| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
<snip>
Personally I enjoyed 3.x more than 2e and 4e more than 3.x, and they haven't lost anything I miss flavor-wise on the player-side. I do think that each new edition has drifted further from the very flavorful monster descriptions that can be such a joy to read, with their relatively extravagant entries dedicated to monster societies and ecologies. But of course, that has nothing to do with level caps or alignment restrictions.
Hackmaster 5th edition's Hacklopaedia is IMO an inspiration for how monster manuals should be written. :-) Ecology info, where the creature is found in their game world, size comparison chart, even foot print examples, et al.
But, sorry, I digress more than usual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
pathfinder 2.0 is just the GM making their own stuff. We don't need a new edition for it.
Yes and no. I mean, by extension, such is the same with every ttrpg. You don't need someone else's codified rules for anything, just make your own. But not everyone has the time or ability to do such effectively, even if only modifying an existing system let alone making one from scratch (such as if you disagree with core assumptions like magical item progression, feat power & spellcasting systems).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in fairness, that has to go both ways. Paizo writes both Pathfinder and Golarion material, and presumably in Pathfinder 2.0, they still would be. Using generic core material for the Golarion setting is, of course, going to happen, but the reverse must be acknowledged as well: Pathfinder players will want to use material from the setting line outside of said setting and without the uphill battle to do so.Absolutely. I mean I do that myself, so as far as this goes, our opinions may probably differ only in if rules material bound to setting is more difficult to use for that matter. And to be fair, to me it would already suffice if those restrictions are introduced into the setting via the Paizo blog, so that anyone who doesn't care for this simply can ignore it.
Okay, agreed. Truce established, and I'm glad we could get here amicably.
The thing is, and that's why I have my problems with how this other thread started: Even in the Path of the Righteous companion, the authors of said book already acknowledge (in the introduction) that those restrictions may not be for everyone's taste and advise for a flexible approach with regards to players (maybe even lifting them wholesale). I guess that's also why they made the flavor restrictions so easy removable. So as I see it, if there's an uphill battle, then it probably is not because of the restriction lines in the book, but because of the GM who is not willing to take this more flexible approach.
So as said I wouldn't mind if they remove alignment (and other restrictions) from the Core rules. I just happen to think that this wouldn't help your case very much, because I very much doubt that there is a large number of GMs doing things only because they stand in the book and if they do, they do it because they actually agree with them. So again, you uphill battle, it's with the GMs, not with the rules.
And Pathfinder by design as by intent is and stays a very GM-centric system, so they basically would have to change that for a Pathfinder 2.0 to stop this uphill battle of yours.
Why do I think the game actually putting it in writing that setting assumptions only apply that far and no farther would help? Because it's what I've seen happen already.
Bards can now be lawful. Samurai no longer need be lawful. Rangers can have their own creature type and subtype as a favored enemy without needing to be evil. Not-humans can be Paladins. For that matter, not-humans can also have classes.
All of those things used to not be true in previous editions. Later editions opened the world up. That is to say, the rules of those later editions opened the world up. And by and large, GMs didn't turn right around and close the world back down. How many times have you ever seen a Paladin that wasn't a human? Because that right there is the game saying "that restriction no longer exists" and the GM saying "sure". When was the last time you saw a thread about "Want to play a Lawful Pathfinder Bard; GM won't go for it; please help"? Scratch that; when was the first time? And I don't just mean here, but also GitP, ENworld, or any other gaming forums you can think of.
The very existence of Pathfinder itself says that the ruleset establishing "this or that restriction doesn't exist" does succeed in making that the case. That's why I push for it. I've seen it happen before; I just need it to happen again.
|
The very existence of Pathfinder itself says that the ruleset establishing "this or that restriction doesn't exist" does succeed in making that the case. That's why I push for it. I've seen it happen before; I just need it to happen again.
Fair enough. I may have a bit of a misperception on this matter as in the circles I started roleplaying with, that never came up as a topic and I started frequenting D&D-related messageboards at a time when there already existed things like non-LG-Paladins, even if only as optional or non-official material. So "you can't do that just because of the book" is something I've never experienced personally.
|
They're things that appear in wuxia, levels 9-12 in kyrt's rough classification scheme, that low-level spells mimic or exceed. If a hypothetical PF2 was to operate from a similar classification scheme, then those are the sort of abilities a wuxia character might develop around 10th level, and they explicitly should not be magical ones. And in my opinion, casters shouldn't be getting spells that are as good or better at low levels."or be impossible to deceive, or always be believed, or be as hyper-aware of your surroundings as Balsa"
Not really sure what any of those have to do with being martial or magical.
Yeah, sorry, I don't really see how "impossible to lie to or everyone always believes me" is a martial thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't, but it could be. We could make it that casters have all these great spells, but are terrible at skills; mundanes would be good at skills because that's what they devote their energy to while casters learn magic.
I referred to "impossible to lie to or everyone always believes me" as "skills", since they're already covered by Sense Motive and Bluff. But maybe there could be a new kind of quasi-mythic power-ups for skills that some mundane classes get to pick from at certain levels.
One with no magic. Fighter, Rogue, Samurai, Cavalier...
Partly magic classes (like Ranger) would get fewer skill Talents (or whatever we're calling them in this hypothetical system) than pure mundanes, but they'd get some, unlike full casters.
It's a martial thing because it's a matter of skill rather than just magic, though I don't think any ability should be absolute.
All of those things used to not be true in previous editions. Later editions opened the world up. That is to say, the rules of those later editions opened the world up.
Opened up what world?
You see the thing is, each of these editions have different settings. It isn't a matter of rules changing to allow these things, it is a matter of making default settings that have more popular traits, then emulating those in the rules.
There are an unfortunately large number of gms that just can't allow anything that isn't in a book, whether core, supplement, or third party. It is like there is a general fear of stepping away from rules as printed.
To me, that is the real problem. If you can't be comfortable stepping away from the rules as printed, then in my opinion, you are still a novice gm and still in need of practice and guidence.
Writting rules with the expection of having a gm that can and will step away from rules as printed to suit their is not something I consider a flaw.
What I consider a flaw is not having a chapter, for players and gms, that is dedicated to the topic of adapting the rules to the group's specific game.
The alignment restrictions are something I would enforce, simply because the classes represent specific archetypes, archetypes that can only achieve what they achieve because of their alignment, or in some cases a specific alignment would prohibitively hinder an archetype.
A large part of that though comes from my understanding of what alignment is, and thus what alignment says about a character. And most players I encounter oversimplify alignments and I believe this oversimplification is usually why they find alignment restrictions as problematic, because in the oversimplification, the boundaries of what is or is not a particular alignment are different, becoming more inclusive for most, though evil becomes less inclusive (though this last bit is understandable. Far easier to justify, and be comfortable with, killing evil when evil is only ever really bad evil.).
For example, paladins being lawful good. The entire concept of a paladin is a character that is dedicated to the cause of good so completely that they live and breath that dedication. They are like samurai in that respect, because the concept of paladin is a character that is so dedicated to their cause that they would act to do good without question nor hesitation, by reflex, and is nearly incapable of surrendering to become anything less than the standard they set for themselves.
I see myself as an example of what a paladin is like, I simply can't do anything less than meet my standards. I've had friends try to get me to steal magazines, bikes, or do drugs, and every time I said "you do that, I won't be joining you nor be your friend." No amount of peer pressure could make me consider taking part.
Losing friends (and I have lost many to this) is fine with me, because I'm literally just not capable of breaking my values. I will die first, kicking, screaming, and fighting defiantly with every fiber of my soul and I simply can't even fathom doing otherwise. I just simply don't know how. I don't know how to give in, to surrender, to keep my nose away from the business of wife beaters and other such folk.
My aunt had an abusive husband for a long time. Even at the age of 5 I stood up to him. It wasn't a matter of being angry, or defiant, not even a matter of finding the thought of backing down intolerable because there was never a thought of backing down. I faced him because he was doing wrong and I responded to that instinctively, no thinking involved.
Even the worst beatings have never phased me, never made me question what I was doing, I never contemplated even at that age, to simply stand down against what I saw as a wrong. It is so far from my character, that even now, having some intellectual understanding that most people give in at some point, once they reach some limit, I still can't imagine it, can't even understand it.
To me, that is what a paladin is. If a character doesn't have such unquestioning dedication to their beliefs, then they aren't paladins, regardless of what mechanics they use.
Lots of players see this as a bad thing, calling it "lawful stupid" (probably because they can't understand what it is like to never even have a thought of backing down from something they believe in, much less actually backing down.), but that level of dedication is not just central to the concept the class is trying to represent, it is the concept the class is trying to represent.
Now if you want to change the fluff yet keep the mechanics, then all the power to you, and I could then understand changing the alignment restriction to better match the new fluff.
But changing the alignment restriction in my opinion requires changing the fluff so the class no longer represents what I described.
As far as I'm concerned, those who don't like restricting paladins to lawful good fit into three categories, those who have different ideas about what the alignments mean, those who have different ideas about what a paladin is, and those who are as incapable of understanding my concept of paladins as I am incapable of understanding how people can give in.
I would be totally down for a new, updated version of the Core rulebook. Transition from 3.5 to pathfinder did remove some problems, but some remain. Like the power difference between casters and noncasters. I have no idea how we could fix this, but that is what i think.
Another thing that i would like to be fixed is Small races and melee, namely Halflings and Gnomes. Not only do they have penalty to strength, but also suckier damage due to weapon sizes, slower speed and getting Combat maneuver penalties. It is extreamly hard to make yourself feel noteworthy with a halfling fighter with 16 str at best against a human who has better stats in Everything, especially strength. You could go Finesse route, but that is hardly a substitute. Just redo Small races or remove Halfling and Gnomes Strength penalties, please! Make us more than a joke!
I'm not a big fan of discouraging class+race combos anyways.I think it limits creativity. Anyone else share this opinion?
I think in general, they should do away with stat penalties for playing a specific race. Just because Dwarves are on average less charismatic than humans, shouldn't mean "you are automatically less charismatic since you're a dwarf". This gets especially touchy with intelligence since "you are just dumber than other people because of who your parents were" is kind of a gross idea on its face.
The way I would do it is have your race gives you a bonus to one stat (either a specific stat, a choice between a few stats, or any stat depending on the race) and then you get a bonus to an additional stat (but not the same as the one for your race) from your class.
It's fine if your race doesn't give you the bonus you want, but there's nothing to be gained by making it actively harder to play Dwarf Bards, Gnome Barbarians, Elven Kineticists, etc.
Another thing that i would like to be fixed is Small races and melee, namely Halflings and Gnomes. Not only do they have penalty to strength, but also suckier damage due to weapon sizes, slower speed and getting Combat maneuver penalties. It is extreamly hard to make yourself feel noteworthy with a halfling fighter with 16 str at best against a human who has better stats in Everything, especially strength. You could go Finesse route, but that is hardly a substitute. Just redo Small races or remove Halfling and Gnomes Strength penalties, please! Make us more than a joke!
I'm not a big fan of discouraging class+race combos anyways.I think it limits creativity. Anyone else share this opinion?
Oh man, you just hit on one of my pet peeves.
On the one hand, I really like the "different size categories have different modifiers, spaces, and reaches" nod to realism in 3.x. But on the other, 3.x's approach to differing sizes is an incredibly awkward compromise between 'size matters' and 'except when it doesn't...because Frodo.' It's the worst of both worlds -- that nod to realism is inconsistent and unconvincing (again, because Frodo, and bad math), and the game discourages a lot of creativity. (See also: Large+ sizes are OP so players either can't be, or must pay through the teeth to be Large+.)
At the end of the day, I know I'm happy with rulesets where size is mostly a non-issue. And I'd be happy with a more consistent nod to realism, even if that meant "Bigger creatures have a leg up on smaller ones, and if you're on the smaller end of the spectrum, well...meleeing should not be one of your life choices." So from my PoV, PF 2.0 ought to pick one or the other.
Another thing that i would like to be fixed is Small races and melee, namely Halflings and Gnomes. Not only do they have penalty to strength, but also suckier damage due to weapon sizes, slower speed and getting Combat maneuver penalties. It is extreamly hard to make yourself feel noteworthy with a halfling fighter with 16 str at best against a human who has better stats in Everything, especially strength. You could go Finesse route, but that is hardly a substitute. Just redo Small races or remove Halfling and Gnomes Strength penalties, please! Make us more than a joke!
I'm not a big fan of discouraging class+race combos anyways.I think it limits creativity. Anyone else share this opinion?
Oh man, you just hit on one of my pet peeves.
On the one hand, I really like the "different size categories have different modifiers, spaces, and reaches" nod to realism in 3.x. But on the other, 3.x's approach to differing sizes is an incredibly awkward compromise between 'size matters' and 'except when it doesn't...because Frodo.' It's the worst of both worlds -- that nod to realism is inconsistent and unconvincing (again, because Frodo, and bad math), and the game discourages a lot of creativity. (See also: Large+ sizes are OP so players either can't be, or must pay through the teeth to be Large+.)
At the end of the day, I know I'm happy with rulesets where size is mostly a non-issue. And I'd be happy with a more consistent nod to realism, even if that meant "Bigger creatures have a leg up on smaller ones, and if you're on the smaller end of the spectrum, well...meleeing should not be one of your life choices." So from my PoV, PF 2.0 ought to pick one or the other.
Exactly! If size difference should be a factor, then it should not be a disadvantage. +1 to ac and to hit is hardly a compensation for all the negatives, especially when every playable race that is small outside of Vayangs (and nobody plays those) has strength penalty. I am always on the mindset that you should encourage class/race comboes, but never, NEVER discourage them.
Wands and scrolls definitely make casters far more versatile, there really isn't a limit on them (Who actually tracks their encumbrance?) and martials don't really have 'feat in a can' or whatever analogy it is you can make- though fighters do them love themselves a good potion or twelve even if they are exorbitantly expensive on a spell by spell basis.
But if you take the wands and scrolls away people will do their 15 minute adventuring day and the GM will have to make every session Rappan Athuk levels of harassment. Which is great in my books, I love tense games with lots of pressure.