It's Official: Tian Xia scheduled for August 2011


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
lordzack wrote:
The main problem with ninja being a different name for rogue is that a rogue doesn't have to ability to disappear, shapeshifting, duplicate themselves, etc. If a wizard can cast spells then a ninja should be able to do the fantastic feats attributed to them.

Ninja's could not do any of that stuff either. Well other then disappear/reappear which it totally non magical. Which I could totally use on some uneducated farmers who never travel more then 5 miles from home in a lifetime. Then make em think I used my "mystic arts to vanish"

What your saying is at best rogue talents. Ninja's are rogues. They also often used disguise and acted as spy's and infiltrators.

Archetype at very best. Ninja is just Asian for "sneaky rogue who sometimes acts as an assassin} nothing more.

Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names. There's a lot more to the name than it just being "sneaky rogue who sometimes acts as an assassin."


So I shouldn't be able to have wizards that cast spells because they didn't exist in the real world? Or for that matter most classes and about 90% of the Monster Manual. D&D is a fantasy game, not a historical one.


So? The look and what it does are not the same thing. You say Ninja ya think of the outfit and weapon. And some folks turtles.

And outfit does not make a class. Besides the outfit really nothing makes a rogue not a ninja, they have the very same skill set.


lordzack wrote:
So I shouldn't be able to have wizards that cast spells because they didn't exist in the real world? Or for that matter most classes and about 90% of the Monster Manual. D&D is a fantasy game, not a historical one.

No what I am saying Ninja is already in the game.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
lordzack wrote:
So I shouldn't be able to have wizards that cast spells because they didn't exist in the real world? Or for that matter most classes and about 90% of the Monster Manual. D&D is a fantasy game, not a historical one.
No what I am saying Ninja is already in the game.

Not the ninja of myth and legend. Not the fantasy ninja.


Ninja is in the game. So is multi classing. If you want to play a Ninja the game already allows you to play it many ways.

Want a Ninja? Play a rogue. Want spell classing, multiclass or take a PRC.

There is simply zero need for this other then "its Asian and there for better"


Or I could actually have a class that does what I want without multiclassing. Not to mention the fact that multiclassing wouldn't give me what I want, because there is no class with a spell list that is appropriate for a ninja. Seriously, insisting "ninja is in the game" doesn't work because we have apparently different definitions of the word.

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names.

I'm sorry, but are we really going to be introducing new classes based on attire now? Should we expect a new class for wizards that wear pointy hats, as opposed to the non-pointy hat wearing existing wizard class? The ninja may LOOK specific, but his abilities can be perfectly well modeled by a rogue. And rogues CAN wear black pajamas. :P

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names.
I'm sorry, but are we really going to be introducing new classes based on attire now? Should we expect a new class for wizards that wear pointy hats, as opposed to the non-pointy hat wearing existing wizard class? The ninja may LOOK specific, but his abilities can be perfectly well modeled by a rogue. And rogues CAN wear black pajamas. :P

A Ninja is not a rogue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja

"Superhuman or supernatural powers were often associated with the ninja. Some legends include flight, invisibility, shapeshifting, the ability to "split" into multiple bodies, the summoning of animals, and control over the five classical elements. These fabulous notions have stemmed from popular imagination regarding the ninja's mysterious status, as well as romantic ideas found in later Japanese arts of the Edo period. Magical powers were sometimes rooted in the ninja's own efforts to disseminate fanciful information. For example, Nakagawa Shoshujin, the 17th century founder of Nakagawa-ry&#363;, claimed in his own writings (Okufuji Monogatari) that he had the ability to transform into birds and animals."

You may be able to make something close as a monk/druid, but it is not a Ninja.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names.
I'm sorry, but are we really going to be introducing new classes based on attire now? Should we expect a new class for wizards that wear pointy hats, as opposed to the non-pointy hat wearing existing wizard class? The ninja may LOOK specific, but his abilities can be perfectly well modeled by a rogue. And rogues CAN wear black pajamas. :P

A Ninja is not a rogue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja

"Superhuman or supernatural powers were often associated with the ninja. Some legends include flight, invisibility, shapeshifting, the ability to "split" into multiple bodies, the summoning of animals, and control over the five classical elements. These fabulous notions have stemmed from popular imagination regarding the ninja's mysterious status, as well as romantic ideas found in later Japanese arts of the Edo period. Magical powers were sometimes rooted in the ninja's own efforts to disseminate fanciful information. For example, Nakagawa Shoshujin, the 17th century founder of Nakagawa-ry&#363;, claimed in his own writings (Okufuji Monogatari) that he had the ability to transform into birds and animals."

You may be able to make something close as a monk/druid, but it is not a Ninja.

And if this is the baseline expected of a "ninja" class, it demonstrates why people are worried about Tien classes being more powerful. Who would ever run a rogue again if they could get all of the above by running a ninja?


Joana wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names.
I'm sorry, but are we really going to be introducing new classes based on attire now? Should we expect a new class for wizards that wear pointy hats, as opposed to the non-pointy hat wearing existing wizard class? The ninja may LOOK specific, but his abilities can be perfectly well modeled by a rogue. And rogues CAN wear black pajamas. :P

A Ninja is not a rogue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja

"Superhuman or supernatural powers were often associated with the ninja. Some legends include flight, invisibility, shapeshifting, the ability to "split" into multiple bodies, the summoning of animals, and control over the five classical elements. These fabulous notions have stemmed from popular imagination regarding the ninja's mysterious status, as well as romantic ideas found in later Japanese arts of the Edo period. Magical powers were sometimes rooted in the ninja's own efforts to disseminate fanciful information. For example, Nakagawa Shoshujin, the 17th century founder of Nakagawa-ry&#363;, claimed in his own writings (Okufuji Monogatari) that he had the ability to transform into birds and animals."

You may be able to make something close as a monk/druid, but it is not a Ninja.

And if this is the baseline expected of a "ninja" class, it demonstrates why people are worried about Tien classes being more powerful. Who would ever run a rogue again if they could get all of the above by running a ninja?

The same reason people make bards instead of wizards or rangers instead of fighters. Or fighters instead of rangers.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

:|

what does that symbol mean? does it mean you will attend the feast with me Cirno-Sama? Rumia-Chan already agreed to it. to the Hakurei Shrine we must go?


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

:|

what does that symbol mean? does it mean you will attend the feast with me Cirno-Sama? Rumia-Chan already agreed to it. to the Hakurei Shrine we must go?

Wha...?

------------------------------

James Jacobs wrote:

Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names. There's a lot more to the name than it just being "sneaky rogue who sometimes acts as an assassin."

I dunno.

I always saw Samurai as 'Fighter with specialist feat' and Ninja as 'Rogue with Shadow-Dancer Prestige Class'. Just my 2-cents.

As for the Katana/Bastard Sword debate, from my perspective, I can honestly say I prefer the Western Bastard sword to the Katana. The 'kat' in the hands of an expert cuts cleaner, but I've always enjoyed the heft of the Bastard Sword which lends force to swings. Could be incompetence, but I usually cause superficial hits to training dummies with the 'kat' while I can practically fold a target over with a good swing from the Bastard Sword. Of course, give me my SAR any day.


Sigh its what I though. Its Asian there for it must be better.

Sorry don't buy it. Ninja is a rogue. Magical Ninja's are multi class or PRC of someone else in the outfit. Are really really basing new classes on fighting style and wardrobe?

I also want a class for my celtic warrior, fighter will not do, and my zulu warrior and we need a whole new class for the roman legionnaire as well. And the Mongol need there own class. AND the friars need a class and on and on and on.

Just because it is Asian does not mean it needs new classes . Why is it every other culture anywhere else can use and does use the core classes but the Asian ones need whole new ones that do the very same thing?

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names.
I'm sorry, but are we really going to be introducing new classes based on attire now? Should we expect a new class for wizards that wear pointy hats, as opposed to the non-pointy hat wearing existing wizard class? The ninja may LOOK specific, but his abilities can be perfectly well modeled by a rogue. And rogues CAN wear black pajamas. :P

A Ninja is not a rogue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja

"Superhuman or supernatural powers were often associated with the ninja. Some legends include flight, invisibility, shapeshifting, the ability to "split" into multiple bodies, the summoning of animals, and control over the five classical elements. These fabulous notions have stemmed from popular imagination regarding the ninja's mysterious status, as well as romantic ideas found in later Japanese arts of the Edo period. Magical powers were sometimes rooted in the ninja's own efforts to disseminate fanciful information. For example, Nakagawa Shoshujin, the 17th century founder of Nakagawa-ry&#363;, claimed in his own writings (Okufuji Monogatari) that he had the ability to transform into birds and animals."

You may be able to make something close as a monk/druid, but it is not a Ninja.

And if this is the baseline expected of a "ninja" class, it demonstrates why people are worried about Tien classes being more powerful. Who would ever run a rogue again if they could get all of the above by running a ninja?

Why? Druids and Clerics can do all of these things as a 3/4 fighting class, in addition to many other things. And wizards and sorcerers can obviously do them all in additio to stopping time and hurling fireballs. Monks can do most of these things and get a ton of other bonuses.

I'm not saying a first level ninja can do all of those things. I am saying that unless a class can do all of those things, it's not a ninja.

I personally would do the ninja as a full BAB class with armor restrictions and weapon training limits similar to the monk. No flurry or sneak attack, but allow them to gain the ability to do all of the things above at appropriate level progression a limited number of times a day (also similar to the monk, maybe even using the same ki pool format to allow a multi-class between the two.

That, to me, would be a ninja. I was very disappointed at how WoTC made them, and I would love to see pathfinder do it right.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Sigh its what I though. Its Asian there for it must be better.

Sorry don't buy it. Ninja is a rogue. Magical Ninja's are multi class or PRC of someone else in the outfit. Are really really basing new classes on fighting style and wardrobe?

I also want a class for my celtic warrior, fighter will not do, and my zulu warrior and we need a whole new class for the roman legionnaire as well. And the Mongol need there own class. AND the friars need a class and on and on and on.

Just because it is Asian does not mean it needs new classes . Why is it every other culture anywhere else can use and does use the core classes but the Asian ones need whole new ones that do the very same thing?

A Celtic barbarian variant would be great actually. I could see a lot of things you could do with that. The other examples you can make with existing stuff, because they aren't magical.

I personally hope they do more variants and base classes for cultural mythology from around the world. I would love entire books based on Celtic Folklore, African Folklore, Arabian Folklore...variety is the spice of life, who doesn't want more options?

I mean we just added 6 new base classes and have a 7th on the way. How is this bad? I expect the Arcadia book to add Native American Classes, and I don't even think we've scratched the surface of the middle east and Central Asia.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Don't like new base classes. Love archetypes.

I'm not even sold on the APG classes. I bought the book for the archetypes and feats. Honestly, if anything will make me drop my RPG subscription, it will be base-class bloat.


The underlying issue for many of us with regards to the ninja, samurai, katanas, etc. is the assumption that these characters or weapons must be superior, and potentially game-breaking.

If ninjas are so highly trained that a rogue can't model them, why can't they be a prestige class like the Red Mantis? Why a new core/base class? Why a sub-class?

THAT's the issue. The argument for making the case for specific classes or weapon classifications runs counter to the previously stated "wish to avoid class bloat".

The APG archetypes are a phenomenal method for introducing class variation without resorting to addtional classes. Until a compelling case can be made for why archetypes CAN'T achieve the desired result, I think many of us are going to remain very skeptical.


BPorter wrote:
If ninjas are so highly trained that a rogue can't model them, why can't they be a prestige class like the Red Mantis? Why a new core/base class? Why a sub-class?

You might want to examine the relationship between the eldritch knight and the magus for an answer to that question.

(Note that I am perfectly comfortable with an all-archetype approach to cultural class variants - but the alternative isn't entirely ridiculous either.)


too many japanese flavored RPG settings get too focused on the samurai and the Ninja that they forget about stuff like Yokai, Shrine Maidens and Oni. there is more to Yokai than just little girls with cat ears. there are a nearly infinite list of varieties. Touhou has many examples of Unique and Interesting yokai. Shrine Maidens have a lot more to them then just slaying Oni with parchment and kneeling to millions of Kami. Hakurei Reimu is a decent yet nonserious example of a Shrine Maiden. she is also a good example of a calmer, less restricted priestess. not every japanese individual is constricted by honor.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, when you say the word "ninja" that IMMEDIATELY brings to mind a very specific-looking character. A MUCH more specific-looking character than most of the current class names. There's a lot more to the name than it just being "sneaky rogue who sometimes acts as an assassin."

This is the most disheartening thing I've read from a Paizo employee since the Tian Xia stuff got announced. =/

Jeremy Puckett


If we can make the druid class separate from the cleric class - despite the druid class having nothing to do with druidism - then we can have a separate ninja class.

Likewise, if we can separate rangers, paladins, and fighters, we can have ninjas.

It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

If we can make the druid class separate from the cleric class - despite the druid class having nothing to do with druidism - then we can have a separate ninja class.

Likewise, if we can separate rangers, paladins, and fighters, we can have ninjas.

It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.

Cirno-Sama, i like your thinking. you are indeed the strongest fairy in Gensokyo. and the smartest professor there too. i'll gladly cover your donation at Reimu's Next feast. i can't beleive you missed it. Rumia-Chan was so dissapointed. she had to drink your share of the Sake to overcome her dissapointment.

The Exchange

Definitely Getting:
1)Campaign Setting World Guide: The Inner Sea
2) Player's Companion: Inner Sea Primer
3) Campaign Setting World Guide: Tian Xia
4) Bestiary 2
5) Ultimate Magic

Might get:
1) Dungeons of Golarion
2) Ultimate Combat
3) Undead Revistited

Will there be a Player's Companion for Tian Xia like there is for the Inner Sea HC?

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.

What makes the fighter, barbarian, rogue, etc so European? Frankly, ethnicity is a matter of roleplaying, not rules crunch. A fighter can be European, Native American, African, Asian, etc...nothing about the class implies ethnicity.

11 core classes + 7 base classes + 5 NPC classes + dozens of prestige classes. There's enough variety there to model just about any character concept, especially with the APG archtype system to let players have such a wide variety of options within a single class. So do we really need to create a whole new base class for a rogue that wears black pajamas instead of leather armor?


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

If we can make the druid class separate from the cleric class - despite the druid class having nothing to do with druidism - then we can have a separate ninja class.

Likewise, if we can separate rangers, paladins, and fighters, we can have ninjas.

It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.

Cirno-Sama, i like your thinking. you are indeed the strongest fairy in Gensokyo. and the smartest professor there too. i'll gladly cover your donation at Reimu's Next feast. i can't beleive you missed it. Rumia-Chan was so dissapointed. she had to drink your share of the Sake to overcome her dissapointment.

:|


Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.

What makes the fighter, barbarian, rogue, etc so European? Frankly, ethnicity is a matter of roleplaying, not rules crunch. A fighter can be European, Native American, African, Asian, etc...nothing about the class implies ethnicity.

11 core classes + 7 base classes + 5 NPC classes + dozens of prestige classes. There's enough variety there to model just about any character concept, especially with the APG archtype system to let players have such a wide variety of options within a single class. So do we really need to create a whole new base class for a rogue that wears black pajamas instead of leather armor?

Do we really need a whole new base class for a fighter who's "extra angry?"

Do we really need a whole new base class for a cleric who's also a hippy?

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.

What makes the fighter, barbarian, rogue, etc so European? Frankly, ethnicity is a matter of roleplaying, not rules crunch. A fighter can be European, Native American, African, Asian, etc...nothing about the class implies ethnicity.

11 core classes + 7 base classes + 5 NPC classes + dozens of prestige classes. There's enough variety there to model just about any character concept, especially with the APG archtype system to let players have such a wide variety of options within a single class. So do we really need to create a whole new base class for a rogue that wears black pajamas instead of leather armor?

Do we really need a whole new base class for a fighter who's "extra angry?"

Do we really need a whole new base class for a cleric who's also a hippy?

In my opinion? Not really. If Paizo had introduced the archtype concept along with the Core Rules, I'd have been perfectly happy to have the classes list seriously reduced.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.

What makes the fighter, barbarian, rogue, etc so European? Frankly, ethnicity is a matter of roleplaying, not rules crunch. A fighter can be European, Native American, African, Asian, etc...nothing about the class implies ethnicity.

11 core classes + 7 base classes + 5 NPC classes + dozens of prestige classes. There's enough variety there to model just about any character concept, especially with the APG archtype system to let players have such a wide variety of options within a single class. So do we really need to create a whole new base class for a rogue that wears black pajamas instead of leather armor?

Do we really need a whole new base class for a fighter who's "extra angry?"

Do we really need a whole new base class for a cleric who's also a hippy?

Is there any classic Barbarian trope that cannot be covered by Fighter class abilities ? Yes, rage/rage powahs.

Is there any classic Druid trope that cannot be covered by Cleric class abilities ? Yes, wild shape/pet.

Is there any classic Ninja trope that cannot be covered by Rogue class abilities ? Now, that's the question.

Silver Crusade

Do any rogue archetypes allow you to summon Vanilla Ice to perform an impromptu rap about your ninja skills and possible turtle heritage?


Personally I think the ninja of legend (as opposed to what actual ninja may or may not have been like) certainly seems different enough from a rogue to justify a separate class, or at the very least a relatively extensive archetype. This is not the same thing as wanting a ninja to be more powerful than a rogue though. I'd just like the ninja to have more of a 'supernatural' flavour than the base rogue, maybe gaining some spells or supernatural abilities in exchange for giving up some sneak attack dice or skill points.

I think you could probably get a decent ninja using an archetype, but I certainly wouldn't be offended by a new base class either.

Frankly I like that an area like Tian Xia might have more ninjas and an area like the Inner Sea might have more rogues, and that those classes will have a slightly different focus in their abilities. It helps get across the idea that the continents are so far apart that different priorities have lead to slightly different training methods.


I think rather then ninja there should be a base class for a wuxia style character, who could then have an archtype that is ninja-esque. It could not only allow for both the "samurai" and the "ninja" as they appear in fantasy but could also be used to create fantastic warriors of other, non-Japanese countries.

Sovereign Court

How can we have shrine-maidens when we still haven't got rules for the Pythia?

Dark Archive

I always heard that TSR screwed over some French guy who did most of the work for the 1e Oriental Adventures, and they hurried out a less than stellar piece of work.

Make this thing rock...


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Urizen wrote:
I want a gninja.
Make a Gnome rogue, make his weapons look Asian and give him an Asian name. Done.

I also want him to be able to gninja posts to get the first word in.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

If we can make the druid class separate from the cleric class - despite the druid class having nothing to do with druidism - then we can have a separate ninja class.

Likewise, if we can separate rangers, paladins, and fighters, we can have ninjas.

It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.

European vs. Asian has nothing to do with it. If a compelling case can be made why Ninjas and Samurai CAN'T be modeled using existing classes & archetypes I don't have an issue with a new base class (see Magus). However, no such case has been made other than "Because they're cooler or can do more" - i.e. they are inherently better than a fighter or rogue.

This is from today's Store Blog:

"the Red Mantis are the most feared and likely the most effective assassins on the face of Golarion. They are brutally effective in finding their targets, killing them, and making sure they stay dead. They have what seems to be supernatural or divine knowledge of the slights perpetrated against those around them and often approach their clients before they even know they need an assassin’s services. They will pursue a target anywhere on the planet (or beyond) and are seemingly infinitely patient as they track and stalk."

Note that it says "Golarion" and not "The Inner Sea". At least in terms of Golarion lore presented thus far, the Red Mantis are the world's premier group of assassins, not a ninja clan. Yet, these seemingly supernatural assassins are modeled in-game by a prestige class.

I'll say it again, until compelling reasons are given as to why ninja, samaurai, & other elements are presented that show core classes, archetypes, & prestige classes are not viable or optimal, there are many of us who are going to remain skeptical of the "because ninjas are kewl" argument.

Shadow Lodge

BPorter wrote:
European vs. Asian has nothing to do with it. If a compelling case can be made why Ninjas and Samurai CAN'T be modeled using existing classes & archetypes I don't have an issue with a new base class (see Magus).

Although I'd tend to prefer a new archtype to throwing out yet another base class or prestige class. In fact, it makes sense. The samurai really is just a variant fighter (or cavalier, if you prefer). The ninja is just a variant rogue.


Kthulhu wrote:
BPorter wrote:
European vs. Asian has nothing to do with it. If a compelling case can be made why Ninjas and Samurai CAN'T be modeled using existing classes & archetypes I don't have an issue with a new base class (see Magus).
Although I'd tend to prefer a new archtype to throwing out yet another base class or prestige class. In fact, it makes sense. The samurai really is just a variant fighter (or cavalier, if you prefer). The ninja is just a variant rogue.

Total agree meant.


Well Psions make great Mystic Yogi's, India and Tibet are big on the psychic stuph :) Psychic Warriors are great in that genre as well. Look at "the Shadow". And Japanese fantasy modern as well as mideval is full of psychic characters. And Jedi knights are based on the Mystic Al Jeddi - the holy warriors with swords of light of Muslim myth :) Just add some Samurai and Ninja and Monks and what have you...


Kthulhu wrote:
BPorter wrote:
European vs. Asian has nothing to do with it. If a compelling case can be made why Ninjas and Samurai CAN'T be modeled using existing classes & archetypes I don't have an issue with a new base class (see Magus).
Although I'd tend to prefer a new archtype to throwing out yet another base class or prestige class. In fact, it makes sense. The samurai really is just a variant fighter (or cavalier, if you prefer). The ninja is just a variant rogue.

It can be.

It does not have to be.

Lots of arguments being presented here are fundamentally circular: "ninja" are just people who do rogue things, therefore ninja are rogues. If your concept of "ninja" is not "people who do rogue things," however, then "ninja are rogues" does not follow.

And no, "ninja are not people who do rogue things" is not the same thing as "ninja are better than rogues."

Let's try to keep some perspective on our own starting assumptions and their relevance to the fantasy game-world we're discussing here, please?


Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
It's ok guys. Non-Europeans can have special classes, too. The world won't end.
What makes the fighter, barbarian, rogue, etc so European? Frankly, ethnicity is a matter of roleplaying, not rules crunch. A fighter can be European, Native American, African, Asian, etc...nothing about the class implies ethnicity.

Paladin. Monk.

There are already base classes deeply tied to a particular culture's assumptions - in fact, much of the development that has gone on since those two classes were introduced has involved trying to expand them beyond the cultural baggage they came in with. (Or not, in Golarion's case - Paizo has cheerfully pushed the monk back toward Eastern [in this case meaning "east of Avistan"] cultural ties.) And even so, we still see the basic assumption of the paladin being presented as the shining knight on the white charger, every element of which reeks of European chivalric mythology.


sigh the only excepted "truth" about ninja's everyone agrees on are they dress in that outfit and use "ninja skills" to hid, vanish and they kill people. All things the rouge class does now.

There is not "mystic" part everyone agrees on. so your making a class based on an outfit a rogue or assassin wears , because its "better"


Carpy DM wrote:

Lots of arguments being presented here are fundamentally circular: "ninja" are just people who do rogue things, therefore ninja are rogues. If your concept of "ninja" is not "people who do rogue things," however, then "ninja are rogues" does not follow.

I'll agree to a point.

Similarly, however, there are a large number of arguments being made that ninjas (for example) have a unique set of abilities that demand a base class. This opinion seems to care little for keeping "some perspective" on THEIR starting assumptions on the topic despite the fact that the Red Mantis Assassins, despite being very ninja-esque sounding, did not merit their own base class. Nor are they presenting strong arguments as to why a core/base class, archetype, or prestige class couldn't fit the bill.

"Perspective", like "open mindedness" should be applied equally or it's not really worth squat.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

sigh the only excepted "truth" about ninja's everyone agrees on are they dress in that outfit and use "ninja skills" to hid, vanish and they kill people. All things the rouge class does now.

There is not "mystic" part everyone agrees on. so your making a class based on an outfit a rogue or assassin wears , because its "better"

No. Because it's "different." There is a distinction, like it or not.

BPorter wrote:
Carpy DM wrote:

Lots of arguments being presented here are fundamentally circular: "ninja" are just people who do rogue things, therefore ninja are rogues. If your concept of "ninja" is not "people who do rogue things," however, then "ninja are rogues" does not follow.

I'll agree to a point.

Similarly, however, there are a large number of arguments being made that ninjas (for example) have a unique set of abilities that demand a base class. This opinion seems to care little for keeping "some perspective" on THEIR starting assumptions on the topic despite the fact that the Red Mantis Assassins, despite being very ninja-esque sounding, did not merit their own base class. Nor are they presenting strong arguments as to why a core/base class, archetype, or prestige class couldn't fit the bill.

That's because all those things could fit the bill... the problem is, we don't currently know what the "bill" is. I could easily envision a Tian Xia book that presents most of the "hidden assassin clans" on the Minkai islands as groups of highly trained rogues, many of who take levels in the assassin, shadow dancer or master spy prestige classes, or possibly their own particular PrC equivalents. I could envision a book that presents them as traditions of multiclassed rogue/shadow-bloodline sorcerers, possibly with a suitable PrC to make the multiclass more effective (not unlike the dragon disciple or arcane trickster). They might be rogue archetypes, monk archetypes, or both.

At the same time, however, I could envision a Tian Xia book that presents them as their own base class, with their own unique set of spell-like or supernatural abilities, abilities that replace the mundane skills of their rogue counterparts (spell-like abilities that duplicate vanish, jump or spider climb at low levels, dimension door, etherealness or shadow conjuration and higher ones). It really depends on what Paizo wants to do, and all of these options have some grounding in the history or mythology of the real-world cultures that the setting is emulating.

BPorter wrote:
"Perspective", like "open mindedness" should be applied equally or it's not really worth squat.

I completely disagree. One's own moral or ethical behavior is not, and should never be, contingent on someone else's.


Carpy DM wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

sigh the only excepted "truth" about ninja's everyone agrees on are they dress in that outfit and use "ninja skills" to hid, vanish and they kill people. All things the rouge class does now.

There is not "mystic" part everyone agrees on. so your making a class based on an outfit a rogue or assassin wears , because its "better"

No. Because it's "different." There is a distinction, like it or not.

I disagree, its an outfit and diff looking weapons. Nothing else is different at all. At lest no harder then a simple archetype at best.

What is so different from a rogue the rogue can not pull it off? The classic ninja ability most people think of are all things the rogue either does best or scream "rogue talents"

Just what makes it not a rogue?


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Carpy DM wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

sigh the only excepted "truth" about ninja's everyone agrees on are they dress in that outfit and use "ninja skills" to hid, vanish and they kill people. All things the rouge class does now.

There is not "mystic" part everyone agrees on. so your making a class based on an outfit a rogue or assassin wears , because its "better"

No. Because it's "different." There is a distinction, like it or not.

I disagree, its an outfit and diff looking weapons. Nothing else is different at all. At lest no harder then a simple archetype at best.

What is so different from a rogue the rogue can not pull it off? The classic ninja ability most people think of are all things the rogue either does best or scream "rogue talents"

Just what makes it not a rogue?

See my edit.


Carpy DM wrote:


See my edit.

Got ya, all you got is "Its Asian so its better" That is really all I saw, there is not a single reason it's not a rogue in your post. Not a one.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Carpy DM wrote:


See my edit.
Got ya, all you got is "Its Asian so its better" That is really all I saw, there is not a single reason it's not a rogue in your post. Not a one.

None so blind...

Why is a paladin not a fighter?


Carpy DM wrote:

I completely disagree. One's own moral or ethical behavior is not, and should never be, contingent on someone else's.

I was referring to the application of a standard on the discussion, not an individual's moral or ethical behavior.

If one side of an argument should "keep their biases/baggage in perspective" the other side should as well.


Apples to oranges. The excepted "Ninja" is a rogue, it matches every single thing. The more mystic ninja has it's place but when you say "Ninja" people do not think shape shifter, or cast spells. they think "Black outfit, ninja weapons and hiding, jumping, ninja rolls, Ninja vanish, smoke bombs" and the like.

Every single thing is doable and well with the rogue other then the name. Ninja's are not magical. Your looking at a Rogue with a "mystic ninja" PRC.

You can't tell me why a ninja is not a rogue when they do the very same thing and have the very same skill set. They can even take minor and major magic. They fit in every single way except "Its Asian so its magical in all ways and better"

201 to 250 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / It's Official: Tian Xia scheduled for August 2011 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.