Creative Director
|
My question is pretty straightforward. Will the Bestiary 2 contain any races that will have statblocks included for characters much like the Tengu, Goblin, and Tiefling did from the first Bestiary?
While Lazaro is correct, and a Bestiary is first and foremost a place for a GM to go to get monsters, there WILL be some zero Hit Die races in Bestiary 2. I believe, in fact, that there are six of them, and all of them will be about as powerful as, say, a hobgoblin or an orc or a tengu or a tiefling. Maybe not as powerful as a tiefling... but the point is that these six zero HD races COULD be easilly used as PC races if you want.
While Lazaro is correct, and a Bestiary is first and foremost a place for a GM to go to get monsters, there WILL be some zero Hit Die races in Bestiary 2. I believe, in fact, that there are six of them, and all of them will be about as powerful as, say, a hobgoblin or an orc or a tengu or a tiefling. Maybe not as powerful as a tiefling... but the point is that these six zero HD races COULD be easilly used as PC races if you want.My question is pretty straightforward. Will the Bestiary 2 contain any races that will have statblocks included for characters much like the Tengu, Goblin, and Tiefling did from the first Bestiary?
Just want to give a huge thanks to you and all the other Paizo staff who take the time to try and answer our queries James. It sets you apart from other developers as people who truly care about the craft.
*cheers*
|
While Lazaro is correct, and a Bestiary is first and foremost a place for a GM to go to get monsters, there WILL be some zero Hit Die races in Bestiary 2. I believe, in fact, that there are six of them, and all of them will be about as powerful as, say, a hobgoblin or an orc or a tengu or a tiefling. Maybe not as powerful as a tiefling... but the point is that these six zero HD races COULD be easilly used as PC races if you want.My question is pretty straightforward. Will the Bestiary 2 contain any races that will have statblocks included for characters much like the Tengu, Goblin, and Tiefling did from the first Bestiary?
Thank you JJ
I will now go back to quietly awaiting the release :)
I left a dead Halfling in the pantry for you, he is spiced with cumin and parsley.
|
Creative Director
|
Would it be too much to request that for the races that could be played as PC races have the "this as a PC race" section in the Bestiary. It has nice presentation and with it being official removes alot of the debate on what is offered in the race.
pretty please....
They'll have sections similar to how the goblins, hobgoblins, and drow in the current bestiary have "Drow Charactes" or "Goblin Characters." We don't actually say in print "you can use this as a PC race."
And whether or not a race can be "official" or not is up to the GM in my opinion.
|
Would it be too much to request that for the races that could be played as PC races have the "this as a PC race" section in the Bestiary. It has nice presentation and with it being official removes alot of the debate on what is offered in the race.
pretty please....
They'll have sections similar to how the goblins, hobgoblins, and drow in the current bestiary have "Drow Charactes" or "Goblin Characters." We don't actually say in print "you can use this as a PC race."
And whether or not a race can be "official" or not is up to the GM in my opinion.
Thanks, James :>
Back when I owned a game store I noticed something. Once Savage Species came out players started buying monster books. All of them. They'd mine them for new character ideas and sales were great! If both GM's and players buy a book, then you'll sell a Ron more.
Really, isn't that kind of the point?
|
Back when I owned a game store I noticed something. Once Savage Species came out players started buying monster books. All of them. They'd mine them for new character ideas and sales were great! If both GM's and players buy a book, then you'll sell a Ron more.
Really, isn't that kind of the point?
If the bottom line was the only, um... bottom line then I imagine the Paizo staff would all be working in other fields.
It seems to me that, despite the simple 'core assumption' (you only need core to run things) Paizo recognise that they should support products which they release. If they make monster characters more than an alternative option they will need to consider feats, traits, class options and suchlike for these new races. They will also have to include them in Players' Guides to APs and write all of their adventures with these new races in mind (for example, if you add a flying race then your first-level adventures will have to account for this).
For a company which sells a lot of adventures it may not be in their interest to add more races
While Lazaro is correct, and a Bestiary is first and foremost a place for a GM to go to get monsters, there WILL be some zero Hit Die races in Bestiary 2. I believe, in fact, that there are six of them, and all of them will be about as powerful as, say, a hobgoblin or an orc or a tengu or a tiefling. Maybe not as powerful as a tiefling... but the point is that these six zero HD races COULD be easilly used as PC races if you want.
It will be interesting to see how the Hobgoblins will be different in the Bestiary 2 that are specifically for PCs, compared to how they are listed in Bestiary 1.
We just started up a monster campaign and most of us chose Hobgoblins. Our DM’s rule was if you wanted to be able to use point buy, it had to have the section “[Monster] as characters”. If it did not have that, you had to go with the stats directly out of the book.
I do understand that section of “[Monster] as characters” is supposed to represent NPCs for the DM. But our DM applied to PCs as well in picking a monster race.
So again, it will be interesting to see how these Hobgoblins in the Bestiary 2 (in playing them as PCs) will differ from the ones listed in the Bestiary where it says “[Monster] as characters”.
So again, it will be interesting to see how these Hobgoblins in the Bestiary 2 (in playing them as PCs) will differ from the ones listed in the Bestiary where it says “[Monster] as characters”.
I think you misunderstand James. Bestiary 2 will certainly not feature Hobgoblins again, and it will not have any "play as PC rules".
Some creatures have rules "X as as characters". Note that it says "as characters", not "as PCs". These creatures need rules for applying classes because they do not have racial hit dice and cannot exist without at lease on class level. You cannot create a hobgoblin, or drow, or any of these races, without these rules. That is why they are there, and it has nothing to do with making them PCs.
You can certainly use these rules to make PCs, but in the first place they are there for the GM to be able to create these creatures at all.
I think you misunderstand James. Bestiary 2 will certainly not feature Hobgoblins again, and it will not have any "play as PC rules".Some creatures have rules "X as as characters". Note that it says "as characters", not "as PCs". These creatures need rules for applying classes because they do not have racial hit dice and cannot exist without at lease on class level. You cannot create a hobgoblin, or drow, or any of these races, without these rules. That is why they are there, and it has nothing to do with making them PCs.
You can certainly use these rules to make PCs, but in the first place they are there for the GM to be able to create these creatures at all.
Ok, yes, I see what you are saying. And of course, should have realized Hobgoblins would not be in the book again (as they are in Bestiary 1). James was only using them as an example.
But what James is basically saying, we will get more along what was in the first Bestiary, where creatures will have the “[Monster] as Character”. And yes, as I said, I do realize that is used for DMs to make NPC monsters.
I was also hoping more along the lines of Themetric, that we would get some specific rules on making monsters as PCs in the next Bestiary. I guess the rules for creating monster NPCs will have to do.
|
Creative Director
|
Back when I owned a game store I noticed something. Once Savage Species came out players started buying monster books. All of them. They'd mine them for new character ideas and sales were great! If both GM's and players buy a book, then you'll sell a Ron more.
Really, isn't that kind of the point?
For Bestiaries...not really. The point is to sell books of monsters to GMs. I'm not a fan of the mindset that "all books must be equally for players and GMs." EVEN if that, in theory, means we could sell more. Because it doesn't. The number of players may outnumber the number of GMs, but the amount of money GMs spend on these games VASTLY outnumbers the amount of money Players spend, in my opinion. Players buy only the books their characters want, while GMs tend to buy ALL of the books because they're building new characters and adventures all the time.
So for a Bestiary, the goal is to focus all the energy on providing a beautiful, easy to reference, solid book of monsters for GMs to use. ANY of the monsters in the book work for player character races if the GM wants to open that up to his players, but the concept of a big book of races that players can shop through to pick weird new races is not something I'm all that fond of. Especially since our own campaign world of Golarion doesn't really work well with strange PC races, due to its strong humanocentric themes.
If we DO do a "Savage Species" style book some day, and I suspect some day we probably will, expect it to have some language like: "In Golarion, player character monsters should be very rare. Here's some advice on how to integrate an unusual player character monster into a humanocentric campaign."
|
Creative Director
|
While Lazaro is correct, and a Bestiary is first and foremost a place for a GM to go to get monsters, there WILL be some zero Hit Die races in Bestiary 2. I believe, in fact, that there are six of them, and all of them will be about as powerful as, say, a hobgoblin or an orc or a tengu or a tiefling. Maybe not as powerful as a tiefling... but the point is that these six zero HD races COULD be easilly used as PC races if you want.It will be interesting to see how the Hobgoblins will be different in the Bestiary 2 that are specifically for PCs, compared to how they are listed in Bestiary 1.
We just started up a monster campaign and most of us chose Hobgoblins. Our DM’s rule was if you wanted to be able to use point buy, it had to have the section “[Monster] as characters”. If it did not have that, you had to go with the stats directly out of the book.
I do understand that section of “[Monster] as characters” is supposed to represent NPCs for the DM. But our DM applied to PCs as well in picking a monster race.
So again, it will be interesting to see how these Hobgoblins in the Bestiary 2 (in playing them as PCs) will differ from the ones listed in the Bestiary where it says “[Monster] as characters”.
There are no hobgoblins in Bestairy 2. There are NEW races in Bestiary 2 that are formatted in a manner similar to how we handled all of the zero Hit Dice races in Bestairy (like hobgoblins).
There are no hobgoblins in Bestairy 2. There are NEW races in Bestiary 2 that are formatted in a manner similar to how we handled all of the zero Hit Dice races in Bestairy (like hobgoblins).
Yes, I know, I had a 'duh' moment at the time I replied to your post. :)
If you look at my more recent post, I corrected it.
Back when I owned a game store I noticed something. Once Savage Species came out players started buying monster books. All of them. They'd mine them for new character ideas and sales were great! If both GM's and players buy a book, then you'll sell a Ron more.
Really, isn't that kind of the point?
If the bottom line was the only, um... bottom line then I imagine the Paizo staff would all be working in other fields.
It seems to me that, despite the simple 'core assumption' (you only need core to run things) Paizo recognise that they should support products which they release. If they make monster characters more than an alternative option they will need to consider feats, traits, class options and suchlike for these new races. They will also have to include them in Players' Guides to APs and write all of their adventures with these new races in mind (for example, if you add a flying race then your first-level adventures will have to account for this).
For a company which sells a lot of adventures it may not be in their interest to add more races
Whatever you do in life you should try to be successful. GM only books sell dramatically less than player books. The glut of splatbooks stems from WotC cashing in. Most of those books do not possess the standard of quality Paizo holds itself to. The APG proves to me, as both a player and a GM, that Paizo can make splatbooks that are balanced and enjoyable for everyone. So if they make a monster book heavy with player material, stuff that can be expanded upon in other products, then they have made a sound investment.
GM only books sell dramatically less than player books.Based on our sales of the Adventure Paths... I'm not sure this is really true.
lol, and I don't think you realize just how many players are buying these books. They are a good read after all. I have the subscription, but don't run them. A friend of mine also gets them and he does run them. Our agreement is that I won't read the adventure portions until he's done with them. I mostly use them as an advisory when running my own games. I also like them for the monsters.
Plus, I'm basing my assertions on what I experienced when running a gaming store. Players bought more books and GM only stuff tended to sit on the shelf. Yes, Paizo has gone out of its way to focus more on GM's, and that has proven to be a good, long term business strategy. Keep GM's filled with great adventures and players will stick with the game.
Paizo has also proven it can make "splatbooks" that are balanced and accessible. I own two copies of the APG myself. I use it heavily in my games and I'm the GM. Two copies are present to guarantee that if a player needs to reread the rules on dirty trick (the most popular combat maneuver among my NPC's) they can, all while the inquisitors (yes, plural) can stay brushed up on their spells.
We've sort of become a generation of whiners. People complain and expect those complaints to be addressed. No matter how trivial they might be. Is it really so hard for someone to say no to one of their players when that player is trying to use a feat/prestige class/spell in a way that was never intended? Are people so afraid of player empowerment via splatbooks that they'd swear off the entire game instead of tailoring things to their needs? To their groups needs?
Savage Species was a great idea, just poorly executed and even more poorly explained. I was hoping Paizo would someday take a crack at this and give it the treatment it deserves. It really allowed a GM to scale monsters in the opposite direction, down in CR.
When a 3rd level group I ran long ago fought a CR 3 mind flayer it really threw them for a loop. I can of course still do things like this on my own, but I literally wouldn't have thought of it until SavSpec.
I kind of went off on a rant, but the zeitgeist on these forums is that splat is bad, but a chronicles book comes out every couple of months, and that's not bad? Please. Options are options. What are people going to do in 5 years? That's well over 60 books published by Paizo on top of the AP's. That is a metric ton of content and it will exceed what WotC had done in 10 short years. As such I do not believe Paizo should be gun shy about making products with cross appeal.
A few points from my perspective and speculation on my part.
I don't think James or anyone else underestimates how many players pick up "GM" books, I think the point is that to try and intentionally design a book that is "just as useful" for a GM and a player tends to be a pain. The APG is primarily a player book, but its obvious why a GM would want it. The APs are obviously GM books, but you can see pretty easily why some players would want to pick them up.
I think if Pathfinder puts out a "Monsters as PCs" book, there is a really good chance it will be a very good product, based on past experience. That having been said, I don't like things like the Bestiaries having anything implying that something is okay as a PC race.
Why?
Because this ads the added annoyance, as a GM, of saying no to all of those players that come to you saying "the book says it should work fine."
I can do that, but I'd rather not.
If there is a book that collects races and presents them as playable races, its a lot easier for me to say that I don't want to mess with that book or that its okay, than if someone happens to notice that three quarter ice giants would be great rangers because of their "as PC" entry in the Bestiary.
In fact, let me posit a theory on how this might impact sales the other direction. If I, as the GM, picks up a Bestiary to throw more things at my players, then that's a good thing. If the Bestiary takes up a lot of space with "PC race" entries, its less likely that I'm as enthused about picking up my book o' bad things, and I might skip a volume or two.
That having been said, without opening the door to new weird PCs, I think a Bestiary can still do its job and be an attractive player purchase if it expands options in smaller ways than PC races . . . for example, familiars, animal companions, or new summoned monsters.
In fact, let me posit a theory on how this might impact sales the other direction. If I, as the GM, picks up a Bestiary to throw more things at my players, then that's a good thing. If the Bestiary takes up a lot of space with "PC race" entries, its less likely that I'm as enthused about picking up my book o' bad things, and I might skip a volume or two.
That having been said, without opening the door to new weird PCs, I think a Bestiary can still do its job and be an attractive player purchase if it expands options in smaller ways than PC races . . . for example, familiars, animal companions, or new summoned monsters.
That's, that's, Extortion!
Ya know, I hear this comment in one form or another all the time. I may joke, but it really is a (thinly) veiled threat that KnightErrentJR presents. I do agree that familiars, animal companions, and new summoned monsters should be present, but scaled down, player playable versions of races also present a GM with an opportunity for more flexible encounters.
Also, Gorbacz, get new players. If you can't, learn to love them and work with this player on realizing his/her (nope, sorry, just his) dream of living chaos. What's stopping you? The fact it's so weird? Yeah, every NPC is going to notice it, it's going to have to be addressed and the spotlight ends up on the freak. So why is your player like that? Why do they have to have the spotlight? And why do they think that if Pathfinder set it down in rules you'd have no choice in the matter? I don't let my players play Summoner's and in turn I won't run any as NPC's, but I didn't have to do that. They expect to face Anti-Paladins (we call them Tyrant Knights) with no expectation of playing one of them. It's your game, do with it as you choose.
Getting back on track, it really disappoints me when people drop that threat of no longer buying. Paizo works very hard to keep us happy. Remember how WotC treated us when 4th came out? That's right, they got new players and ignored us. Paizo will always have the power to do that if they so choose. So maybe it isn't them who has to bend to our wills, maybe it's us who needs to compromise.
I know I'll still be buying the Beastiary 2, 3, 4, 5, and so forth even if the things I want to see aren't in there, because there will be other things in there that I'll want instead.
|
After listening today to some player rant 15 minutes about how much he wants to play a half-demon half-mind flayer with minotaur ancestry and how much does Pathfinder suck because it doesn't have rules for that I am even more convinced that my anti-Savage Species crusade is righteous and justified.
While I can understand 110% here, I still like the OPTION open to create these 0HD creatures to use class levels. It is certainly more useful to the DM than players but it is always interesting in ANY case.
I think a safe balance is struck with the way things are being handled with it so far, it hasn't gotten to the point where level adjustments have come into play... and I hope it NEVER does.
That's, that's, Extortion!
I think you may be misinterpreting what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that I would quit buying products in protest because it wasn't done the way I wanted it done, I'm saying that if I'm buying a Bestiary and I'm starting to get the feeling that a significant portion has been intentionally designed to introduce new races into the game, the book's value as a Bestiary start to go down, because when I see "Bestiary" as a GM I'm thinking "new stuff to throw at my players."
To use an example, I loved Monster Manuals, but I was very disappointed with the MM IV and V because instead of new monsters or even new templates, there was a significant portion of them devoted to either "one theme" monsters (Spawn of Tiamat or Thoon Illithids) or existing monsters with class levels.
If I had bought a book about Illithids or about Tiamat, I might not have minded the monsters, and if I had bought an NPC book, I might not have minded orcs or drow with class levels, but in a Bestiary I expect new creatures, for the most part.
It wasn't meant to be a threat, just a statement that I tend to get "fuzzy" on why I'm suppose to be buying a book when the book strays from what I consider its main purpose. Others may disagree, and that is wonderful, I just know how my own brain works.
|
... but the amount of money GMs spend on these games VASTLY outnumbers the amount of money Players spend, in my opinion...
Truer words have never been spoken.
Back in the pre-Pathfinder days each of the 4 players in my group at that time each owned 1 PHB. 2 owned only the original 3e PHB and 2 owned 3.5 PHB. One of those players was a family member and I actually bought the 3.5 PHB for him as a gift. I think one of the other players may be bought an Elf racial 3rd party book and that was the extent of their 3rd edition libraries.As the DM/GM, I owned not only the the 3 core books for both 3e and 3.5 but 90 other books and I used every singe one of them at some point. Of course that's just for 3.x and doesn't count all the books for the numerous other game systems/editions I own. Many of which I will probably never get a chance to run.
I think that the "obsession" to buy more rpg books is one of the requirement for being a GM/DM. We are completely capable of running a game with just the core rulebook(s), but we(I) just can't stop. I often wonder if gaming companies secretly put addictive chemicals in the ink of the DMG/GMG books that compel us to buy more books to get our "fix".
Sorry for going off on a tangent.
I for one appreciate the "monster as character" sections. I always have a player that wants to run a non-core race. New players almost never want to run a core race. I usually make them use core races for their first couple of games, but once they know what they are doing I never stop them from running a goblin, or Drow if they want.
In the B2 are there going to be more Dragons? Also I'm pretty sure that Mindflayers are not available for use, which kind of sucks, but will there be a PF "counterpart" to the Mindflayer?
Mindflayers are one of the best master villains I've ever used in any old D&D campaign. They are the best if you just want a truly evil villain who is just plain old fashioned bad.
I know there are different versions/takes on them, but to me they just seemed like the only intelligent "monster" that is not motivated by greed, or pride. They are just ugly as sin & pure evil. You can use them in a Cthulhu themed fantasy campaign or as stand alone villains.
My groups have always more "scared" when I have had Mindflayers in a campaign than they ever were with Dragons. I'm not sure if that implies that I suck at running dragons or that I'm just really good with Mindflayers, but those games always end up as favorites.
|
|
After listening today to some player rant 15 minutes about how much he wants to play a half-demon half-mind flayer with minotaur ancestry and how much does Pathfinder suck because it doesn't have rules for that I am even more convinced that my anti-Savage Species crusade is righteous and justified.
Oh how I hated Savage Species.... grrr.
...A bestiary is not a place for player races. There WILL be about 6 new zero-HD races that'll be quite usable as player races in Bestiary 2, but they're mostly intended to be monsters...
So if the Bestiary is not the place for PC races, were is ??
To be honest, as a GM, i would rather look in the Bestiary for idea on new player races than some race book that (( in the D&D past )) listed 1-2 races x 5 favors alterations.
PS = Drop the AC & Natural Weapon on lizard men, remain them gecko men, and give me a reptilian PC races that i can use:)
If we DO do a "Savage Species" style book some day, and I suspect some day we probably will, expect it to have some language like: "In Golarion, player character monsters should be very rare. Here's some advice on how to integrate an unusual player character monster into a humanocentric campaign."
Even if this isn't the focus of the Pathfinder campaign world, it is the focus of our game setting, so this is good news! I would definitely buy such a product, as would a lot of people I know. ^_^
In fact, I would go so far to say that we've been (im)patiently waiting for it, and it's the only thing that draws us to 4th edition...the races. Otherwise, I consider 4E inferior to Pathfinder.
|
Creative Director
|
So if the Bestiary is not the place for PC races, were is ??
To be honest, as a GM, i would rather look in the Bestiary for idea on new player races than some race book that (( in the D&D past )) listed 1-2 races x 5 favors alterations.
PS = Drop the AC & Natural Weapon on lizard men, remain them gecko men, and give me a reptilian PC races that i can use:)
Currently, we don't have a product announced that will provide monster PC rules for player characters. But as for a book that gives GMs what they need to decide on monstrous PC races... the Bestiary already does that if you're willing to get experimental. And it sounds like you've got a good start already with your lizardfolk ideas.
If we DO do a "Savage Species" style book some day, and I suspect some day we probably will, expect it to have some language like: "In Golarion, player character monsters should be very rare. Here's some advice on how to integrate an unusual player character monster into a humanocentric campaign."
Actually, I could easily see a "Misunderstood Heros Revealed" type book that focused on existing Bestiary races and how those might work in Golarion - extra pluses if it had a few favored class options and advice on how to balance it with core races like the tiefling entry in the Council of Thieves player guide.
I have been on both sides of monster races - my very first D&D game, the GM didn't get the concept of Level Adjustments and let one player play a half-dragon. Obviously, he was quite a bit more powerful than the rest of us. And some will take it overboard, like the half-demon half-mindflayer minotaur above.
But there's also the flip side, of really good roleplay concepts. Some have become cliche, like the repentant drow, or the non-evil vampire. Those had real merit at one time. I have played races that were weak, like kobolds, just for the novelty experience. One of my favorite characters was a highly intelligent goblin archivist, a randy, cowardly little fellow who was nonetheless trying to raise his race out of barbarism - particularly through his attempts to pass on his traits. Another character I recall fondly was a no-nonsense tiefling, a military scout who was out to kill his insane half-fiend father. He could trace his ancestry back to Malcanthet and Pazuzu, and while he knew it didn't actually matter, his father believed it made the family some kind of demon royalty.
So yes, some players will abuse the option to play monster races if the GM allows it, but simply restricting them all... well, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So if the Bestiary is not the place for PC races, were is ??
That's easy: the Core Rulebook.
In fact, I would go so far to say that we've been (im)patiently waiting for it, and it's the only thing that draws us to 4th edition...the races. Otherwise, I consider 4E inferior to Pathfinder.
That's exactly one of the things that I find repelling in 4E. It encourages players to the point that an adventuring party is no longer an adventuring party but a circus freak show. Ugh.
For Bestiaries...not really. The point is to sell books of monsters to GMs. I'm not a fan of the mindset that "all books must be equally for players and GMs." EVEN if that, in theory, means we could sell more. Because it doesn't. The number of players may outnumber the number of GMs, but the amount of money GMs spend on these games VASTLY outnumbers the amount of money Players spend, in my opinion. Players buy only the books their characters want, while GMs tend to buy ALL of the books because they're building new characters and adventures all the time.
So for a Bestiary, the goal is to focus all the energy on providing a beautiful, easy to reference, solid book of monsters for GMs to use. ANY of the monsters in the book work for player character races if the GM wants to open that up to his players, but the concept of a big book of races that players can shop through to pick weird new races is not something I'm all that fond of. Especially since our own campaign world of Golarion doesn't really work well with strange PC races, due to its strong humanocentric themes.
If we DO do a "Savage Species" style book some day, and I suspect some day we probably will, expect it to have some language like: "In Golarion, player character monsters should be very rare. Here's some advice on how to integrate an unusual player character monster into a humanocentric campaign."
+1
+1+1
I find that when you humanize every monster race in the bestiary in an attempt to diversify, you actually decrease some options. My players frequently want to stop to parley, or when I play, our other DMs tend to want everything to be diplomatic and civilized because slaughtering these people is wrong.
It's very difficult to balance, and making official rules that contradict the "orcs are monsters that raid and rape human settlements" outlook affects the GM side of the equation.
This is a difficult topic for me, because I am particularly fond of certain monster races, but I also understand that it isn't easy to play when most cities/towns/villages your character will visit will freak out, OR you feel the need to rationalize with monsters instead of fighting.
Really, I'm fine with the bestiaries being what they are. My DM has told me "No" when I've asked to play certain monsters, and I just went on to the next idea. But I would be willing to let MY players try monsters, and I would work with them on a way to make it playable. People that want these races should just use house rules. It's not hard, and it helps the player invest in a certain character.
Look at my rambling... :/ Good grief.
After listening today to some player rant 15 minutes about how much he wants to play a half-demon half-mind flayer with minotaur ancestry and how much does Pathfinder suck because it doesn't have rules for that I am even more convinced that my anti-Savage Species crusade is righteous and justified.
My half-faerie dragon, half-elf feels like a second-class character now. You're going to make Astrid'azil'indria'noxamila sad. :(
|
|
After listening today to some player rant 15 minutes about how much he wants to play a half-demon half-mind flayer with minotaur ancestry and how much does Pathfinder suck because it doesn't have rules for that I am even more convinced that my anti-Savage Species crusade is righteous and justified.My half-faerie dragon, half-elf feels like a second-class character now. You're going to make Astrid'azil'indria'noxamila sad. :(
My crusade is limited to Golarion, I'm not even trying to comprehend the dark of the Planes. It rattles my brain-box too much, and I'm just a poor Prime berk...
My crusade is limited to Golarion, I'm not even trying to comprehend the dark of the Planes. It rattles my brain-box too much, and I'm just a poor Prime berk...After listening today to some player rant 15 minutes about how much he wants to play a half-demon half-mind flayer with minotaur ancestry and how much does Pathfinder suck because it doesn't have rules for that I am even more convinced that my anti-Savage Species crusade is righteous and justified.My half-faerie dragon, half-elf feels like a second-class character now. You're going to make Astrid'azil'indria'noxamila sad. :(
She's my current PC in a non-planar campaign... ;)
My half-faerie dragon, half-elf feels like a second-class character now. You're going to make Astrid'azil'indria'noxamila sad. :(
Who the frak are you, Mike McArtor?
My half-faerie dragon, half-elf feels like a second-class character now. You're going to make Astrid'azil'indria'noxamila sad. :(Who the frak are you, Mike McArtor?
Hey now, there's only a single x in that name. :P
That's exactly one of the things that I find repelling in 4E. It encourages players to the point that an adventuring party is no longer an adventuring party but a circus freak show. Ugh.
What an incredibly small-minded view. :(
That's exactly one of the things that I find repelling in 4E. It encourages players to the point that an adventuring party is no longer an adventuring party but a circus freak show. Ugh.What an incredibly small-minded view. :(
Please, no name-calling. You don't even know why that is my opinion. I just don't like that kind of fantasy, I would not have fun playing a role-playing game with that kind of a party, it just breaks my suspension of disbelief A world where it is basically taken for granted that a group of monster freaks can stroll about villages and towns like it was nothing special just doesn't appeal to me.
I would not want to read novels like that, too.
Please, no name-calling. You don't even know why that is my opinion. I just don't like that kind of fantasy, I would not have fun playing a role-playing game with that kind of a party, it just breaks my suspension of disbelief A world where it is basically taken for granted that a group of monster freaks can stroll about villages and towns like it was nothing special just doesn't appeal to me.
I would not want to read novels like that, too.
It was more just a "that statement makes me sad".
If that was perfectly normal in that world, then it's perfectly normal. The term "suspension of disbelief" is irrelevant because that's based solely on the fact that our world is populated by humans. If history was different, and the earth was shared by a race of sentient dinosaurs who exist alongside humans, noone would think that was "weird" because that's the way it had always been.
A fantasy game should not be limited by the preconceptions of the real world. That's kinda why it's called "fantasy". :)
If that was perfectly normal in that world, then it's perfectly normal. The term "suspension of disbelief" is irrelevant because that's based solely on the fact that our world is populated by humans. If history was different, and the earth was shared by a race of sentient dinosaurs who exist alongside humans, noone would think that was "weird" because that's the way it had always been.
But it isn't. And thus suspension of disbelief is not irrelevant at all.
A fantasy game should not be limited by the preconceptions of the real world. That's kinda why it's called "fantasy". :)
It's not a kind of fantasy I care for, that is all.
I can remember when the Complete Book of Humanoids came out and Firbolg mania set in. I like the way Paizo has it set up, with the GM being the final word. Sometimes a half-dragon celestial ogre just doesn't fit into an adventure. I also like what they did with the tiefling. They had a set of options in a supplement to bring them on par with player characters as well as why would fit into that particular setting.
I also like what they did with the tiefling. They had a set of options in a supplement to bring them on par with player characters as well as why would fit into that particular setting.
Can you tell me where this information is? I've read other comments about something like this, and I'm curious about this information. Aasimar and Tiefling are the only two "monster" races our group tends to treat as "core" races, so this would be an interesting supplement.
That, and I want to make up a more detailed tiefling foil for an aasimar paladin in my group. :D