Dont forget only elves can stab with arrows.
Enjoyable fluff has made me buy various RPG books for about fifteen years though I hadn't played an RPG since the sixth grade.
Does that count as Important? ^_^
I think that Toaster was making what we in gaming parlance call a "joke".Dont forget only elves can stab with arrows.Kinda makes me wonder, in all seriousness and respect, what the thought process was that led the game designer to those kinds of decisions.
I refuse to believe it was something as silly as "well, elves are good with bows".
Sadly...no.
I think that Toaster was making what we in gaming parlance call a "joke".Dont forget only elves can stab with arrows.Kinda makes me wonder, in all seriousness and respect, what the thought process was that led the game designer to those kinds of decisions.
I refuse to believe it was something as silly as "well, elves are good with bows".
Sadly...no.
Well that feat text is a nightmare. Was that last sentence even necessary? Maybe elves have special arrow stabbing wrist I don't know about... I can't find the part that says elf outside of the requirements though. Or mentions pointy ears even. Are you sure it isn't a joke? A bad one?
No...it isnt...
No...it isnt...
Well... That's sad.
Should I start making a list of racial feats that don't have anything to do with your race and post them on the general discussion to discuss? Here's another good one for archers. At least this one adds the word elven?
You know, when they printed the core book, they did do away with some racial preferences.
The Arcane Archer used to be restricted to elves and half-elves. The Stalwart Defender was the Dwarven Defender in 3.5.
It's curious that after breaking racial barriers, they would turn around and build them back up again.
It's curious that after breaking racial barriers, they would turn around and build them back up again.
They also reinforced them by not allowing/creating subraces with different stat bonus/malus. At the moment only tiefling, assimar, and dhampir gain that benefit, and they have a limited selection. Not a big fan of needless racial restrictions myself.
It's curious that after breaking racial barriers, they would turn around and build them back up again.They also reinforced them by not allowing/creating subraces with different stat bonus/malus. At the moment only tiefling, assimar, and dhampir gain that benefit, and they have a limited selection. Not a big fan of needless racial restrictions myself.
You mean like Deep Gnomes or Sun Elves? I've never seen races like that outside a campaign setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what happens when you hire game designers who wrote the books that wrecked the game your game is replacing.
Well that's certainly confusing. Next thing you know we'll get FAQs and Errata based on personal opinion rather than doing what's best for the game, or people will use "well you can houserule it!" as an excuse for flaws... Crap!
Not sure if that's how I'd put it though, but I'm not keeping a track record atm.
No...it isnt...Well... That's sad.
Should I start making a list of racial feats that don't have anything to do with your race and post them on the general discussion to discuss? Here's another good one for archers. At least this one adds the word elven?
Yeah, that one has no business being racial, either.
You mean like Deep Gnomes or Sun Elves? I've never seen races like that outside a campaign setting.
Starting with monster manual there were quiet a few subraces, not just campaign settings. Personally I'd rather see more choice from the player as to what +/-'s you get. Mind you most of those races were just a different set of +/-. Could probably just skip most of the text and give players free reign out of the +/- and you wouldn't have to waste space on what +/- a race deserves.
Yeah, that one has no business being racial, either.
Channel Force and its line is another. I'm sure that list could keep going.
You seriously think that making Stabbing Shot an Elf only feat isn't the game designers' personal opinion as to what's best for the game?
Erm... If I understand the question correctly, no, I don't think that's their opinion.
You seriously think that making Stabbing Shot an Elf only feat isn't the game designers' personal opinion as to what's best for the game?No...it isnt...Well... That's sad.
Should I start making a list of racial feats that don't have anything to do with your race and post them on the general discussion to discuss? Here's another good one for archers. At least this one adds the word elven?
It may well be. That doesn't mean they're right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if they didn't believe making stabbing shot an elf only feat was best for the game, why'd they do it? I mean, what's your best guess to that question?You seriously think that making Stabbing Shot an Elf only feat isn't the game designers' personal opinion as to what's best for the game?Erm... If I understand the question correctly, no, I don't think that's their opinion.
They like f#%+ing with people?
I mean, what's your best guess to that question?
Asking questions like that is a pretty dangerous slope. I can't see into the minds of the developers, nor rewind time to see a decision, nor watch an editor, nor a committee, or witness any of the events that happened. So anything I state is purely my opinion here. My best guess? Someone thought It was cool. Likely it was part of a series of ideas for something Elvish that got bundled together, but some of which weren't quiet entirely elven. Sometimes I see the excuse "well you can just houserule it!" used as a legit excuse, but I have trouble swallowing that myself because it does more good than harm. That goes into personal opinion further mind you.
Starting with monster manual there were quiet a few subraces, not just campaign settings. Personally I'd rather see more choice from the player as to what +/-'s you get. Mind you most of those races were just a different set of +/-. Could probably just skip most of the text and give players free reign out of the +/- and you wouldn't have to waste space on what +/- a race deserves.
I'm not familiar. We almost always stuck to core.
I do agree with the premise of "these are your choices, make a choice". Part of why I like the ARG for core races.
For instance, if there was some awesome fluffy combat feat (there's not) that suggested that Tian Xia two handers utilized this style blah blah, I would be disinclined to simply allow my asianfantasy-hating player take it without forcing him to go to Tian Xia and learn it.There is an awesome fluffy feat for improved weapon finesse. We call it Dervish Dance. Can you explain further what you mean here?
I don't actually see the fluff on Dervish Dance. It says "You have learned to turn your speed into power, even with a heavier blade." It doesn't seem to be a regional feat or anything like that. Assuming someone wanted it, I don't see the issue.
But take the tetsubo. I'm unlikely to allow a player to 'reskin' his ordinary greatclub into a tetsubo...it's likely that he's going to have to wield a Tian weapon if he wants 1d10 x4 damage.
But take the tetsubo. I'm unlikely to allow a player to 'reskin' his ordinary greatclub into a tetsubo...it's likely that he's going to have to wield a Tian weapon if he wants 1d10 x4 damage.
I'm not sure you know what a reskin is.
If your player wanted to reskin a greatclub as a tetsubo, that means he wants greatclub stats with tetsubo appearance.
So, 1d10/x2, but it looks like a tetsubo.
Likewise, one could reskin a tetsubo as a greatclub and have it work the opposite way (is 1d10/x4, looks like a club).
What's the issue? As long as it's mechanically the same (same cost, same stats, same weight, etc.) what does it matter what it looks like, within reason? Why not allow it?
Fluff
But take the tetsubo. I'm unlikely to allow a player to 'reskin' his ordinary greatclub into a tetsubo...it's likely that he's going to have to wield a Tian weapon if he wants 1d10 x4 damage.
I'm not sure you know what a reskin is.
If your player wanted to reskin a greatclub as a tetsubo, that means he wants greatclub stats with tetsubo appearance.
So, 1d10/x2, but it looks like a tetsubo.
Likewise, one could reskin a tetsubo as a greatclub and have it work the opposite way (is 1d10/x4, looks like a club).
What's the issue? As long as it's mechanically the same (same cost, same stats, same weight, etc.) what does it matter what it looks like, within reason? Why not allow it?
No more or less reason than I originally stated back on page 3 or whatever. Fluff. Some fluff I care about, some fluff I don't. And it's pretty case by case situational.
Also, what is with the condescending 'you don't know what a reskin is'? I know what a reskin is, whether or not I utilized your preferred order of operations.
Dont forget only elves can stab with arrows.Kinda makes me wonder, in all seriousness and respect, what the thought process was that led the game designer to those kinds of decisions.
I refuse to believe it was something as silly as "well, elves are good with bows".
It seems to me they're trying not to make elves 'pointy-eared humans with different stat modifiers'.
That's why I like feats like this.
Also, what is with the condescending 'you don't know what a reskin is'? I know what a reskin is, whether or not I utilized your preferred order of operations.
Not condescending, just a statement of fact.
If a reskin has different stats from the base item, it is not a reskin.
You said (or implied) that if the greatclub were reskinned to a tetsubo, it would have tetsubo stats.
That is not a reskin.
Ergo, I assumed you were mistaken.
:roll: You clearly don't know what Pathfinder is.
So, give them traits which extend from their elven features (such as lack of sleep or long life). Don't assert that no other race has figured out how to do a simple combat archery technique.Dont forget only elves can stab with arrows.Kinda makes me wonder, in all seriousness and respect, what the thought process was that led the game designer to those kinds of decisions.
I refuse to believe it was something as silly as "well, elves are good with bows".
It seems to me they're trying not to make elves 'pointy-eared humans with different stat modifiers'.
That's why I like feats like this.
Sorry, was your question "what were they thinking?" Or "why doesn't everyone think like me?"
FWIW, I don't think restricting some options from players is asserting that nobody in the world can take that option. (You can't play a demon either - they exist though).
Monks being lawful is unnecessary fluff. Maybe in some campaign settings they are. But, I can easily conceptualize Taoists with all the powers of monks, but being chaotic.It could be that the OP started this thread with the intent to get on a soapbox about totally decoupling the game mechanics from anything he would classify as "fluff" which apparantly includes alignment requirements for monks.So, if they didn't believe making stabbing shot an elf only feat was best for the game, why'd they do it? I mean, what's your best guess to that question?What does this have to do with how attached people are to the fluff?
All flavour material is unnecessary. That doesn't make it undesirable.
It could be that the OP started this thread with the intent to get on a soapbox about totally decoupling the game mechanics from anything he would classify as "fluff" which apparantly includes alignment requirements for monks.
It should be noted that the OP is Lord Pendragon. I did a brief search of his posts and to the best of my knowledge he has never expressed an opinion on monk alignments.
If you're referring to me I'd like to note that I didn't start this thread. I believe that should dismantle your soap box theory quite nicely.As for my personal take on monks, yes - I do think monks being lawful only is an artificial and unnecessary limitation on monks. We had a fairly long thread on the topic a while ago so I'd rather not go into great detail, if you want to discuss that I suggest you post in the other thread.
I'd also like to note that the monk alignment thread was originally posted in the Rules Questions forum (but was moved by an forum admin), and my original post in that thread specifically asked about mechanical repercussions of ignoring the alignment restriction because I didn't want to get into a big alignment debate...
Sorry, was your question "what were they thinking?" Or "why doesn't everyone think like me?"I asked a question and you replied with an ad hominem. I wonder what's making you feel defensive.
1. "So, give them traits which extend from their elven features (such as lack of sleep or long life). Don't assert that no other race has figured out how to do a simple combat archery technique." Is not a question.
2. I didn't reply with an ad hominem argument at all.
3. I'm not defensive - we're not talking about my game design at all, how could I be?
Other than that....spot on.
That doesn't make it undesirable.Desirable or not should be in the hands of the GM.
Yeah. The DM can allow chaotic monks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. The DM can allow chaotic monks.That doesn't make it undesirable.Desirable or not should be in the hands of the GM.
The problem with houserules is that they're not universal.
You kinda have to look at it through the lens of "Is it detrimental to the game?".
The answer to this particular question is no, and I doubt anyone wpould argue otherwise. It does not harm the game to abolish alignment restrictions for the Monk.
So if it has a possible (though not guaranteed benefit), and no detriment, why not do it in the Core, and have the option open for everyone from the start?
And, if someone specifically dislikes the idea of Chaotic Monks, THEY can houserule it.
More options within the rules as written are good.
This statement makes no sense.
FWIW, I don't think restricting some options from players is asserting that nobody in the world can take that option. (You can't play a demon either - they exist though).
I was rejecting your premise that making a "stab with arrows" feat elf only amounts to asserting that no other race has mastered a simple combat technique. It's a restriction on options. The DM doesn't need to be bound by it.
There are plenty of options and things which exist in the game which players can't take and which DMs can utilise if they choose. (Ie creating a demonic character).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the point is, what's the LOGIC behind restricting the Feat?
It is literally "Shoot an arrow, shank a b!%#+ with another one". There is no special fluff written in that ties into Elf culture that makes it make sense to be Elf only. There is no tie in to an Elf racial trait or anything that makes it something that only Elves can physically do.
There's not even a mention of the word "Elf" or "Elven" or anything in the name or text of the Feat, besides "Prerequisites: Rapid Shot, Elf".
It makes no sense.
Bear in mind we have pretty radically different approaches to the game, so it might not be fruitful for us to go too far into these various issues. Nonetheless:
The problem with houserules is that they're not universal.
I don't see that as a problem at all. I think any RPG is enhanced by acknowledging the necessity and desirability of house rules - I think it's an essential feature of an RPG that different tables play the same rules differently. That subjective element allows for a lot of flexibility, in my opinion.
You kinda have to look at it through the lens of "Is it detrimental to the game?".
The answer to this particular question is no, and I doubt anyone wpould argue otherwise. It does not harm the game to abolish alignment restrictions for the Monk.
So if it has a possible (though not guaranteed benefit), and no detriment, why not do it in the Core, and have the option open for everyone from the start?
And, if someone specifically dislikes the idea of Chaotic Monks, THEY can houserule it.
I can imagine elves who are clumsy - is it a problem that most RPGs give them a dexterity/agility bonus?
I don't think so - I think it's fine to import assumptions into a game (like monks are lawful, elves are dexterous, etcetera)
More options within the rules as written are good.
I don't hold this view, but I don't see it as an arguable point so much as a different philosophy.
I can imagine elves who are clumsy - is it a problem that most RPGs give them a dexterity/agility bonus?
I don't think so - I think it's fine to import assumptions into a game (like monks are lawful, elves are dexterous, etcetera)
More options within the rules as written are good.
That comparison doesn't really hold up all that well - an elf can be clumsy despite having a dexterity bonus provided his initial dexterity is low (base stat of 6 turns to 8 for a -1 modifier). He'd be unusual for an elf, but the option is still there.
The monk on the other hand doesn't have a choice in the matter - he has to be lawful.
A better comparison would be if all elves had a hardcoded minimum dexterity of 13 'because all elves are graceful'.
But the point is, what's the LOGIC behind restricting the Feat?
It is literally "Shoot an arrow, shank a b~%&& with another one". There is no special fluff written in that ties into Elf culture that makes it make sense to be Elf only. There is no tie in to an Elf racial trait or anything that makes it something that only Elves can physically do.
There's not even a mention of the word "Elf" or "Elven" or anything in the name or text of the Feat, besides "Prerequisites: Rapid Shot, Elf".
It makes no sense.
I don't want to speak for the designers, of course, so don't take this as me saying why they did it...
I don't consider this restriction as implying that nobody else can do it. I think it's a restriction on what will happen during the story. If the restriction is followed, elven characters are going to do lots of things with arrows and other races will do other things that tie in to their implied theme.
I don't put any store in an RPG trying to "model" a world, since they're all lousy simulations. As such, trying to work out the "off camera" interpretation of this as if it were some kind of physical law in the game world is, in my view, missing the point.