon rose.
I know for a fact that the gamers in my own groups tend to follow this theory pretty well—players buy FAR fewer products than gamers who are GMs. Even if they're only GMs part time or in theory only.
THIS definitely. I've seen that rule many many times... and while my group is a rarity (3 of the 5 of us are DMs at least part of the time) Its still rare for more than 2-3 copies of the same book to be present or even in ownership.
While I am quite heavily invested in pathfinder (yet to find a product I DON'T like that I've purchased, if anything its ones I like less than I do others) I'm probably not your average consumer. That being said I'm not exactly in a hurry for a monster book. Would I buy it when it comes out? Certainly. But IF it were done I think I would want it done right. For example, I LOVE how you handled the lycanthropes in the Bestiary, its now easy to use them at level 2 (or even level 1 really) without it being too unbalanced.
I hope you don't think we're being ungrateful, we certainly don't want to bite the hand that feeds us all this great gaming goodness. (God knows -I- wouldn't put in the time you guys do, your nuts!) I'm not really sure what a good compromise is, but at least now you know that the demand is there (in at least some amount) and including the product IS a good idea at some point even if not a huge priority.
Keep up the good work (and get some sleep man!)
As long as the creature choices are reasonably even you can balance it out by giving the other players in the group a small boon. Maybe a magic item they can start the game with or just a small attribute boost or SLA they can use. Then everyone progresses at the same rate which is IMO the best way to go.Maybe, but that's not ideal.
For example, it would be about the same thing if you houseruled dwarves to have +4 natural AC, 10 extra HP, and the natural ability to cling to walls and ceilings like a spider, and you balanced it by giving all the other PCs in the group +2 to any ability score and a bonus feat at level 1.
This has little to do with the statement I made "choices are reasonably balanced" I'm not even sure where this comes from.
No race comes with a racial ability to give everyone else (but not themselves) extra abilities. It's not even clear how my racial ability should give you some new "racial" ability too.
The point is all the characters in a group should be relatively in the same power level. To make the group balanced you can penalize one character with LA or negative experience levels or you can bring everyone else in the party up by a bit to even things out. So no, your racial ability doesn't make my character stronger, perhaps your character is a little closer to the center of the bell curve for your (stronger) race and mine is a bit more exceptional for his race.
Besides, mechanically speaking, you're assuming that the monsters are extra powerful, and that we compensate by making the non-monsters just as powerful. That's going to seriously overpower the PCs and make any level-appropriate challenges meaningless to them.
This isn't the best idea for a GM who can't adjust CRs to accommodate slightly tougher PCs. Of course that same GM would probably be best off sticking to the core classes which the game system is designed around ultimately if you deviate from the core rules you are in 'advanced GM territory' and non-core races is definitely deviating.
I don't think that's what the game intends by balance.
Much of the idea comes from things in the Council of Thieves players guides and some comments Sean Reynolds made so I find your comments about intentions a bit odd.
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.
Such a GM doesn't have much business running a game in the first place. If you like to play as monsters so much, why don't you try sitting behind the Dungeon Master's screen instead of the- what's the word I'm looking for... "lazy" GM you're suffering under now?
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.Such a GM doesn't have much business running a game in the first place. If you like to play as monsters so much, why don't you try sitting behind the Dungeon Master's screen instead of the- what's the word I'm looking for... "lazy" GM you're suffering under now?
I've been running for over 20 years. I find that rather insulting, as I am one of those GMs that prefers a rule set. I make the story, I enjoy the story, if I wanted to be a rule writer, I'd have applied for a job a Paizo.
There's nothing lazy about wanting a set of workable rules and paying someone else to work them out. I have better things to do with my time than figure out a complete set of rules and try to be consistent from character to character. That's not lazy, that's saying I prefer to spend my spare time with my family and friends, not working out arcane rules for 20 hours a week.
Like most discussions on any board, people like to throw around insulting comments rather than discuss things. Try discussing your point of view in the future rather than hurl insults at people you don't know, never met, and probably could't out debate if you got them drunk and high first.
[We saw some evidence of this when back in the day we relaunched Dragon and Dungeon magazines. At that time, the theme was "Dragon is for Players, and Dungeon is for Gamemasters." And lo and behold, sales for Dragon declined and sales for Dungeon rose.
I was a longtime fan of Dragon magazine (since 1987) and was really sad to see it shut down. I think Dragon (and Dungeon, which I started to purchase when you made the APs) never looked as good as it did under your care.
Does Paizo have any plans of making a Dragon-style magazine? I would be an instant fan!Sorry for going OT.
|
Still given that the ratio of DM to players is something like 1:4 - 1:6, it would seem not too wise from a business standpoint to work hard on an expensive book only to intentionally target it only to 14-20% of your possible customers. Why not try to entice all your customers to purchase it by giving them all a little something in it?
Please no, not again!
What I hated most about the books that WotC put out was the formula that every book had to have a section on New Races, New Feats, New PrCs, New Spells, New Skill uses. Something for everyone, yes, but often good stuff for no one.
I'd much prefer to want to buy 100% of 20% of the books that Paizo put out than 20% of all of them.
Still given that the ratio of DM to players is something like 1:4 - 1:6, it would seem not too wise from a business standpoint to work hard on an expensive book only to intentionally target it only to 14-20% of your possible customers. Why not try to entice all your customers to purchase it by giving them all a little something in it?Please no, not again!
What I hated most about the books that WotC put out was the formula that every book had to have a section on New Races, New Feats, New PrCs, New Spells, New Skill uses. Something for everyone, yes, but often good stuff for no one.
I'd much prefer to want to buy 100% of 20% of the books that Paizo put out than 20% of all of them.
And let's not forget the insane sense of entitlement some players felt to be able to use every gorram thing they put in those books.
"What do you mean there aren't any Goliaths in your campaign??? It's right here in the BOOK that I BOUGHT!!!"
Paizo's CR suggestion
Paizo's XP debt suggestionIn both of the latter two, they gain additional levels at certain points as the game progresses (and the monster abilities become less impressive), or eventually work to pay off the XP.
Are these in the PRD/SRD somewhere?
I don't have the books yet so I haven't seen these rules.
|
|
My 2cp is that a player should have control over who his character IS. The character's background, race, height, weight, personality, etc. should all be up to the player, not the GM imo. Having said that, the GM might have to put some restrictions on what characters DO, (e.g. rape, intra-party violence) if that upsets some of the players.
Well, this goes into the conversation we were having on another thread a while back. Some GMs feel (rightly so in my opinion) that they have complete control of what races, classes, and other such nouns appear in their campaign world. Maybe some groups and campaigns don't run like that. Mine does. Lots of people's do.
Well, this goes into the conversation we were having on another thread a while back. Some GMs feel (rightly so in my opinion) that they have complete control of what races, classes, and other such nouns appear in their campaign world. Maybe some groups and campaigns don't run like that. Mine does. Lots of people's do.
Strange, I was just thinking the same thing...
"I must play a Goliath! Its in an official book! Stop trying to stifle me you bad GM!"Sorry but monster races have no place as player characters IMO. Past experiance has told me that players don't play elves because of what they are roleplaying wise but because you get +2 DEX, +2 INT and -2 CON.
Well, this goes into the conversation we were having on another thread a while back. Some GMs feel (rightly so in my opinion) that they have complete control of what races, classes, and other such nouns appear in their campaign world. Maybe some groups and campaigns don't run like that. Mine does. Lots of people's do.Strange, I was just thinking the same thing...
"I must play a Goliath! Its in an official book! Stop trying to stifle me you bad GM!"
Sorry but monster races have no place as player characters IMO. Past experiance has told me that players don't play elves because of what they are roleplaying wise but because you get +2 DEX, +2 INT and -2 CON.
A) Goliath's are not monster races, they are a PC Race. Any race designated as a player character race is, ipso facto, a player character race. You may not like the race, and it may not fit in your game (which is perfectly fine), but it's still a PC race.
B) If I want to play a mountain of a man who is as gentle as he is intimidating (a popular concept in many stories), my choices are Half-Orc (not a very good one especially under PF, but even sub-prime under 3.5, too brutish in fluff) or a Dwarf (too short). A human, or elf (good lord, a fopish elf being a 'craggy mountain of a man who's as gentle as he is intimidating' is ludicrous) is right out, and let's not even go there with regards to gnomes or halflings. So... no, a core race doesn't fit that persona. The core races do not cover every reasonable character concept. A goliath, or a half-giant both fit that concept, and both are relatively balanced compared to core races (especially under PF).
C) There is nothing wrong with a player wanting to choose a race who's stats match his concept. I mean, good lord, that was forced on you in previous versions of the game. Elven wizards and dwarven fighters and never the twain shall meet? Sure, sometimes it's fun to play a halfling knight, just for the oddity of it, but for every halfling Knight, there will be 50 rogues and 30 monks and 20 sorcerer/wizards and a dozen druids. Why? Because halflings aren't very good at being knights and paladins but they are very good rogues and monks and decent sorcerers and druids and clerics. Do you force your players to play core races that are unsuited to their classes? Do you force them to take 3d6 straight up per stat and then play what class they wanted originally even if they have an 8 wisdom on their druid?
mdt wrote " Do you force your players to play core races that are unsuited to their classes? Do you force them to take 3d6 straight up per stat and then play what class they wanted originally even if they have an 8 wisdom on their druid?"
Of course I don't force players to do any of those things. Point buy and any core race. Whats wrong with that?
Do *you* force your GM to accept a monster race that you want to play?
mdt wrote " Do you force your players to play core races that are unsuited to their classes? Do you force them to take 3d6 straight up per stat and then play what class they wanted originally even if they have an 8 wisdom on their druid?"
Of course I don't force players to do any of those things. Point buy and any core race. Whats wrong with that?
Do *you* force your GM to accept a monster race that you want to play?
LOL
It's been so long since I had a GM that I don't think I can answer that. The closest I can come to is... The last character I created (game never actually got run, GM decided to run a GURPS Transformers based game instead) was a catfolk acrobat.
I went to him and asked if he'd be ok with that, he said catfolk were there, but they were really barbarian type plains people. I nodded, thought it over, and asked where the game was taking place. He stated it was in the largest port city in the largest country in that part of the world.
So, I asked if there were any civilized catfolk countries elsewhere in the world, and he thought about it and nodded, said there would be, just not nearby. So I came up with a catfolk nobleman who'd run off to join the travelling circus, which ended up in the city, and he stayed. He'd dress up as the local catfolk barbs for shows and do acrobatic routines combined with archery and pole balancing.
GM thought it over and allowed it. Lots of story hooks, obviously, the civilized catfolk whom everyone expects to be a barb. :) Did I force him, no. Did I ask for the option, yes. Did he blanket say 'NO SOUP FOR YOU!'? No. He looked at the concept, and agree'd it would be a good hook and fit into his world.
There's another thread where I've argued with a woman about concepts and games. She's the opposite of you I think, she feels the GM should allow any race/class/concept a player comes up with. You believe the players shouldn't have any choices at all outside the core book, or so it seems from your posts.
I just believe there's a middle ground, and I think most GMs and players are much happier in the middle ground of give and take rather than absolute choas or utter rigidity.
mdt wrote
So, I asked if there were any civilized catfolk countries elsewhere in the world, and he thought about it and nodded, said there would be, just not nearby. So I came up with a catfolk nobleman who'd run off to join the travelling circus, which ended up in the city, and he stayed. He'd dress up as the local catfolk barbs for shows and do acrobatic routines combined with archery and pole balancing.
I miss read that as pole dancing...
A) Goliath's are not monster races, they are a PC Race. Any race designated as a player character race is, ipso facto, a player character race. You may not like the race, and it may not fit in your game (which is perfectly fine), but it's still a PC race.
Agree, dont have Goliaths in my campaign for that reason, they just dont have a place.
B) If I want to play a mountain of a man who is as gentle as he is intimidating (a popular concept in many stories), my choices are Half-Orc (not a very good one especially under PF, but even sub-prime under 3.5, too brutish in fluff) or a Dwarf (too short). A human, or elf (good lord, a fopish elf being a 'craggy mountain of a man who's as gentle as he is intimidating' is ludicrous) is right out, and let's not even go there with regards to gnomes or halflings. So... no, a core race doesn't fit that persona. The core races do not cover every reasonable character concept. A goliath, or a half-giant both fit that concept, and both are relatively balanced compared to core races (especially under PF).
This concept seems perfect for a human with the Giant Creature template, simple, elegant, and not overly powered.
C) There is nothing wrong with a player wanting to choose a race who's stats match his concept. I mean, good lord, that was forced on you in previous versions of the game. Elven wizards and dwarven fighters and never the twain shall meet? Sure, sometimes it's fun to play a halfling knight, just for the oddity of...
Agree here as well, but that concept doesnt always need or have to have a monster race attached to it. The GM can make allowances for this if he wants to and its at their whim, but the game and game world shouldnt be dictated by character concepts.
mdt wrote
So, I asked if there were any civilized catfolk countries elsewhere in the world, and he thought about it and nodded, said there would be, just not nearby. So I came up with a catfolk nobleman who'd run off to join the travelling circus, which ended up in the city, and he stayed. He'd dress up as the local catfolk barbs for shows and do acrobatic routines combined with archery and pole balancing.I miss read that as pole dancing...
LOL
Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. ;)
B) If I want to play a mountain of a man who is as gentle as he is intimidating (a popular concept in many stories), my choices are Half-Orc (not a very good one especially under PF, but even sub-prime under 3.5, too brutish in fluff) or a Dwarf (too short). A human, or elf (good lord, a fopish elf being a 'craggy mountain of a man who's as gentle as he is intimidating' is ludicrous) is right out, and let's not even go there with regards to gnomes or halflings. So... no, a core race doesn't fit that persona. The core races do not cover every reasonable character concept. A goliath, or a half-giant both fit that concept, and both are relatively balanced compared to core races (especially under PF).This concept seems perfect for a human with the Giant Creature template, simple, elegant, and not overly powered.
LOL
That's pretty much a goliath with the fluff changed. ;) Just saying. And a lot of GMs would consider that a monster race itself. But yeah, that works as well, but again, it's not a core race either, not after applying the template.
C) There is nothing wrong with a player wanting to choose a race who's stats match his concept. I mean, good lord, that was forced on you in previous versions of the game. Elven wizards and dwarven fighters and never the twain shall meet? Sure, sometimes it's fun to play a halfling knight, just for the oddity of...Agree here as well, but that concept doesnt always need or have to have a monster race attached to it. The GM can make allowances for this if he wants to and its at their whim, but the game and game world shouldnt be dictated by character concepts.
Never said it did. :) But I think we both agree the core races won't cover every concept, they can't and they weren't designed to. The game world ideally should be the GM and Players getting together to work out what's allowed and what isn't when the game starts, and then moving forward with the story. So yeah, I think we agree. A monstrous race is not a requirement, just sometimes the best way to handle a concept. And I still say any race explicitly published as a player race is a PC Race. Just not a Core race.
Still given that the ratio of DM to players is something like 1:4 - 1:6, it would seem not too wise from a business standpoint to work hard on an expensive book only to intentionally target it only to 14-20% of your possible customers. Why not try to entice all your customers to purchase it by giving them all a little something in it?Although the theory is that there are fewer GMs to sell to than players... in practice, it's the GMs who buy the most stuff. Players tend to pick and choose. Is it better to sell EVERYTHING to 1/4 of your audience? Or to sell 25% of Everything to Everyone? It's a complicated problem, that's for sure.
We saw some evidence of this when back in the day we relaunched Dragon and Dungeon magazines. At that time, the theme was "Dragon is for Players, and Dungeon is for Gamemasters." And lo and behold, sales for Dragon declined and sales for Dungeon rose.
I know for a fact that the gamers in my own groups tend to follow this theory pretty well—players buy FAR fewer products than gamers who are GMs. Even if they're only GMs part time or in theory only.
Oh, I am not disagreeing that DMs purchase the majority of the products. In fact, it is obvious that Paizo has made their entire business model to catering to DMs what with APs, modules, maps, etc. Very little of Paizo's products are focused for players. In fact, what material might be useful to players is often embedded in a larger product meant only for DMs, for example APs and the articles in the back. In those cases the DM is more likely to just print out the pages from a pdf or scanned image just for the player's use.
Still though, there seems to be something that you are not saying that should be obvious to anyone. That is, any product useful for a player is going to be useful for a DM as well. By putting player content in a product you are not excluding the DM from wanting it, in fact you may be enhancing the likelihood a DM might purchase it. So I think that there may be some false dilemna thinking going on here, where something either has to be for the DM or for the PCs, it could in fact be for both. And thus lose no customers on either side.
MDT,
This is why as i mentioned in another thread, before any campaign starts my group sits down and discusses the basics of the campaign that GM is wanting to run. This is done way way before character creation even starts. Some races can be negotiated into play and others are sometimes flat out vetoed by DM or other players...always with an explanation. After we have the basics of the campaign idea we discuss characters and their backgrounds.
Absolutely. This stuff is usually best hashed out ahead of time, and I think most groups from my experience work this way. Usually the GM says 'Hey, I want to run <blah>, ya'll interested?'. Then there's feedback, and the GM nods and says 'Ok, well, go ahead and make characters, ask me before you make anything weird ok?'. Then the weird requests roll in and either get discussed and either approved or stamped with 4F. ;)
We do not as a group feel that the character's background, race, etc are entirely up to the player as snobi suggested. Some races and some backgrounds may not work well or at all with a specific campaign. Indeed some classes may not work either.Part of the character process is negotiation for us. With the players making tweaks to their bakcgrounds and such with the DM to make sure it is still a character they will enjoy, but one who also fits the current campaign.
Agree 100%
So in various campaigns we have had restrictions on race, class, alignment, deities, backgrounds, etc.My groups opinion is that the DM is not expected to allow anything and everything their players come up with for their characters. They are however expected to work with the player to make a character idea playable if possible (not all are possible). The players are likewise expected to work with the DM to make sure their character fits the campaign that is about to begin...in concept, background, class, race, etc.
-Weylin
Yep, give and take on both sides. That's my experience as well. I've run under a few GMs that hard-lined 'My way or else'. I always ended up quiting those games because the stress level got to the point where I wasn't having any fun.
That has always been an issue with any new races in the game to me. Seen plenty of players who essentially use the books to browbeat a DM into letting them a place a race the DM doesnt want in their specific campaign.
Just because there are Goliath in a setting doesnt mean you get to play one. Hell, just because there are Elves in a setting doesnt mean you get to play one. A given race may just not fit with the specific campaign the DM is planning (and which the players usually agreed to before hand).
-Weylin
Thanks for the elf comment. I think that goes to show that adding options to play monsters doesn't cause anymore of a problem then what is already in place. In the end the DM and the group have to come to an understanding as to what is allowed. The fact that there were options in the 3.5 MM, didn't stop groups from playing a game where only the PHB races were allowed for PCs. To parrot Mr. Jacobs, if your players are forcing monstrous PCs on to you the DM, then you have bigger problems than a rule in a game book.
Thanks for the elf comment. I think that goes to show that adding options to play monsters doesn't cause anymore of a problem then what is already in place. In the end the DM and the group have to come to an understanding as to what is allowed. The fact that there were options in the 3.5 MM, didn't stop groups from playing a game where only the PHB races were allowed for PCs. To parrot Mr. Jacobs, if your players are forcing monstrous PCs on to you the DM, then you have bigger problems than a rule in a game book.That has always been an issue with any new races in the game to me. Seen plenty of players who essentially use the books to browbeat a DM into letting them a place a race the DM doesnt want in their specific campaign.
Just because there are Goliath in a setting doesnt mean you get to play one. Hell, just because there are Elves in a setting doesnt mean you get to play one. A given race may just not fit with the specific campaign the DM is planning (and which the players usually agreed to before hand).
-Weylin
LOL, agreed. I actually played in a game where only halfers were allowed (half height, dwarves, gnomes and halflings). The elves were the bad guys (enslaving the other races), humans were almost extinct (the elves didn't like the way they bred so fast) and dwarves lived underground and didn't have anything to do with elves (mostly). We ended up siding with the orc raiders to take down an Elven outpost.
Not trying to pick on anyone specific but. . . HOLY CRAP! REALLY!? Is this really going to turn into another thread for B&M-ing about what I think should be in a game vs. what you think should be in a game and my style vs. your style?
There is a good thread for that: RIGHT HERE! The infection doesn’t need to spread.
I was thinking this thread and the OP didn't seem to be very concerned with how individual GMs may or may not feel about Templates and Monster PCs. It seemed to be more concerned with how to deal with them for those who do want to use them, in the absence of a PF rules system for it. There are plenty of threads out there with plenty of people already moaning about this how they don’t like this or that and since they are the GM they can ban anything they want and they are justified in doing so. Good for you, some people out there might want to use them (their GMs might actually approve too) and might even have characters with templates they would like to convert. Since PF is a conversion of 3.5 it is nice for those people to have a way to figure out how to do it without all the moaning about personal opinions on whether or not they should.
(If you are unsure what I mean by B&M-ing I will tell you the M is for MOANING, I imagine you can guess what the B is for.)
(Yes I realize this probably won't stop anything and will just make me a target for further B&M-ing.)
.
AGAIN:
Paizo's CR suggestion
Paizo's XP debt suggestionIn both of the latter two, they gain additional levels at certain points as the game progresses (and the monster abilities become less impressive), or eventually work to pay off the XP.
Are these in the PRD/SRD somewhere?
I don't have the books yet so I haven't seen these rules.
Are there any other template conversion tips?
LOL
That's pretty much a goliath with the fluff changed. ;) Just saying. And a lot of GMs would consider that a monster race itself. But yeah, that works as well, but again, it's not a core race either, not after applying the template.
I have to admit that I dont know the stats for Goliath off the top of my head and as my books are at home I dont have access to them. Goliath are more than a set of stats, as I'm sure you'd agree, if I'm not mistaken they're an offshoot race descended from giants and have their own culture and quirks that makes them unique. You may disagree, but given identical stats I'd wouldn't allow a Goliath but I would allow a Giant Human because the Human culture exists in my world and an outsized Human is certainly possible (real world evidence) while the Goliath culture and race simply don't.
I have to admit that I dont know the stats for Goliath off the top of my head and as my books are at home I dont have access to them. Goliath are more than a set of stats, as I'm sure you'd agree, if I'm not mistaken they're an offshoot race descended from giants and have their own culture and quirks that makes them unique. You may disagree, but given identical stats I'd wouldn't allow a Goliath but I would allow a Giant Human because the Human culture exists in my world and an outsized Human is certainly possible (real world evidence) while the Goliath culture and race simply don't.LOL
That's pretty much a goliath with the fluff changed. ;) Just saying. And a lot of GMs would consider that a monster race itself. But yeah, that works as well, but again, it's not a core race either, not after applying the template.
Sorry, you got me wrong. I just meant that it might have been easier to use the Goliath crunch and call them an offshoot race of giant humans (IE: Change the fluff, use the mechanics) rather than apply the template. But if you didn't have the crunch, then it's a moot point. :)
Not trying to pick on anyone specific but. . . HOLY CRAP! REALLY!? Is this really going to turn into another thread for B&M-ing about what I think should be in a game vs. what you think should be in a game and my style vs. your style?
There is a good thread for that: RIGHT HERE! The infection doesn’t need to spread.
Nope, don't think so, just some things naturally develop as part of a discussion.
AGAIN:
Paizo's CR suggestion
Paizo's XP debt suggestionIn both of the latter two, they gain additional levels at certain points as the game progresses (and the monster abilities become less impressive), or eventually work to pay off the XP.
Are these in the PRD/SRD somewhere?
I don't have the books yet so I haven't seen these rules.
Are there any other template conversion tips?
Yep, in the PRD.
Monsters as PCs Nothing that I've found though for converting templates. Honestly though, I think templates probably don't need much conversion beyond changing any natural attacks to read 'Use the natural attack rules found in the bestiary for Bite/Claw/Slam/Etc' and updating any skills or skill bonus's granted.
Sorry, you got me wrong. I just meant that it might have been easier to use the Goliath crunch and call them an offshoot race of giant humans (IE: Change the fluff, use the mechanics) rather than apply the template. But if you didn't have the crunch, then it's a moot point. :)
Ahh, then I agree completely.
|
I am glad LA was not included. I am glad that there is no section in the book that says: "This material is for the PLAYERS" It gives me more control over what I want to allow and how I want to allow it as a DM. It's not like they did not include the stats for playing several monstrous races in the book. They are there. But because there is no system listed for what the player needs to sacrifice to play a race not balanced with the core PHB races, it leaves the power in my groups hands, about how we wish to rule it, or even if we want to allow it all.
So I pretty much have the stats to run with several monstrous races if or group wants to and I can use whatever balancing mechanism is right for our game without the player feeling like I am changing the RULES of the game in way that is unfair (as there is no balancing mechanism listed it leaves it up to our group to decide for itself) to their character. I don't see a problem.
As far as a whole book dedicated to monster races? Not high on my list of want/need. I would much rather see an Unearthed Paizo Arcana style book, an epic book, a variant theme book (or even a whole new campaign word), or even a modern themed ruleset/game, before I would I want to see Pathfinder: play as monsters edition. I own Savage Species and they had a system in the book for making classes out of the monsters in 3.x. that formula still pretty much works in PFRPG. I don't see why that book could not be used if I needed monster races right this instant.
But those are just my own thoughts. YMMV.
love,
malkav
My players definitely know what to expect as far as races go ahead of time....
http://www.harvestmooncampaign.com/houseRules.php?id=400
I have it broken down by most acceptable to least acceptable and I'm willing to work with the player, but I'd very much prefer they stick to my core list. I'd like to think my rules are pretty reasonable.
Core list (incomplete):
http://www.harvestmooncampaign.com/races.php
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that I simply cannot cater to every Furry fetish, but I try to be reasonable. I'd say that as long as you've got a fair list pre-done or you communicate your position to your players before-hand, then you shouldn't feel bad when you say no to something because the player knew before they asked what the answer was going to be.
Nope, don't think so, just some things naturally develop as part of a discussion.
Yeah I guess so, just needed to get a little B&M-ing out myself. Can't let everyone else have all the fun.
Yep, in the PRD.
Monsters as PCs Nothing that I've found though for converting templates. Honestly though, I think templates probably don't need much conversion beyond changing any natural attacks to read 'Use the natural attack rules found in the bestiary for Bite/Claw/Slam/Etc' and updating any skills or skill bonus's granted.
Thanks for the link mdt. I appreciate it.
Nope, don't think so, just some things naturally develop as part of a discussion.Yeah I guess so, just needed to get a little B&M-ing out myself. Can't let everyone else have all the fun.
No problem. :)
Thanks for the link mdt. I appreciate it.Yep, in the PRD.
Monsters as PCs Nothing that I've found though for converting templates. Honestly though, I think templates probably don't need much conversion beyond changing any natural attacks to read 'Use the natural attack rules found in the bestiary for Bite/Claw/Slam/Etc' and updating any skills or skill bonus's granted.
No problem, again. :)