Maybe I should make a new thread asking why people throw fits when someone post something contrary to their beliefs.
Er... the internet?
Serioudsly, somebody will always take something the wrong way. No context clues inherent in posts. I always try to take that into account.
In other news, I was wrong. Rare, I know. Right after going to bed I thought "spell resistance, Golem, scr3wed the pooch". There is no way I was getting up to fix that then though (my thought was about that coherant). Thank you for, politely, pointing out my error. All of you. Seriosly, politeness is underated and just another reason I, mostly, like and enjoy these boards. So substitute "automaton" for Golem and criticize away :) I'm off to take my son to drivers ed. I'll be back with a pile of grading and prep work later...
How does this example have anything to do with anything? When would this happen? The GM you've presented in your post is a complete caricature that doesn't actually exist.
Why would a GM with a noted dislike of Eastern Character classes and themes run an AP jam packed with them like Jade Regent? Why does this have anything to do with the post you quoted?
This thread is so thick with irony you could choke on it.
He is indeed a caricature. Although, save the irony of running Jade Regent in particular, he is acting much the way many in this thread claim a GM, not only can, but should act. And anyone who dares question that is trying to ruin everybody's (read, his) fun.
However that said the point of the caricature was to contrast it to 'obviousness' of an earlier statement. Which itself has origins in a post about a hypothetical caricature of a random player who might try playing a gunslinger in a stone age setting.
I also like to think it made a point about knowing what to expect in a campaign. The post it responded to made it seem like being caught flatfooted as it where by a random class banning was next to impossible, and anyone so much as mentioning it is clearly an idiot. So it points out a scenario where someone sets a game in Golarion, then gets upset when people bring Ninja and Gunslingers to the game. Features that the Golarion campaign setting has.
[...] So it points out a scenario where someone sets a game in Golarion, then gets upset when people bring Ninja and Gunslingers to the game. Features that the Golarion campaign setting has.
What if the GM did inform the players beforehand that in his Golarion, Alkenstar doesn't exist, and contact with Tian-Xia was even more rare than it is now? Maybe the AP serves as a way to discover that there is another continent on the other side of the world?
In my Golarion, for example, there are no Vikings (the whole people does not exist). If you want to play a northern raider (without the trappings of Viking culture), you have to play a Goliath (or non-psionic Half-Giant; haven't decided yet).
Also, elves are a psionic race, and see magic as something extremely dangerous and untrustworthy. Elven wizard? Would have to be a forlorn, and would not interact well with non-forlorn elves. Those from the Mordant Spire would probably try to kill that wizard, as it is an abomination to them.
Yes, you can theoretically adapt anything, flavor-wise. But if you have to take a crowbar to do it (the outsider-from-another-dimension thing would be the equivalent of a nuclear warhead going off), then maybe it's not worth it.
The flexibility you ask from the GM is not a one-way street. I'd expect the same flexibility from you as a player when I tell you, no, you can't play that particular character, please change it so that it fits, or come up with different one.
I can't remember a single post where someone said characters with concepts that don't fit the world should be played.
I've seen several people argue against that point as if someone had made it, but I have yet to see someone actually make that point.
[...] So it points out a scenario where someone sets a game in Golarion, then gets upset when people bring Ninja and Gunslingers to the game. Features that the Golarion campaign setting has.
What if the GM did inform the players beforehand that in his Golarion, Alkenstar doesn't exist, and contact with Tian-Xia was even more rare than it is now? Maybe the AP serves as a way to discover that there is another continent on the other side of the world?
In my Golarion, for example, there are no Vikings (the whole people does not exist). If you want to play a northern raider (without the trappings of Viking culture), you have to play a Goliath (or non-psionic Half-Giant; haven't decided yet).
Also, elves are a psionic race, and see magic as something extremely dangerous and untrustworthy. Elven wizard? Would have to be a forlorn, and would not interact well with non-forlorn elves. Those from the Mordant Spire would probably try to kill that wizard, as it is an abomination to them.
Yes, you can theoretically adapt anything, flavor-wise. But if you have to take a crowbar to do it (the outsider-from-another-dimension thing would be the equivalent of a nuclear warhead going off), then maybe it's not worth it.
The flexibility you ask from the GM is not a one-way street. I'd expect the same flexibility from you as a player when I tell you, no, you can't play that particular character, please change it so that it fits, or come up with different one.
What if, What if, What if.
Okay, I'll play your game you rogue. What if that happens?
Although I also have fun thinking of this hypothetical conversation.
Player, "Uh.. GM, did you eliminate Alkenstar just because you don't like guns?"
GM, "What? No! Nothing like that! They just don't fit in this world!."
Player, "But that seems to be the only change..."
I can't remember a single post where someone said characters with concepts that don't fit the world should be played.I've seen several people argue against that point as if someone had made it, but I have yet to see someone actually make that point.
What is going is that my very narrow opening statement is being read as a much more broad statement of "players should be allowed to do whatever they want and any GM who does not allow them to do so is a bad GM". In other words people are reading into it and making assumptions, instead of just reading it. That is why they are making arguments against a position that is not even being argued for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's approach this from another angle. Let's say I have a character concept. I want to make a character with a little bit of inherent magic, but not enough to make him a sorcerer. Let's also say he used these powers and some cunning to make himself a better combatant than those stronger and larger than him.
Alright, now what do I want out of this? Sneak Attack is good, as it fits the oppurtunistic idea of his character. I reject vivisectionist out of hand, as the alchemist abilities don't fit the idea, and anyway, rogue is the obvious first choice.
So I look at rogue, and realize that the only real way to get built in magic as a rogue is the minor/major magic rogue talents, which are very limited, and even worse run off of intelligence instead of charisma, which doesn't fit the idea of a weak sorcerer.
True, you could go for a sorcerer/rogue multiclass, but that's awkward, and has some weird side effects (taking a bloodline even though you only have a trace of magical power, for example.)
So instead, I go for the ninja, and voila! Magic(ish) powers based off charisma, sneak attack, poison, all in one easy class! I have created a completely non-"eastern" character using an "eastern" class.
Would you bar this character from a game with no ninjas, and why?
EDIT: Oh, and just to cover my bases, this character uses daggers, wears studded leather armor, speaks common and dwarven, and comes from the largest human town/city/settlement in this theoretical setting.
"Admiralackbar.exe has already launched. Are you sure you want to start another session?"
You can find this in the "Getting Started" section of the PRD. It is a pretty old school rule from as far back as I can remember that has went through a lot of minor revisions. Thankfully, Pathfinder kept it around. Relevance should be pretty obvious.
You can find this in the "Getting Started" section of the PRD. It is a pretty old school rule from as far back as I can remember that has went through a lot of minor revisions. Thankfully, Pathfinder kept it around. Relevance should be pretty obvious.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't recall anyone disputing this. Perhaps I missed a post?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't recall anyone disputing this. Perhaps I missed a post?You can find this in the "Getting Started" section of the PRD. It is a pretty old school rule from as far back as I can remember that has went through a lot of minor revisions. Thankfully, Pathfinder kept it around. Relevance should be pretty obvious.
** spoiler omitted **
The part where you openly mock anyone making slight modification to the Golarion setting based on their personal preference. I hope you realize the setting is built to be modular so that it appeals to wider player base and can be sectioned out as necessary per a parties taste, in all other applications than pathfinder society.
It's not canonical sure, but that hardly matter because neither is your home based party even if you use "all the rules". If Karzog triumphs over your particular party for whatever reason it doesn't mean he's not dead in the lore. By definition a group is going to be heading off canon I don't see what the issue is as long as everything, "controversial" is discussed up front. If your PCs rule the Stolen Lands it doesn't mean they do in the lore.
Here's a quote from the Beginner box Transitions Document:
Once you’re familiar with the rules in the Core Rulebook, you may want to try using some of the Advanced Player’s Guide classes in your campaign. Like most of the rules in the Pathfinder RPG, you can use the rules you like and ignore what you don’t. For example, if you really like the alchemist class in the Advanced Player’s Guide but not the cavalier class, it’s okay to use alchemists but not cavaliers!
Thanks for some fun reading guys. Can't wait to see where you take this thread next.
I don't recall anyone disputing this. Perhaps I missed a post?You can find this in the "Getting Started" section of the PRD. It is a pretty old school rule from as far back as I can remember that has went through a lot of minor revisions. Thankfully, Pathfinder kept it around. Relevance should be pretty obvious.
** spoiler omitted **
The part where you openly mock anyone making slight modification to the Golarion setting based on their personal preference. I hope you realize the setting is built to be modular so that it appeals to wider player base and can be sectioned out as necessary per a parties taste, in all other applications than pathfinder society.
It's not canonical sure, but that hardly matter because neither is your home based party even if you use "all the rules". If Karzog triumphs over your particular party for whatever reason it doesn't mean he's not dead in the lore. By definition a group is going to be heading off canon I don't see what the issue is as long as everything, "controversial" is discussed up front. If your PCs rule the Stolen Lands it doesn't mean they do in the lore.
Here's a quote from the Beginner box Transitions Document:
Once you’re familiar with the rules in the Core Rulebook, you may want to try using some of the Advanced Player’s Guide classes in your campaign. Like most of the rules in the Pathfinder RPG, you can use the rules you like and ignore what you don’t. For example, if you really like the alchemist class in the Advanced Player’s Guide but not the cavalier class, it’s okay to use alchemists but not cavaliers!
How DARE I openly mock hypothetical GM # 004 ! I mean the NERVE of me!
However, that would also mean you'd have to ban anything that uses any kind of points system, as well as arguably barbarians and sorcerers. (Rage rounds and spell slots are similar enough to points to draw a parallel, at least in my mind.)
You equate rage rounds and Ki points as roughly the same thing? That's the same sell 4E tried to make. Make everything the same mechanic because it was already mostly that anyways. I didn't buy it then either.
It seems to me that players are expecting a DM to bend over backwards for them but aren't willing to do the same things themselves.
This is going to sound very rude, but you do not understand what is being discussed in this thread. Please read it, or if you have, read it again and pay close attention to what the "don't ban for default flavor" group is saying.
...The part where you openly mock anyone making slight modification to the Golarion setting based on their personal preference...
I am sure this is going on. Otherwise so many post saying "don't tell others how to run games" would not be made. People are trying to read between the lines when there is nothing between the lines.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to sound very rude, but you do not understand what is being discussed in this thread. Please read it, or if you have, read it again and pay close attention to what the "don't ban for default flavor" group is saying.
...The part where you openly mock anyone making slight modification to the Golarion setting based on their personal preference...
I understand completely, it's not exactly complicated... Yes a Gunslinger could be played entirely with crossbows with some slight house rules. Yes your ninja could be a rambunctious Taldane with no sense of honor other than the next big score. The point is to, "some" people who are familiar with those classes they would still feeeel like their progenitors and that might be, "enough" for, "some" people to decide they don't want them in their campaign.
Regardless it's a moot point because the "I'm going to limit my table!" people and the "What? You limit your table!" people obviously have some disagreements. So the perfect solution already exists, don't play with them. Now that we've reached that remarkable conclusion, get ready for the real banger! If you don't play with those people, then why in gods name do you care what they do with the setting and classes.
Not saying they're the same, saying they're both inner sources of power you draw on to produce effects. Am I wrong?
First off, I edited my post with another sentence before I saw your response but after you had already quoted it. That wasn't deliberate.
In my own opinion only, yes you're wrong. I base that on that I see no mechanical or fluff equality between the barbarian and sorcerer for such a comparison to be valid. A fighter's courage ability could be said to be an "inner source of power" but unless you're going the 4E route, I just don't see the validity of the comparison.
Regardless it's a moot point because the "I'm going to limit my table!" people and the "What? You limit your table!" people obviously have some disagreements.
It would be nice if you stopped misrepresenting people and simplifying arguments. That is dishonest.
So the perfect solution already exists, don't play with them. Now that we've reached that remarkable conclusion, get ready for the real banger! If you don't play with those people, then why in gods name do you care what they do with the setting and classes.
I explained that already, more than once. Why in god's name do you like to skip posts, and still try to make arguments in a thread without gathering the facts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's approach this from another angle. Let's say I have a character concept. I want to make a character with a little bit of inherent magic, but not enough to make him a sorcerer. Let's also say he used these powers and some cunning to make himself a better combatant than those stronger and larger than him.
Alright, now what do I want out of this? Sneak Attack is good, as it fits the oppurtunistic idea of his character. I reject vivisectionist out of hand, as the alchemist abilities don't fit the idea, and anyway, rogue is the obvious first choice.
So I look at rogue, and realize that the only real way to get built in magic as a rogue is the minor/major magic rogue talents, which are very limited, and even worse run off of intelligence instead of charisma, which doesn't fit the idea of a weak sorcerer.
True, you could go for a sorcerer/rogue multiclass, but that's awkward, and has some weird side effects (taking a bloodline even though you only have a trace of magical power, for example.)
So instead, I go for the ninja, and voila! Magic(ish) powers based off charisma, sneak attack, poison, all in one easy class! I have created a completely non-"eastern" character using an "eastern" class.
Would you bar this character from a game with no ninjas, and why?
EDIT: Oh, and just to cover my bases, this character uses daggers, wears studded leather armor, speaks common and dwarven, and comes from the largest human town/city/settlement in this theoretical setting.
"Admiralackbar.exe has already launched. Are you sure you want to start another session?"
See, I see this example as rubbish. In your excuse for not multiclassing and then the problems with minor magic (and you describe yourself as a sorcerer). Your problem can easily be fixed with magic items and UMD (which is a class skill for rogues), but if you don't want to go down that route, you don't even need to multiclass, that's what Eldritch Heritage is for.
The real reason people want ninja instead of rogue isn't because of fluff, it's because the class was just built better. Traps are hardly used, and when they are, they are hardly an encounter. When people want to be sneaky of course they would rather have poison and better stealth than the trap finding ability which can easily be handed off to other classes with archetypes (the ranger trap finder is better suited to this than the rogue)
The ki pool that a rogue gets is based on Wisdom which isn't very important to rogues. Flavor-wise, how often do you hear someone who wants to play the "wise" rogue? The ki-pool that the rogues get is half as effective: obtained way later (advancedcit's smaller (no bonus for level), no extra attack for just having ki, and half the speed for the expense of a ki point that ninjas get, for some reason being a ninja makes you better. The ninja on the other hand, which gave up evasion for the ki-pool can get it unhindered with an advanced talent (which is worth it when you realize just how little traps come up and affect adventurers in a actual pathfinder game). This is the biggest offender, the reason people really love or hate the class.
The ninja tricks, which one can use are stupid awesome and mimic the effects of 1st-level spells. This makes minor / major magic pale in comparison when you realize that you can cast any of these as long as you have ki points to burn. Finally, the master ninja tricks which the rogues are completely cutoff from are even able to mimic abilities from other classes such as assassination from the assassin class and unarmed damage as a monk, they have bombs that blind, they can walk through walls and walk on air.
If they didn't kick ki in the balls before handing it to the rogues and limit the master ninja tricks to the ninja, there probably wouldn't be as big of a reaction that caused such a huge split between players who wanted to play a clearly superior supernatural ninja and GMs who don't want that "asian fanboy smut" of a class that sticks the rogue in the shadow in a figuratively.
If you don't play with those people, then why in gods name do you care what they do with the setting and classes.
For me, and I'm pretty sure for wraithstrike as well, it's academic.
It's a discussion of thoughts and ideas as well as back and forth banter to invoke more ideas. I've learned some reasons to ban certain classes (some I feel are valid, others not), and I have hopefully given other GMs and players ideas on how to alter class flavor to use a mechanic that normally would not be used because of a ban.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players should just read the scripts their GMs hand them, then all these problems would be avoided.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember a player complaining on an imageboard about how she wanted to play a rogue with form-fitting leather armor that covered everything but her face. That went over okay for the most part, but then she mentioned that she'd like to have a soft covering to pull up over her mouth and nose while on the job. GM instantly threw an "ew anime/Asian/ninja KEEP THAT OUT" fit because of the player's practical and aesthetic choice. She was a cat burglar-y knife and rapier weilder.
Some people see their personal bogeymen everywhere imaginable. Kinda like seeing Satanism in everything like Harry Potter, all music ever made, and RPGs.
Sorcerer's a little iffier, yes, due to the different spell levels. But you really don't see a parallel between Ki points and rage rounds?
Except for the fact that they're both a control mechanism (as most class ability limiter effects are), no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't play with those people, then why in gods name do you care what they do with the setting and classes.For me, and I'm pretty sure for wraithstrike as well, it's academic.
It's a discussion of thoughts and ideas as well as back and forth banter to invoke more ideas. I've learned some reasons to ban certain classes (some I feel are valid, others not), and I have hopefully given other GMs and players ideas on how to alter class flavor to use a mechanic that normally would not be used because of a ban.
As a just starting out GM and experienced player I learn far more from these types of forums then I do playing. So I hope this continues in as friendly way as possible. I know it sucks to have people "attack" your ideals but, thats what makes them stronger ideals or they fall away as silly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players should just read the scripts their GMs hand them, then all these problems would be avoided.
GMs should talk with their players in a group setting prior to starting the campaign to determine a game that can work well with everyone, instead of just dictating what shall be.
This is a group game, not a "I am in charge and you should all feel lucky to be in my presence and sit at my table" game.
I remember a player complaining on an imageboard about how she wanted to play a rogue with form-fitting leather armor that covered everything but her face. That went over okay for the most part, but then she mentioned that she'd like to have a soft covering to pull up over her mouth and nose while on the job. GM instantly threw an "ew anime/Asian/ninja KEEP THAT OUT" fit because of the player's practical and aesthetic choice. She was a cat burglar-y knife user.
Some people see their personal bogeymen everywhere imaginable. Kinda like seeing Satanism in everything like Harry Potter, all music ever made, and RPGs.
it's actually a choice that anyone who didn't want to be discovered would make. not just ninja. but my rogues frequently work black kimonos (think Enma Ai) and had lots of pockets on the inside of the sleeves. people complained that she wore a kimono, though it was a practical choice made to conceal her daggers and other small tools.
Except for the fact that they're both a control mechanism (as most class ability limiter effects are), no.
Sorcerer's a little iffier, yes, due to the different spell levels. But you really don't see a parallel between Ki points and rage rounds?
Well, let's compare:
Ki Points - as you level, you have a set amount of points that you can spend in order to perform special actions. You can spend multiple points at once in order to use more powerful abilities. You don't have to use them all at once, and they reset every day.
Rage Rounds - as you level, you have a set amount of rage rounds that you can spend in order to perform special actions. You can use rage rounds consecutively in order to keep your special actions going. You don't have to use all of them in one sitting, and they reset every day.
If you ask for a reason, it is given and you can't wrap your mind around it... Sorry, not the fault of the guy who answered if you just can't understand/accept a concept.
|
|
It would be nice if you stopped misrepresenting people and simplifying arguments. That is dishonest.
Regardless it's a moot point because the "I'm going to limit my table!" people and the "What? You limit your table!" people obviously have some disagreements.
It would be nice if you'd stop being condescending in every post you made too, but it's not going to happen so I'll live.
So the perfect solution already exists, don't play with them. Now that we've reached that remarkable conclusion, get ready for the real banger! If you don't play with those people, then why in gods name do you care what they do with the setting and classes.I explained that already, more than once. Why in god's name do you like to skip posts, and still try to make arguments in a thread without gathering the facts?
Maybe you're missing this, but there are actually multiple trains of discussion occurring in this thread you've created not just the original. "Why ban for flavor?"
I wasn't directly addressing anything you had actually said. Just noting how others have stated that cutting out sections of Gloarion is a bad thing to do. Which to me seems odd because, as I understand it, that was part of the intent when Paizo created such a, "kitchen sink" setting. You're supposed to be able to pull out the parts you don't like if you want to.
Just like when a GM lets their players pull out the parts they don't like. When they say that their Chelaxian Dandy who has never been to Tian-Xia and has never been mentored by anyone from there has ninja training and is knowledgeable with eastern weapons. As far as I'm concerned in Golarion that's house-ruling just as hard as someone who wants to say a Alkenstar doesn't exist any more.
I like using a Longsword with most of my one handed martial characters, a Scimitar is mechanically better yes, but that doesn't mean I use a Scimitar and then say it looks like and functions like a longsword while at the table. Flavor and rules are intrinsically tied, when I hit someone with a double edged bladed weapon about three and a half feet in length they expect 1d8 (19-20/x2). Rules and stat-blocks are part of the feel of the game. Otherwise we could all just sit around and play story time and all fighters could fly as a class ability by using the power of their "imagination". Is that the answer you wanted?
When people ban for feel they "are" banning for mechanics because the mechanics of the class are what give them their feel.
That's my opinion, probably not worth much, on the original question anyways; since you seemed so concerned that I hadn't properly addressed it.
Chelexian Ninja do exist, they just don't call them ninja. they call them Hellstalkers. they are a cousin branch to the hellknights and focus on gathering intelligence and collecting evidence. they share the same mechanics as a pathfinder ninja. yes, they are proficient with the weapons of the east, but only due to a similarity they share with the weapons of a hellstalker. throwing knives (shurikens), Bezekira fangs (Wakazashi) and Chelexian curved Quickdraw Sabres (Katana). Bezekira fangs are a name for a curved sword used by the hellstalkers due to the fact that they are wielded in pairs, and their fighting style represents the hellcat.
|
|
Chelexian Ninja do exist, they just don't call them ninja. they call them Hellstalkers. they are a cousin branch to the hellknights and focus on gathering intelligence and collecting evidence. they share the same mechanics as a pathfinder ninja. yes, they are proficient with the weapons of the east, but only due to a similarity they share with the weapons of a hellstalker. throwing knives (shurikens), Bezekira fangs (Wakazashi) and Curved Quickdraw Sabres (Katana). Bezekira fangs are a name for a curved sword used by the hellstalkers due to the fact that they are wielded in pairs, and their fighting style represents the hellcat.
What Pathfinder source book is that from I haven't read it and can't find reference to it in UC, ISWG or Cheliax Empire of Devils.
Chelexian Ninja do exist, they just don't call them ninja. they call them Hellstalkers. they are a cousin branch to the hellknights and focus on gathering intelligence and collecting evidence. they share the same mechanics as a pathfinder ninja. yes, they are proficient with the weapons of the east, but only due to a similarity they share with the weapons of a hellstalker. throwing knives (shurikens), Bezekira fangs (Wakazashi) and Curved Quickdraw Sabres (Katana). Bezekira fangs are a name for a curved sword used by the hellstalkers due to the fact that they are wielded in pairs, and their fighting style represents the hellcat.What Pathfinder source book is that from I haven't read it and can't find reference to it in UC, ISWG or Cheliax Empire of Devils.
it was merely whipped together to justify Chelexian ninja. the katana was the hardest one. ninja wasn't old enough to be mentioned in ISWG or Cheliax, Empire of Devils, and UC tries to be setting neutral.
|
|
it was merely whipped together to justify Chelexian ninja. the katana was the hardest one.Chelexian Ninja do exist, they just don't call them ninja. they call them Hellstalkers. they are a cousin branch to the hellknights and focus on gathering intelligence and collecting evidence. they share the same mechanics as a pathfinder ninja. yes, they are proficient with the weapons of the east, but only due to a similarity they share with the weapons of a hellstalker. throwing knives (shurikens), Bezekira fangs (Wakazashi) and Curved Quickdraw Sabres (Katana). Bezekira fangs are a name for a curved sword used by the hellstalkers due to the fact that they are wielded in pairs, and their fighting style represents the hellcat.What Pathfinder source book is that from I haven't read it and can't find reference to it in UC, ISWG or Cheliax Empire of Devils.
Yes that's totally fine, my argument isn't that you "can't" do that it's just that not everyone wants to do that, or likes the results.
ninja wasn't old enough to be mentioned in ISWG or Cheliax, Empire of Devils, and UC tries to be setting neutral.
True in a some sense, but all the weapon additions are listed as, "eastern" for a reason and the proficiency and class abilities are very heavily influenced from that flavor. Just because the classes are setting neutral for the rules doesn't mean they're setting neutral for Golarion, though by the same token it doesn't mean they're not, it's your choice for your game. Though I am very skeptical that you'll ever see any canonical Inner Sea based ninja's that can't tie their roots to Tian Xia.
it was merely whipped together to justify Chelexian ninja. the katana was the hardest one.Chelexian Ninja do exist, they just don't call them ninja. they call them Hellstalkers. they are a cousin branch to the hellknights and focus on gathering intelligence and collecting evidence. they share the same mechanics as a pathfinder ninja. yes, they are proficient with the weapons of the east, but only due to a similarity they share with the weapons of a hellstalker. throwing knives (shurikens), Bezekira fangs (Wakazashi) and Curved Quickdraw Sabres (Katana). Bezekira fangs are a name for a curved sword used by the hellstalkers due to the fact that they are wielded in pairs, and their fighting style represents the hellcat.What Pathfinder source book is that from I haven't read it and can't find reference to it in UC, ISWG or Cheliax Empire of Devils.Yes that's totally fine, my argument isn't that you "can't" do that it's just that not everyone wants to do that, or likes the results.
would you be fine with it?
|
|
would you be fine with it?it was merely whipped together to justify Chelexian ninja. the katana was the hardest one.Chelexian Ninja do exist, they just don't call them ninja. they call them Hellstalkers. they are a cousin branch to the hellknights and focus on gathering intelligence and collecting evidence. they share the same mechanics as a pathfinder ninja. yes, they are proficient with the weapons of the east, but only due to a similarity they share with the weapons of a hellstalker. throwing knives (shurikens), Bezekira fangs (Wakazashi) and Curved Quickdraw Sabres (Katana). Bezekira fangs are a name for a curved sword used by the hellstalkers due to the fact that they are wielded in pairs, and their fighting style represents the hellcat.What Pathfinder source book is that from I haven't read it and can't find reference to it in UC, ISWG or Cheliax Empire of Devils.Yes that's totally fine, my argument isn't that you "can't" do that it's just that not everyone wants to do that, or likes the results.
Yes, it's a kitchen sink setting if I can accept the giant spider robot from Wild Wild West existing in Numeria I can accept some white ass ninjas.
I'm going to point out that the modern world has ninjas, we just call them "spies" or "special operatives", but they all serve the same purposes.
|
|
I'm going to point out that the modern world has ninjas, we just call them "spies" or "special operatives", but they all serve the same purposes.
By the same token you could call an Abrams a Cannon Golem, or a Howitzer a Catapult. Just because they serve similar functions doesn't mean they evoke a similar feel.
If you don't play with those people, then why in gods name do you care what they do with the setting and classes.For me, and I'm pretty sure for wraithstrike as well, it's academic.
It's a discussion of thoughts and ideas as well as back and forth banter to invoke more ideas. I've learned some reasons to ban certain classes (some I feel are valid, others not), and I have hopefully given other GMs and players ideas on how to alter class flavor to use a mechanic that normally would not be used because of a ban.
+1. I just wanted to hear some opinions and maybe get a different perspective. People ask why I do things. I don't get upset or defensive. They disagree with me and that is fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to point out that the modern world has ninjas, we just call them "spies" or "special operatives", but they all serve the same purposes.By the same token you could call an Abrams a Cannon Golem, or a Howitzer a Catapult. Just because they serve similar functions doesn't mean they evoke a similar feel.
Pretty sure renaissance Italy had some pretty secretive people who poisoned people and snuck around. Stabbings in dark alleys, etc.
If a person can use the magic in their blood to change the world around them, people with ki powers are not outrageous.
Middle-eastern assassins could easily just get their powers from the drugs they smoke. Still pretty much the same class in a magical setting.