|
Can we have the bloodline argument in spoilers now and not cultter up the thread?
LT finds that the name makes him/her think of genetics too much. Some people don't have the same response to the word.
This is all fine, it's a complex world full of a rich variety of people.
For example, I find that the term connotes genetic heritage because bloodline is a term used to draw a particular distinction between those who have joined a family through marriage or adoption and those who have been born into the family.
LazarX, with his/her different upbringing and experience does not have exactly the same experience of the word and responds to it differently.
While there are many cases in which small differences in word meaning can be extremely significant this is not one of them.
I can imagine a few other terms that might be used instead (taint, influence, weft...) but I am comfortable with bloodline.
On a sunnier note, I would also like to see a Basic Pathfinder
Conan d20 has a setting in which there are no demihumans, but there are about 20 different kinds of humans with different cultural feats - some can take feats which give them demon blood inherited from their ancestors, others can take a cultural feat which represents enhanced ability to work in low light, one cultural gains 1d6 sneak attack, another gains bonuses to intimidate, etc.
I've always believed this would make a good mix with Paizo rules (allowing demihumans as an option, but allowing all these different human culture groups). This would, I believe, lead to a larger percentage of PCs being human.
This is something I think they cover more in the Campaign Setting than in the CRB, which is supposed to be setting-independent.
I was asked how it is that Paizo emphasizes genetics as a source of magic for sorcerers. I did that. Now, you're trying to focus this thread into a discussion about how RPGs redefine words. If you want a prolonged discussion of that, create a different thread. My intention was to answer a direct answer pointed at me with a short answer, not to hijack a thread.
No, I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning, and now we are arguing because you won't accept that what you perceived as a hard-line rule was to all intents and purposes flavour-text. I don't want a threadjack any more than you do.
I've repeatedly pointed out that what I said was that Paizo emphasizes genetics as the source of a sorcerer's power. I've repeatedly pointed out that what I'm not saying is that Paizo demands genetics as the source of power for sorcerer's.
I think your argument is weakened by the existence of the Destined bloodline, which is explicitly not genetic. At best, you can say that Pathfinder emphasizes genetics as the source of some sorcerers' power; at which point it's a matter of taste as to whether you think it's too much. I'll grant you that you might find it to be overemphasized, but that's going to be a personal thing. The fact is, there's a clear alternative to the genetics thing right there in the book. (shrug)
I think you haven't read the destined bloodline. Read the first line, "Your family is destined for greatness.". Again, the emphasis is on your pedigree (ie. your genetics).I've repeatedly pointed out that what I said was that Paizo emphasizes genetics as the source of a sorcerer's power. I've repeatedly pointed out that what I'm not saying is that Paizo demands genetics as the source of power for sorcerer's.I think your argument is weakened by the existence of the Destined bloodline, which is explicitly not genetic. At best, you can say that Pathfinder emphasizes genetics as the source of some sorcerers' power; at which point it's a matter of taste as to whether you think it's too much. I'll grant you that you might find it to be overemphasized, but that's going to be a personal thing. The fact is, there's a clear alternative to the genetics thing right there in the book. (shrug)
Read the second sentence, and particularly the third sentence. And the Bloodline powers intro. Pedigree is not being emphasized.
EDIT: Also, "family" isn't "genetics" anyway. I'm pretty sure that, even in the supernatural world of Pathfinder, "one's role in the tapestry of fate" isn't an inheritable physical characteristic.
And, yes, family is genetics.
For an example of how destiny can be tied to genetics, read the Shanara books.
That was an impressive parlor trick - talk about one thing and then show that you are right by referencing something else entirely!
There's a difference between something being emphasized and everything else being excluded.
You're right, there is. But that's why I said:
At best, you can say that Pathfinder emphasizes genetics as the source of some sorcerers' power; at which point it's a matter of taste as to whether you think it's too much. I'll grant you that you might find it to be overemphasized, but that's going to be a personal thing. The fact is, there's a clear alternative to the genetics thing right there in the book. (shrug)
You think it's too much - that's fine. But that's always going to be a personal taste issue, and not necessarily something the designers or your fellow readers are going to agree with. You've got a "houserule" (I'm not sure it actually qualifies, since it's a different emphasis, not something that the corebook excludes) that works for you; why is this such an issue?
If I hand you a slice of chocolate cake covered in a cup of jackass hot sauce, is it wrong to say that the heat is being emphasized? Is saying that the heat is being emphasized meaning that there's no chocolate?
I... have no idea what you're trying to say here.
"hard-line rule"?
I've repeatedly pointed out that what I said was that Paizo emphasizes genetics as the source of a sorcerer's power. I've repeatedly pointed out that what I'm not saying is that Paizo demands genetics as the source of power for sorcerer's. The fact that you are -still- acting like I said anything about a "hard-line rule" begs the question "are you trolling?"
You may not have said it, but you are very much acting like it. Numerous posters have pointed out to you now that this is a matter of semantics and perception, not rules, and is personal to you, not generally applicable. What the text tells me is that whether this is 'genetic' makes no difference to the way the bloodline works. It's pure flavour, adjust to your taste. I can accept that in your opinion, it places to heavy an emphasis on heritage and not enough on, for example, individual talent, but that's not what you appear to be saying.
And, yes, family is genetics.
No, it's not. You mention the Shannara books - are Shea and Flick family? Do they share any meaningful genetic connection in this context?
Genetics is genetics. Family is something else altogether.
For an example of how destiny can be tied to genetics, read the Shanara books.
At what point did I say that genetics couldn't be a part of destiny?
I started off by talking about how rules can be modified and should be modified by each group of players and then I gave an example of something I don't like that I modified. A poster (I think it was ILanFire) asked for details. So, I gave my reasons for what I don't like and what I did as an alternative.
As to why this started a multiple page discussion which required a prolonged defense of why I don't like that thing, I don't know. It seems that Dabbler et al just couldn't accept that I don't like it. So, ask them why they should care. I can't speak for them.
I have no problem that you don't like it whatsoever, I have a problem with your use of categoric statements as if Paizo intended that there was no other way that sorcerers could be in the RAW. I'll put that down to misunderstanding on both sides, this debate has dragged on long enough!
|
I have a problem with the fact that, after repeatedly telling you that I said no such thing, you're still trolling and lying by saying that I did.I have no problem that you don't like it whatsoever, I have a problem with your use of categoric statements as if Paizo intended that there was no other way that sorcerers could be in the RAW. I'll put that down to misunderstanding on both sides, this debate has dragged on long enough!I started off by talking about how rules can be modified and should be modified by each group of players and then I gave an example of something I don't like that I modified. A poster (I think it was ILanFire) asked for details. So, I gave my reasons for what I don't like and what I did as an alternative.
As to why this started a multiple page discussion which required a prolonged defense of why I don't like that thing, I don't know. It seems that Dabbler et al just couldn't accept that I don't like it. So, ask them why they should care. I can't speak for them.
It was a perfectly good thread before you decided to vent your pet peeve of bloodlines = genetics. Which has NOTHING to do whatsoever with Pathfinder 2nd edition, basic, or whatever.
I have a problem with the fact that, after repeatedly telling you that I said no such thing, you're still trolling and lying by saying that I did.
Well instead of insulting my integrity and making what amount to personal attacks you should re-read your posts with an eye to understanding how you managed to give such a strong impression of your stance when you never came out and said so directly? Self analysis is never a bad thing.
And, yes, family is genetics.
The two are not equivalent.
First, you are confusing between words as they are used in everyday English and as they are operationalized in the context of a game. For example, in the game, confused means, among other things, "A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies." This is not how we normally use the word "confused" in English, but it's the label (legitimately) given to a specific condition in the game. Likewise, the word "bloodline" need not mean exactly the same thing as the word typically does in English.
However, even if you assume that "bloodline" in the game must mean the same as the typical word does in English, then you are still mistaken. I have the same last name as my father. This is due to my bloodline, but genetics has nothing to do with it. There is no gene for last names. What we inherit from our parents is partly genetic, partly social, etc. An example from fantasy literature that can easily be interpreted as a "sorcerer bloodline" is found in Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone. Elric can perform magic because of a pact that his ancestors made with the Lords of Chaos and other supernatural beings (not because his ancestors mated with any of them). They help him out (i.e., allow him to use magic) because of his bloodline, because he's a member of a specific family, not because of any genetic factor. Presumably, if a family with a completely different genetic makeup had the same pact, members of that family would also be able to use the magic.
This is how big mine is (relative to the size of my icon):
8================>
Oh, I thought we were measuring, sorry. =D
This is how big mine is (relative to the size of my icon):
8================>Oh, I thought we were measuring, sorry. =D
LOL, is that all? ;)
It was a perfectly good thread before you decided to vent your pet peeve of bloodlines = genetics. Which has NOTHING to do whatsoever with Pathfinder 2nd edition, basic, or whatever.I have a problem with the fact that, after repeatedly telling you that I said no such thing, you're still trolling and lying by saying that I did.I have no problem that you don't like it whatsoever, I have a problem with your use of categoric statements as if Paizo intended that there was no other way that sorcerers could be in the RAW. I'll put that down to misunderstanding on both sides, this debate has dragged on long enough!I started off by talking about how rules can be modified and should be modified by each group of players and then I gave an example of something I don't like that I modified. A poster (I think it was ILanFire) asked for details. So, I gave my reasons for what I don't like and what I did as an alternative.
As to why this started a multiple page discussion which required a prolonged defense of why I don't like that thing, I don't know. It seems that Dabbler et al just couldn't accept that I don't like it. So, ask them why they should care. I can't speak for them.
+1
Can we stick to the topic?I wish I could simply delete these incredibly boring arguments on bloodlines, even skipping them is taking time.
I think I'll open a thread on Pathfinder Lite because I like the idea indeed.
To be fair to you, if you can post where I explicitly stated that Paizo intended there to be no other way but genetics as a source of a sorcerer's power (you know, the thing that upset you so much), I'll make an apology.
As you are not going to drop this:
I have already conceded that you did not out-and-out state this, but that you indicated it with some extremely strong statements. For example, when I pointed out that 'bloodline' as a class feature has a different definition than the genetic meaning in the context of the Pathfinder rules, you responded:
By that logic, we can say that "swim" doesn't actually mean "to prople one's self through water", rather it means "to craft a thermonuclear device" - therefore, to describe an NPC as able to cross a still body of water by saying he's got a high rank in swim is wrong.
Now, if that is not making very clear that you consider bloodline = genetics as the only explanation that makes sense, I'd love to know exactly what you DID mean by it. If, however, I was mistaken, then I apologise.
Now can we PLEASE get back on subject here?
"The topic is not bloodlines?" Stops making lines on the floor with blood
I've had so many people sing the praises of Traveller char-gen to me for SF RPG products...
Hey Adastra are we ever going to see an Honorverse RPG? Even a source book for Traveller would be ok
|
+1
Can we stick to the topic?
I wish I could simply delete these incredibly boring arguments on bloodlines, even skipping them is taking time.
I think I'll open a thread on Pathfinder Lite because I like the idea indeed.
I should have flagged. Instead I joined the more...calm...discussions over at rpg.net.
Anyway, back to the OP....
Mr. Wertz and Ms Stevens pretty much gave the official replies to Pathfinder 2.0: there are no plans of even such plans, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a year old and you don't plan a wedding for the baby, yaddayaddayadda. So does this thread end? Or do we, the intrepid fans, go ahead and follow the age-old Internet tradition of continuing to speculate what's going to be P2? If the latter, here's a thought:
Extrapolate P2 from the BIG rules changes from CORE (ala CMB/CMD) and the archtypes and the anti-paladin from the Advanced Players Guide. Those two, IMO, are a couple of strong hints to Pathfinder's future direction. ^_^
I have something for PF2E.
Get rid of gold = character power.
Let material wealth equal social status, so characters can buy castles and fund orphanages. Leave the magical items off the market.
I support this idea. Or, as the kids put it these days, +1.
|
If I hand you a slice of chocolate cake covered in a cup of jackass hot sauce, is it wrong to say that the heat is being emphasized? Is saying that the heat is being emphasized meaning that there's no chocolate?I... have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I'm pretty sure that sorcerers covered in jackass hot sauce is some kind of reference to the spell Fire Shield. No?
I support this idea. Or, as the kids put it these days, +1.I have something for PF2E.
Get rid of gold = character power.
Let material wealth equal social status, so characters can buy castles and fund orphanages. Leave the magical items off the market.
Muses a support song
Well, that's some good idea, just please don't replace gold with something else, like crystals or essence. Pure bonus based enchantment would be good.
|
|
I have something for PF2E.
Get rid of gold = character power.
Let material wealth equal social status, so characters can buy castles and fund orphanages. Leave the magical items off the market.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think you can get rid of the gold=power equation and remain backward compatible.
However, I certainly think some alternative wealth rules as an optional subsystem would be a welcome thing.
I'd actually like to see an entire book filled with numerous optional rules for changing up your game in various ways.
|
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think you can get rid of the gold=power equation and remain backward compatible.However, I certainly think some alternative wealth rules as an optional subsystem would be a welcome thing.
I'd actually like to see an entire book filled with numerous optional rules for changing up your game in various ways.
I don't think we're backwards compatible now, so that doesn't bother me. And it certainly won't bother me in ten years or whenever they get around to doing a 2E. As for optional rules, I would rather have those now in an Unearthed Arcana style book that can be the test bed for 2E changes.
I've had so many people sing the praises of Traveller char-gen to me for SF RPG products...Hey Adastra are we ever going to see an Honorverse RPG? Even a source book for Traveller would be ok
Now that would be ... interesting!
|
Get rid of gold = character power.
The thing is, that's a style of play more than something inherent in the system. I've played in campaigns where magic items were rare...if you got a +1 sword at 10th level, it was a major event. Likewise, cash itself was both more rare, and couldn't be used to purchase magical items.
I've also played in games where you start out at 1st level with a few magical items, and by the time you got to 5th level you were probably swinging a +5 sword around. In those campaigns, cash tended to be much more prevalent, and you generally could buy most any magical item you pleased.
You want to play a game where gold =/= power, then play that way. It doesn't require rule changes.
|
|
Yeah,
Gold = ECL
may be a Pandora's box effect.
Now that we have so many great magic items and we know what's possible, playing without them (except for the rare low-fantasy adventure) would not be fun.
In the same way Players luuuv considering their character builds, they love shopping for magic items.
It ties in with the problem of getting treasure from the cooling bodies of monsters not to use as interesting loot but to sell it so you can buy another +2 Ability Score bump.
It does not, however, tie in with an argument about Sorcer Bloodlines.
You could always introduce scaling items, where the characters have a signature item or more each that always scales in ability appropriate to their level. Each item always has value to about 1/4 standard wealth-by-level, and they choose how it improves as they level.
All they need then is beer money, although it makes crafting-oriented characters a bit redundant.
It wasn't deliberate, I assure you, and I do apologise for my part in that.