Also, I think it's funny that people are acting like they rewrote the APG. This came from a single book in an AP, and was later clarified to be an oversight in allowing the very thing that the people here are clamoring for.
Of course if they removed the Elixir of Spirit Sight, I'd burn Paizo to the ground and salt the earth.
As long as you're polite about it, these discussions are a good thing.
There's the rub.
|
Goota agree with ShadowcatX here. While "outraged" might be too strong a word, being upset is understandable.
These were huge changes, and they invalidate what was the only way of creating non-evil undead. It's a cool character concept that was removed because someone didn't like it's flavor.
If it this change was made for balance reasons, I could understand, but doing so just because of preference seems unnecessary in a rule set that is meant to be setting-neutral.
It'd have worked better if there was a note saying "In Golarion, all undead are evil, so this is how this ability works..." instead. This would allow for players who use different settings and/or like the idea of non-evil undead to play how they want, and still keep Golarion's undead alignment.
On a related note, I don't understand why make it impossible to have non-evil undead. The reformed monster trying to make it up for its past evil deeds is a classic trope, seen in lots of series, movies and books.
Both the AP and Faith an Philosophies aren't setting neutral. They are both located in Golarion.
Neither of the Juju oracle archetypes are in a setting neutral hardbound.Sean, what is the meaning of RTMIR?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll probably keep the original around for an NPC-villains-only purpose.
But... the original wasn't evil... NPC only things always rub me wrong in table top and video games. Particularly when they fit in and do just fine as a PC thing.
Pizza IS better then hot dogs, that is a fact, everyone knows it. perhaps you would like try a different analogy? i think its better because they can't command undead, night terror and ensnare the soul both look awesome too
Eh, as a GM I'd allow both versions into my games. I'm kind of in the camp of 'controlling mindless undead isn't really that evil', so it doesn't bother me.
I mean, seriously. It's not like they're still using the bodies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't. It was barred from play from day one.Don't like the errata, don't use it. Not that complicated.SO much this. If you don't like the Juju Oracle from Faiths and Philosophies, just use the old one for your home games.
Considering that the GM gets final say on what rules and products are/are not allowed in his game, this seems like a bit of a non-issue.Doesn't work if you play PFS.
Although I don't think the Juju Oracle was ever a valid choice in PFS.
Then at the end of the day, it's up to the GM.
Except before the change, it was already up to the GM to allow or disallow the Juju Oracle. Which means if it was always the GM's prerogative, then why change it? Before, the GM could always say "No" or "Yes" to the Juju Oracle. Now, the old Juju looks less "official" and therefore will get little support by most GMs. And this isn't some minor loophole or rules bending that Ravingdork likes to exploit. This was a pretty flavorful option that people did like but now has no official support behind.
That's a removal of options, which I am against. I've always held that there should be more options for players and GMs, and that it's up to the GM to allow and disallow things. Whether it's been firearms, psionics, or Asian setting material, that's been my thought. Even with non-evil undead. I probably wouldn't allow Juju Oracles, but maybe another DM would. Maybe that's his setting. Or maybe a player could convince me that it'd be a flavorful and excellent idea. It's happened before, with things like drow, evil characters, and psionics.
Point is, I'd rather the option be there, than invalidated by the newer option. Let's face it, those that like the idea of non-evil undead are a smaller group than those that don't, and more people are likely to go with the newest version than old. It's not a sign of a bad GM, just one that goes with the supported material. So they essentially just lost the one support that they had for non-evil undead.
Again, I say voice the complaints (politely) in this thread, use the old version, and vote with your wallet by not buying the product if you don't like it.
Pizza IS better then hot dogs, that is a fact, everyone knows it. perhaps you would like try a different analogy? i think its better because they can't command undead, night terror and ensnare the soul both look awesome too
Look at False Death and Dream Haunter on original one.(And I totally know some people who enjoy hotdogs more! There's a pizza place with a great deep dish next to a hot dog place in town. They're both still in business...)
As long as you're polite about it, these discussions are a good thing.There's the rub.
I'm still wondering what I did wrong in the OP. My OP was neither outraged nor inflammatory.
Overreacting =/= hostile or bad, it just means overreacting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The change had to do with the fact that the previous text of the Spirit Vessels revelation allowed for the creation of non-evil undead, something that clashes with the default core assumptions of the game rules.
The change had more to do with the fact that Spirit Vessels no longer exists, at all.
(Raving Dork and a particular subset of posters on the board are rather attached to the idea of necromancers that remain socially acceptable while animating hordes of undead as they avoid the "evil" tag on them.)
Yeah, having a way to play a Necromancer while avoiding one of the stupidest aspects of the ruleset was a good ability.
Too bad that's (officially, at least) gone now because...
This sort of exaggeration and misrepresentation of gamers that like the flavor and stories non-evil undead offer should be beneath you, LazarX.
Why are you acting like this is something he doesn't do constantly for every conceivable stance on any topic that doesn't align perfectly with his own?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as you're polite about it, these discussions are a good thing.There's the rub.I'm still wondering what I did wrong in the OP. My OP was neither outraged nor inflammatory.
Overreacting =/= hostile or bad, it just means overreacting.
Because overreacting leads to outrage. Outrage leads to unconstructive criticism. And that... is the path of the Darkside.
Yes, the Darkside has cookies. Unfortunately, it's bran cookies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The change had to do with the fact that the previous text of the Spirit Vessels revelation allowed for the creation of non-evil undead, something that clashes with the default core assumptions of the game rules.The change had more to do with the fact that Spirit Vessels no longer exists, at all.
(Raving Dork and a particular subset of posters on the board are rather attached to the idea of necromancers that remain socially acceptable while animating hordes of undead as they avoid the "evil" tag on them.)Yeah, having a way to play a Necromancer while avoiding one of the stupidest aspects of the ruleset was a good ability.
Too bad that's (officially, at least) gone now because...
Why are you acting like this is something he doesn't do constantly for every conceivable stance on any topic that doesn't align perfectly with his own?
This sort of exaggeration and misrepresentation of gamers that like the flavor and stories non-evil undead offer should be beneath you, LazarX.
I don't think making necromancy evil is a stupid aspect of the game, much like summon demons and devils. However, that's my right as a GM. I'd rather have the options available for others that disagree with me, than not at all.
|
Along the lines of Odraude's suggestions, folks looking for options that enable non-evil undead should really check out Kobold Quarterly's White Necromancer. It deals with undead in a very different way from the usual stereotype and focuses on working with and helping the dead rather than enslaving them.
It also shouldn't be too difficult for GMs to rewire it into a divine caster. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the Darkside has cookies. Unfortunately, it's bran cookies.
Oh yuck!
Sorry everyone...
Is there anywhere online I can get the original oracle without having to buy the issue? Since, y'know, the PRDs will be "updating" and it won't be available there anymore. It sounds like it was a pretty interesting discovery, honestly. Always wanted to play with jujus ever since I got into Homestuck. ;D
Oh, and white necromancers have rules that actively obstruct the use of spells like animate dead. Sure, they can get away with it. Just like a Neutral Good wizard can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along the lines of Odraude's suggestions, folks looking for options that enable non-evil undead should really check out Kobold Quarterly's White Necromancer. It deals with undead in a very different way from the usual stereotype and focuses on working with and helping the dead rather than enslaving them.
It also shouldn't be too difficult for GMs to rewire it into a divine caster. :)
Having seen that class, that is probably one of the few instances I'd actually allow a good necromancer in my group.
Also, I liked the Undying from Eberron, that gave a Positive Energy version of undead. I thought it was pretty cool.
Design Manager
|
Don't like the errata, don't use it. Not that complicated.That's a pointless argument (one that is suspiciously used almost exclusively by those who happen to agree with whatever FAQ/errata/ruling they are discussing).
You can say that about anything. Should we not care at all about what the designers say about the rules because we can choose to ignore them?
Sometimes a player wants to play a PFS game. ***
This is the only argument that really should have a game impact, and the original Juju Oracle was never legal for PFS play anyways.
So it goes back to the fact that the GM is the final arbiter of what does and does not make it into his games, so if you're with a new group, show up with your book and ask if you can use the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there anywhere online I can get the original oracle without having to buy the issue? Since, y'know, the PRDs will be "updating" and it won't be available there anymore. It sounds like it was a pretty interesting discovery, honestly. Always wanted to play with jujus ever since I got into Homestuck. ;D
Oh, and white necromancers have rules that actively obstruct the use of spells like animate dead. Sure, they can get away with it. Just like a Neutral Good wizard can.
I can't claim any insider knowledge of Paizo's affairs, but I doubt very much they're going to change City of Seven Spears. And if this option is as rich, flavorful, and vital as many here are saying it is, maybe it's worth the $14 for the PDF?
what is the meaning of RTMIR?
I did a google search and it gave me nothing useful. At least not in English.
So, I am guessing:
RTMIR means "Read the Message in Reverse"
or "Re Type Messages in Russian"
Seriously, I have no idea. The tone of the post suggests the don't be a jerk rule.
although, retyping posts in Russian might be a good way to calm down before posting. ;)
Is there anywhere online I can get the original oracle without having to buy the issue? Since, y'know, the PRDs will be "updating" and it won't be available there anymore. It sounds like it was a pretty interesting discovery, honestly. Always wanted to play with jujus ever since I got into Homestuck. ;D
Oh, and white necromancers have rules that actively obstruct the use of spells like animate dead. Sure, they can get away with it. Just like a Neutral Good wizard can.
It's still on the SRD. Copy-pasta it into a Word document like I did.
@Zodin: "Remember the most important rule". Highly unclear, I only got it because I'm a god among men. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't like the errata, don't use it. Not that complicated.That's a pointless argument (one that is suspiciously used almost exclusively by those who happen to agree with whatever FAQ/errata/ruling they are discussing).
You can say that about anything. Should we not care at all about what the designers say about the rules because we can choose to ignore them?
Sometimes a player wants to play a PFS game. ***
This is the only argument that holds any weight, and the original Juju Oracle was never legal for PFS play anyways.
So it goes back to the fact that the GM is the final arbiter of what does and does not make it into his games, so if you're with a new group, show up with your book and ask if you can use the class.
The juju oracle was always up to GM approval. So why change the option to be less desirable for the players that want to play it? By changing it to allow GM approval, they've essentially gotten rid of the appeal of playing the archetype in the first place.
Using my analogy again, some GMs ban Gunslingers because firearms don't fit their setting. Some players love Gunslingers because the idea of being like Roland from The Dark Tower, totting guns and shooting people with their pistols. So if a new, official Gunslinger came out and it removed the firearms aspect and replaced it with crossbows, suddenly, GMs are probably more likely to allow the class. However, you just removed one of the main draws of the Gunslinger that players really liked.
Now, this is a more exaggerated example admittedly, since the Juju was only an archetype in an AP. However, it's still an archetype that had a decent fanbase support behind it that wants that niche, but isn't widely supported by other GMs. Much like psionics, or Asian setting material, or firearms, or my personal favorite, Distant Worlds.
Why are you acting like this is something he doesn't do constantly for every conceivable stance on any topic that doesn't align perfectly with his own?
I'm the hostile one here vilifying others? *rolls eyes*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the only argument that holds any weight, and the original Juju Oracle was never legal for PFS play anyways.
So it goes back to the fact that the GM is the final arbiter of what does and does not make it into his games, so if you're with a new group, show up with your book and ask if you can use the class.
Not really. Saying "you can ignore the rules" doesn't add anything to a rule discussion.
If the GM is the final arbiter (and, IMO, he should be), why rewrite the archetype?
The reason I don't like flavor-based restrictions (especially alignment restrictions) is because they arbitrarily remove options from the game.
You can ignore those restrictions, of course, but they still exist in official material, so there won't be any support for players who don't like them. Want a non-evil undead? Too bad! No official support for you. Non-Lawful MonkS? Too bad! No official support for you! No Paizo stuff, no HeroLab, no anything.
If you want a restriction, you can always add it with a single sentence ("I don't allow non-evil undead in my game"), but if the rules themselves add a restriction to an option, that option is off the table for all players, because even without the restriction, there will be no material to support said option.
That's why I don't like flavor-based restriction. Rules exist to keep the game balanced. They can offer suggestions, but ultimately, it us, the players, who create the flavor of our characters.
|
|
Along the lines of Odraude's suggestions, folks looking for options that enable non-evil undead should really check out Kobold Quarterly's White Necromancer. It deals with undead in a very different way from the usual stereotype and focuses on working with and helping the dead rather than enslaving them.
It also shouldn't be too difficult for GMs to rewire it into a divine caster. :)
Having seen that class, that is probably one of the few instances I'd actually allow a good necromancer in my group.
Also, I liked the Undying from Eberron, that gave a Positive Energy version of undead. I thought it was pretty cool.
I still want to play a paladin/white necromancer weilding a silver scythe and wearing a reversible black/white reaper-y cloak that sends enslaved undead on to the afterlife and works with the restless dead to enable them to right whatever wrongs are holding them back. (be it someone who just needed a chance to say goodbye to a loved one or someone needing one last shot at redemption before moving on)
|
Design Manager
|
what is the meaning of RTMIR?
I did a google search and it gave me nothing useful. At least not in English.
So, I am guessing:
RTMIR means "Read the Message in Reverse"
or "Re Type Messages in Russian"
Seriously, I have no idea. The tone of the post suggests the don't be a jerk rule.
although, retyping posts in Russian might be a good way to calm down before posting. ;)
Remember The Most Important Rule
i.e. "Don't be a jerk"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, not all undead are evil. Ghosts and haunts are very much undead, after all. The fact that exceptions exist would in theory make the Neutral undead-crafting juju oracle perfectly acceptable.
|
Design Manager
|
This is the only argument that holds any weight, and the original Juju Oracle was never legal for PFS play anyways.
So it goes back to the fact that the GM is the final arbiter of what does and does not make it into his games, so if you're with a new group, show up with your book and ask if you can use the class.
Not really. Saying "you can ignore the rules" doesn't add anything to a rule discussion.
If the GM is the final arbiter (and, IMO, he should be), why rewrite the archetype?
Possibly because they wanted to create a new archetype that gave "Juju" some representation but come with the baggage that got it outlawed from PFS in the first place. Now there's a nice new Juju Oracle with a chance at being legal for PFS play, and everyone who loved the old one can still buy the PDF it appeared in and bring it to their home games for the GM to yay or nay as he will.
Y'know, not all undead are evil. Ghosts and haunts are very much undead, after all. The fact that exceptions exist would in theory make the Neutral undead-crafting juju oracle perfectly acceptable.
They are exceptions that don't disprove the rule. Always have been.
This is the only argument that holds any weight, and the original Juju Oracle was never legal for PFS play anyways.
So it goes back to the fact that the GM is the final arbiter of what does and does not make it into his games, so if you're with a new group, show up with your book and ask if you can use the class.
Not really. Saying "you can ignore the rules" doesn't add anything to a rule discussion.
If the GM is the final arbiter (and, IMO, he should be), why rewrite the archetype?
The reason I don't like flavor-based restrictions (especially alignment restrictions) is because they arbitrarily remove options from the game.
You can ignore those restrictions, of course, but they still exist in official material, so there won't be any support for players who don't like them. Want a non-evil undead? Too bad! No official support for you. Non-Lawful MonkS? Too bad! No official support for you! No Paizo stuff, no HeroLab, no anything.
If you want a restriction, you can always add it with a single sentence ("I don't allow non-evil undead in my game"), but if the rules themselves add a restriction to an option, that option is off the table for all players, because even without the restriction, there will be no material to support said option.
That's why I don't like flavor-based restriction. Rules exist to keep the game balanced. They can offer suggestions, but ultimately, it us, the players, who create the flavor of our characters.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel.
Using my analogy again, some GMs ban Gunslingers because firearms don't fit their setting. Some players love Gunslingers because the idea of being like Roland from The Dark Tower, totting guns and shooting people with their pistols.Unless the setting allows for advanced firearms and revolvers in particular, Roland wannabes, or Wild West enthuisasts, are going to be majorly dissapointed in the Gunslinger class. The default Golarion assumption is ore closer to the Rennaissance/Midieval model.
And that's fine. However, the options for Roland or The Man With No Name are there with Advanced Firearms (like revolvers and rifles), as well as setting support with "Guns Everywhere" from UC and Alkenstar, which is definitely not a Renaissance setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly because they wanted to create a new archetype that gave "Juju" some representation but come with the baggage that got it outlawed from PFS in the first place. Now there's a nice new Juju Oracle with a chance at being legal for PFS play, and everyone who loved the old one can still buy the PDF it appeared in and bring it to their home games for the GM to yay or nay as he will.
If that's the case... If they wanted to create a new archetype, then why not, you know... create a new archetype?
This change removed an unique ability from the game (and nerfed the archetype, but that's beside the point) because its flavor didn't fit.
Why not create a different archetype and keep both options, instead of removing something unique? Why arbitrarily ban stuff that many players would like if it doesn't create any balance problem and can still be vetoed by GMs who don't like it?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, not all undead are evil. Ghosts and haunts are very much undead, after all. The fact that exceptions exist would in theory make the Neutral undead-crafting juju oracle perfectly acceptable.
The method behind the ______ in Dragon's Demand brings up more possibilities as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, not all undead are evil. Ghosts and haunts are very much undead, after all. The fact that exceptions exist would in theory make the Neutral undead-crafting juju oracle perfectly acceptable.They are exceptions that don't disprove the rule. Always have been.
Yes, but the fact that two exceptions exist kind of makes it harder to say "ALL UNDEAD ARE EVIL, NO EXCEPTIONS, JUJU ORACLE BREAKS THE SETTING".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you acting like this is something he doesn't do constantly for every conceivable stance on any topic that doesn't align perfectly with his own?I'm the hostile one here vilifying others? *rolls eyes*
Man it's almost like I was replying to a quote that was talking about someone who wasn't you or something
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*** Why arbitrarily ban stuff that many players would like if it doesn't create any balance problem and can still be vetoed by GMs who don't like it?
The staff at Paizo does not have the power or authority to ban anything from your home games. What they can do is ensure that material they put out matches the setting and reality that they attempt to create. If you decide to use material that they've decided doesn't jive with their product line, they're not going to kick down your door and take it away from you. Paizo driving for consistency in their products does not equate to Paizo dictating how you play your home games. And home games are all we're talking about here, because the old Juju Oracle was never legal in PFS play anyways.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a couple of non-evil undead in Golarion. But they're pretty unique.
What this revision does, AFAICT, is reinforce the fact that, in Golarion, a specific campaign setting DMs can deviate from in their home games, non-evil undead are not something PCs can create en-masse.
I see it as a revision to fit canon. Since it was never available for PFS play, home games can and probably should use whatever version the player and the DM agree upon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly because they wanted to create a new archetype that gave "Juju" some representation but come with the baggage that got it outlawed from PFS in the first place. Now there's a nice new Juju Oracle with a chance at being legal for PFS play, and everyone who loved the old one can still buy the PDF it appeared in and bring it to their home games for the GM to yay or nay as he will.If that's the case... If they wanted to create a new archetype, then why not, you know... create a new archetype?
This change removed an unique ability from the game (and nerfed the archetype, but that's beside the point) because its flavor didn't fit.
Why not create a different archetype and keep both options, instead of removing something unique? Why arbitrarily ban stuff that many players would like if it doesn't create any balance problem and can still be vetoed by GMs who don't like it?
Paizo has added a new set of rules/abilities with the same name as an older, similar set of rules/abilities before.
This is surely just a mistake, and neither invalidates the other. I've added a footnote denoting source in my character sheet to avoid possible confusion.
*Total denial*
So which is correct as both come from valid source books. Does one override the other? I find it kind of like the Hell Knight. One PRC is 10 level the other 15. I personally use both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'll be the black sheep here, I support the decision. The creation of undead is an evil act in Golarion. Even Pharasma is against it. Juju oracles made boatloads of undead but for some reason, they have the sole privilege of not being evil. It's very hard to blame a wizard for creating hordes of the undead when you have an oracle doing effectively exactly the same thing,and who can get away with it.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The change had to do with the fact that the previous text of the Spirit Vessels revelation allowed for the creation of non-evil undead, something that clashes with the default core assumptions of the game rules. (Raving Dork and a particular subset of posters on the board are rather attached to the idea of necromancers that remain socially acceptable while animating hordes of undead as they avoid the "evil" tag on them.)
Because there are numerous real-world cultures, who do not share the queasiness over death, as displayed by White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant USA.
Dead relatives are valued members of the household, sometimes kept around (whole or in part), greeted each morning, talked to, asked their blessing on current events.
A necromancer, being the go-between twixt two worlds, would be more than just socially acceptable, but an essential pillar of the community.
I guess I'll be the black sheep here, I support the decision. The creation of undead is an evil act in Golarion. Even Pharasma is against it. Juju oracles made boatloads of undead but for some reason, they have the sole privilege of not being evil. It's very hard to blame a wizard for creating hordes of the undead when you have an oracle doing effectively exactly the same thing,and who can get away with it.
How does that support the decision to write over an old archetype like there was something wrong with it though? Wouldn't that be the case for errata or a footnote or something? They had the 'alternative' section in the 3.5 books that offered different ways to view things or sometimes a variant.
The new JuJu is a new mystery, why does it have to replace the old one? Why not give it another name?
To me it's not the change in undead summoning...it's just turning a viable and interesting archetype into something that is not only incredibly boring, but is actually hot steaming garbage to play before 11th level.
That is the REAL problem here.
Welp. Back to being a Battle or Metal oracle.
The change had to do with the fact that the previous text of the Spirit Vessels revelation allowed for the creation of non-evil undead, something that clashes with the default core assumptions of the game rules. (Raving Dork and a particular subset of posters on the board are rather attached to the idea of necromancers that remain socially acceptable while animating hordes of undead as they avoid the "evil" tag on them.)Because there are numerous real-world cultures, who do not share the queasiness over death, as displayed by White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant USA.
Dead relatives are valued members of the household, sometimes kept around (whole or in part), greeted each morning, talked to, asked their blessing on current events.
A necromancer, being the go-between twixt two worlds, would be more than just socially acceptable, but an essential pillar of the community.
A good example of this that I've had to create was a creature in Pre-Columbian Caribbean folklore called the Hupia. It was an undead that could be good, or could be evil depending on the person it was in life. The hupia also heavily blurred the lines between incorporeal and corporeal undead, which is why I had to stat this creature.
The staff at Paizo does not have the power or authority to ban anything from your home games. What they can do is ensure that material they put out matches the setting and reality that they attempt to create. If you decide to use material that they've decided doesn't jive with their product line, they're not going to kick down your door and take it away from you. Paizo driving for consistency in their products does not equate to Paizo dictating how you play your home games. And home games are all we're talking about here, because the old Juju Oracle was never legal in PFS play anyways.
And you completely missed my point...