I'd have to reread them all again since we didn't actually use them in CoT(we ported some of it into Kingmaker for one character and one NPC). I can't remember the social hit in that trait though. What was it?
It's not so much detailed in the Players guide, only outlined that you are a straight up second class citizen. Apartheid is alive and well in Westcrown, and your Tiefling is on the short end of the stick.
I'd have to reread them all again since we didn't actually use them in CoT(we ported some of it into Kingmaker for one character and one NPC). I can't remember the social hit in that trait though. What was it?It's not so much detailed in the Players guide, only outlined that you are a straight up second class citizen. Apartheid is alive and well in Westcrown, and your Tiefling is on the short end of the stick.
True. But there is not actual "crunch" to support that.
|
I'd have to reread them all again since we didn't actually use them in CoT(we ported some of it into Kingmaker for one character and one NPC). I can't remember the social hit in that trait though. What was it?It's not so much detailed in the Players guide, only outlined that you are a straight up second class citizen. Apartheid is alive and well in Westcrown, and your Tiefling is on the short end of the stick.
Oh, that part. Nah, I was just talking about the mechanical approach for the Infernal Bastard trait that switched out some powers and traits for weaker ones.
Heh, the general miserable feel of Westcrown is actually what led our GM to switch from CoT to Kingmaker. His complaint was, "It's like running a game in Nazi Germany." "Thaaaaat's Cheliax!" I sing-songed. He told me not to do that again.
True. But there is not actual "crunch" to support that.
Perpetual treatment like a social lepper lacks crunch?
Player - "I try Diplomacy"
GM - "They tell you to f**k off"
Player - I go to Haggle with them, what discount do I get.
GM - GOOD NEWS! they only mark it up by 50% extra on top of what the other players pay!
Player - Oh....
Player - I go to the Inn to rent a room.
GM - Sorry, Inn is full, except for your mates, but they'll let you sleep in the barn with the other animals.
Player - Ok I catch the wagon to the next town
GM - Only if you sit up the back
Party - Hey dude, dont feel down, they left a light on so you could find your way home...
Tiefling - Umm a burning cross on my front yard?
Yar.
There's only one Material Plane. The universe is big enough to hold pretty much every single campaign setting.I dunno, how do you have Earth-616, Earth-2, Earth-DCNU, Freedom City Earth, and Gamma World (never mind the variants from different editions) all orbiting Sol in the same universe? It must be very crowded, and we just haven't noticed yet. ;)
You're thinking Solar System. That is, the collection of celestial bodies orbiting a single star. There can be trillions of solar systems in a single Galaxy, and countless trillions of full blown Galaxies in a single universe (a.k.a. the Material Plane). I'd say that's more than enough room for Earth-616, Earth-2, Earth-DCNU, Freedom City Earth, Gamma World, Oerth, Krynn, Toril, everything from star wars, everything from star trek, everything from star gate, and variations of each, and still be barely even a scratch on a single micron of the possibilities for new worlds and campaign setting material all in the same Universe/Material Plane.
~P
\
I wouldn't take Jacob's quote too seriously. After all for IP reasons alone, you'll never see Golarian setting material or any Paizo material making cano references to Eberron, Greyhawk, or any of the worlds of the DCU, or other forms of IP which Paizo doesn't own. I would treat it more as what Jacobs might do for his own homegames than Holy Rules Writ.
I also take it that Mr. Jacobs was not a fan of Sliders.
Well...it's not exactly a stellar work. It had episodes that varied a lot in overall quality and the departure of it's one seasoned actor to play a Voyager hologram did not help.I also take it that Mr. Jacobs was not a fan of Sliders.Yar.
There's only one Material Plane. The universe is big enough to hold pretty much every single campaign setting.I dunno, how do you have Earth-616, Earth-2, Earth-DCNU, Freedom City Earth, and Gamma World (never mind the variants from different editions) all orbiting Sol in the same universe? It must be very crowded, and we just haven't noticed yet. ;)
You're thinking Solar System. That is, the collection of celestial bodies orbiting a single star. There can be trillions of solar systems in a single Galaxy, and countless trillions of full blown Galaxies in a single universe (a.k.a. the Material Plane). I'd say that's more than enough room for Earth-616, Earth-2, Earth-DCNU, Freedom City Earth, Gamma World, Oerth, Krynn, Toril, everything from star wars, everything from star trek, everything from star gate, and variations of each, and still be barely even a scratch on a single micron of the possibilities for new worlds and campaign setting material all in the same Universe/Material Plane.
~P
\
I wouldn't take Jacob's quote too seriously. After all for IP reasons alone, you'll never see Golarian setting material or any Paizo material making cano references to Eberron, Greyhawk, or any of the worlds of the DCU, or other forms of IP which Paizo doesn't own. I would treat it more as what Jacobs might do for his own homegames than Holy Rules Writ.
As if Star Trek: Voyager was stellar work! ;P
Robert Picardo played the Emergency Hologram Doctor (I hope that I got the phrase right). John Rhys-Davies did not, as far as I know.
John Rhys-Davies did not, as far as I know.
He did not. The two actors are just a bit difficult to mistake for one another.
Robert Picardo played the Emergency Hologram Doctor (I hope that I got the phrase right). John Rhys-Davies did not, as far as I know.
According to IMDB, he played a hologram in 2 episodes of Voyager.
Robert Picardo played the Emergency Hologram Doctor (I hope that I got the phrase right). John Rhys-Davies did not, as far as I know.According to IMDB, he played a hologram in 2 episodes of Voyager.He played the Hologram of Leonardo DaVinci. a fixture of a holdeck program that Janeway used for recreation and meditation. Didn't stop him from getting off the ship though. He was a recurring character for a few episodes.
It was bad.... really bad.
You're just prejudiced against holograms. I thought it was some of his best work! Not really.
You're just prejudiced against holograms.
Damned Luminescents!
LOOMIES GO HOME!
Vermin are animals in real life
Same with your animal/vermin comparison. They simply are not alike at all.Ah, I think that a lot of "vermin" should be categorized as "animal".
I automatically jumped to the train of thought that vermin = insects, arachnids and other bugs of dubious origins.
Vermin in Pathfinder are pretty much arthropods - insects, arachnids, and the like.
And Arthropods are animals in real life.
'Fools never differ.'
Where do you get off calling me a fool? Just because of the avatar? I'm hurt!
HURT!
Well, not that hurt.
:P
the reason that most level adjustments were deliberately made so absurdly high is so that nobody would be tempted to play these races that they wanted to make NPC exclusive.IF they wanted some races to remain NPC exclusive, then they would of just put a "-" in the Level Adjustment spot instead of some number(Which, in some cases, they did).
No, they really did give some critters absurdly high LAs to discourage people from playing them without just flat-out saying "don't play this".
Vampires are one such example.
I guess it's because when you just say "LA - " people will just make their own LA rating. But when you post a ridiculously high number (like +8 for vampires), people will see that there is something official, consider it too much, and stay away from the race.
Vermin are animals in real life
Same with your animal/vermin comparison. They simply are not alike at all.Ah, I think that a lot of "vermin" should be categorized as "animal".
I automatically jumped to the train of thought that vermin = insects, arachnids and other bugs of dubious origins.
Vermin in Pathfinder are pretty much arthropods - insects, arachnids, and the like.
And Arthropods are animals in real life.
Once I again I failed to express myself fully. I meant to say all mammals should be animals and arthropods should have a separate type or subtype.
I know my biology, I really do. I'm just crap at saying what I mean. ;)
So... ditch vermin type, make them all "animal" and sybtype certain ones for weird qualities like "hive minds" and such... but then again, swarm kinda covers that, doesn't it?
the reason that most level adjustments were deliberately made so absurdly high is so that nobody would be tempted to play these races that they wanted to make NPC exclusive.Not true.
If I were the swearing type, I'd swear that I read a confession in an official D&D book. But I'm too lazy to read through all my D&D books.
Why so much hate for a single trait? :PGod I HATED that. I hope they drop the idea in its entirety.That's actually the approach taken for tieflings in the Council of Thieves Player's Guide. I really hope that concept gets revisited.
Instead of level adjustments you might decide for optional races to give up one or two traits to balance them out,
Because ti was a trait that weakened a character. Who the hell would take somethign like that? I'd just as soon play a tiefling without the trait.
They are balanced as is, anyways.
If I were the swearing type, I'd swear that I read a confession in an official D&D book. But I'm too lazy to read through all my D&D books.the reason that most level adjustments were deliberately made so absurdly high is so that nobody would be tempted to play these races that they wanted to make NPC exclusive.Not true.
I wouldn't take such a confession too seriously. There are a number of factors which do go into level adjustment, and it may have crossed some designers' minds to punish players because they dislike vampires, but what carries a lot more weight is simply the fact that vampire abilities are really good, and arguably worth +8 LA.
There's only one Material Plane. The universe is big enough to hold pretty much every single campaign setting.I dunno, how do you have Earth-616, Earth-2, Earth-DCNU, Freedom City Earth, and Gamma World (never mind the variants from different editions) all orbiting Sol in the same universe? It must be very crowded, and we just haven't noticed yet. ;)
They're orbiting different suns. Don't you know that in our infinite universe, everything repeats? An exact copy of earth is a bit more than a googolplex metres away from us. I'd say that an imperfect but pretty similar world is even closer!
Why so much hate for a single trait? :P
Traitors got a trait!
John Rhys-Davies did not, as far as I know.He did not. The two actors are just a bit difficult to mistake for one another.
Yeah. The holo guy played that dwarf in that ring movie, right?
Once I again I failed to express myself fully. I meant to say all mammals should be animals and arthropods should have a separate type or subtype.
But what about everything that isn't arthropod, but isn't mammal, either? Reptiles, for example, or fish?
I know my biology, I really do. I'm just crap at saying what I mean. ;)
It's really fun to mess with your head! :P
So... ditch vermin type, make them all "animal" and sybtype certain ones for weird qualities like "hive minds" and such... but then again, swarm kinda covers that, doesn't it?
As I said before: I could go either way with this.
I'd like to wonder why most peaople have to think that every race has to have a - stat.
but then I'd need a bottle of asprin or somethinng
Let alone a literally divine race...
I'd like to wonder why most peaople have to think that every race has to have a - stat.
but then I'd need a bottle of asprin or somethinng
My question is why more races don't have multiple minuses. IMO, you should build races out of furniture and plants and stuff, you know, evolutionarily. If a race has 10 Dexterity, there needs to be a justification for why they're as quick and agile as humans.
I like the new CR adjustment rules. But, they need to be revisited and expanded/worked on with the races book, or else replaced with something else.
The work ok for Drow, but not Drow Nobles. They work great for most monsters CR 4 or less. At CR 5 they become shaky, and at 6+ CR they fall apart all over the place.
Let alone a literally divine race...I'd like to wonder why most peaople have to think that every race has to have a - stat.
but then I'd need a bottle of asprin or somethinng
Celestial, not divine. It wasn't the (good) gods who got busy with humans, but merely their angelic servants.
Jesus was NOT an Aasimar.
|
|
Because ti was a trait that weakened a character. Who the hell would take somethign like that?Why so much hate for a single trait? :PGod I HATED that. I hope they drop the idea in its entirety.That's actually the approach taken for tieflings in the Council of Thieves Player's Guide. I really hope that concept gets revisited.
Instead of level adjustments you might decide for optional races to give up one or two traits to balance them out,
Someone playing with a GM and other players that are antsy about allowing a tiefling PC as is! :)
It's just an option that opens up a lot of doors that would otherwise remain shut for a lot of characters.
|
Vermin in Pathfinder are pretty much arthropods - insects, arachnids, and the like.
And Arthropods are animals in real life.
Not just arthropods, but pretty much any kind of invertebrate with the exception of cephalopods.
Grouping animals and vermin together would work, but you'd have to replace any reference to animal with 'non-mindless animal' and vermin with 'mindless animal', similar to the undead.I can live with animals and vermin being separate types. I don't complain about fungi being classified as plants, after all.
Creative Director
|
While Vermin and Animals are pretty much identical, stat-wise, save for the fact that vermin have no Intelligence score, I agree that simply doing away with the Vermin type and rolling those things into the Animal type would have worked. But since the Vermin type mostly contains fantastic and made-up creatures like giant bugs and the like, and also in the interests of 3.5 compatibility, we elected to retain the type. This way, we preserve the fact that the Animal type is mostly made up of things that are, were, or could have been real-world creatures. The roc is the only real exception to this as far as I know... and there was a point at which we almost made rocs into magical beasts as a result. But in the end we decided not to... again, to preserve compatibility. We'd already made a fair number of changes to creatures and their types (roper and derro for example) and we wanted to keep those changes as minimal as possible overall.
This way, we preserve the fact that the Animal type is mostly made up of things that are, were, or could have been real-world creatures. The roc is the only real exception to this as far as I know... and there was a point at which we almost made rocs into magical beasts as a result. But in the end we decided not to... again, to preserve compatibility.
And my wereroc cloud giant thanks you. :-)
|
|
This way, we preserve the fact that the Animal type is mostly made up of things that are, were, or could have been real-world creatures. The roc is the only real exception to this as far as I know... and there was a point at which we almost made rocs into magical beasts as a result.
Can't speak for everyone but I for one welcome more ridonkulously huge made-up animal-type animals into the game. :)
Especially when we finally get to Castrovel or Akiton and such!
We'd already made a fair number of changes to creatures and their types (roper and derro for example) and we wanted to keep those changes as minimal as possible overall.
Thanks for those two. I didn't even know the roper wasn't an aberration until someone pointed out the change in Pathfinder.
Can't speak for everyone but I for one welcome more ridonkulously huge made-up animal-type animals into the game. :)
I've been considering writing up a set of animals of CR higher than 13 (there are currently no animals beyond this). Since there seems to be a want for them, I might get to work sooner. :D
I don't complain about fungi being classified as plants, after all.
lol, I do. At least, I complain to my group and anyone who will listen, and I houserule fungus monsters.
Creatures of the same type have similar metaphysical and evolutionary origins. This is why magic spells will often affect different creature types differently. And in combination with the first point, it's how bane weapons are created.
Creatures of the same type have similar progression when it comes to advancement, and how they get larger and more powerful, and in what directions they progress. This is why things like HD, BAB, saves, and skill points are dependent on creature type.
On all three counts, fungus works. For rangers, fungus has distinct differences from plants. Because they're monsters, there's no guarantee that immobility is a factor, and that's basically the only thing they share with plants. As far as I'm concerned, fungus monsters might as well be animals. As far as HD and progression goes, making fungus a new type opens the door to variations that might be useful to see in planty-fungusy monsters.
While Vermin and Animals are pretty much identical, stat-wise, save for the fact that vermin have no Intelligence score, I agree that simply doing away with the Vermin type and rolling those things into the Animal type would have worked.
I still think making Vermin a sub-type of Animal would have had the best of both worlds...
While Vermin and Animals are pretty much identical, stat-wise, save for the fact that vermin have no Intelligence score, I agree that simply doing away with the Vermin type and rolling those things into the Animal type would have worked.I still think making Vermin a sub-type of Animal would have had the best of both worlds...
I don't know, the mindless thing Jadeite brought up put me firmly in the "keep vermin its own type" camp.
A lot of stuff (especially druid material and some ranger abilities) are about animals. The exclusion of vermin is quite intentional here. Making vermin a subtype of animal would thus mean that you need to explicitly exclude them each time you want the "non-bug animals". Keeping them in their own type is thus more elegant in the end.
|
|
I don't know, the mindless thing Jadeite brought up put me firmly in the "keep vermin its own type" camp.
For me, that 'mindless' thing was the deciding factor in the other direction.
It seemed like every time I turned around, I was encountering trained vermin, either in adventures like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, or in stuff about Drow, or stuff about Duergar, or special feats or PrCs that could affect 'mindless' vermin with their spells or handle animal on vermin or wild empathy on vermin, and it seemed to me like a dozen exceptions had been made to play around a rule that made no sense.
The Intelligence as a nonability concept seems to require so many exceptions to get around that it's, IMO, more trouble that it's worth.
Bugs can be trained. Bugs can communicate with each other. Bugs can be scared. Bugs can craft things. Bugs can learn. Some bugs can even do math (which automatically makes them smarter than me!).
Rather than keep coming up exceptions (like Mazzmez with an Animal Domain whose mind-affecting spells affect vermin, or various vermin companion type druids), it, IMO, makes more sense to get rid of the problem rule in the first place, since it's just in the way.
Turn vermin into a subtype of animal, give them an Int score of 1 and be done with the whole exception, exception, exception business.
Yeah, I can see both sides, but if there is to be ANY difference with more Intelligent animals,
then there are going to be some `exceptions` one way or the other to reflect those differences:
either exceptions excluding Vermin from Animal type effects, or including Vermin to animal type effects.
Since the latter is less common, I can see why Paizo went for it... I guess I`d probably just like it if there were a few more exceptions (including Vermin), or stating `Animal and Vermin`.
|
|
Why doesn't anyone complain about apes being animals? They might as well be classified as humanoids with low intelligence since they are able to use tools and are close enough to humans in their shape.
In my opinion, the D&D 4 way of classifying creatures is a more elegant, but to retain backward compatibility, such changes weren't possible.
I have no problems with ahistorical animals. I'd say that some of the dire animals have never existed in that form, so it's not just the roc.
When Paizo did a 3.5 version of Dark Sun, many strange insectoid creatures were classified as animals as well.
I'd say it would be best to simply change the type of trained vermin to animal, similar how animals gain the magical beast type through awakening.
Now I'm curious. How does 4e classify creature types?
|
|
Now I'm curious. How does 4e classify creature types?
Each creature has an origin and a type.
Origins are aberrant, elemental, fey, immortal, natural and shadow.Types are animate, beast, humanoid and magical beast.
There are also subtypes, so a skeleton is a 'natural animate (undead)' and a wolf is a 'natural beast'.
Each creature has an origin and a type.
Origins are aberrant, elemental, fey, immortal, natural and shadow.
Types are animate, beast, humanoid and magical beast.
There are also subtypes, so a skeleton is a 'natural animate (undead)' and a wolf is a 'natural beast'.
That makes a lot of sense.
|
Why doesn't anyone complain about apes being animals? They might as well be classified as humanoids with low intelligence since they are able to use tools and are close enough to humans in their shape.
The problem with making apes humanoids is that you remove them from the list of available animal companions and wild shape options. I know a number of druids who like apes so they can continue to use weapons in combat.