| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, the flavor is every bit as much created by simply stating that a certain race/religion/organization created a feat/archetype/spell/etc.. But unless it is very explicitly tied to something *only* that group can do, like the ability keying off a particular racial ability, that other groups and individuals couldn't or wouldn't seek and in some cases succeed at developing the ability for themselves.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a follower of Shelyn suffers memory loss that causes them to forget about abstract things like "religion" but not more concrete things like "how to fight", would they lose access to the feat?
Well you are in luck then: GMs already have that kind of power.
I know but I honestly can't tell how exactly what I'm saying is badwrongfun. It's either bad etique for GM's to lift it ,or any restriction placed by the developers should be respected. Or it is bad on the player for expecting mechanical benefits from a game weighted heavily on combat or even worse for them to ask for that restriction to be lifted when it doesn't provide any actual mechanical impact for doing so.
I don't see the problem with reflavouring content to fit a different idea that what it was intended. But I get the feeling there is a problem.
And lets not get into how some gods are extremely inappropriate to worship ever. Lamashtu grants Fearsome Finish, which is baller for Intimidate builds, but what good party would have a servant of Lamashtu with them without really good cause? Why must I worship Lamashtu to make a really gorey finish? What about Merciless Rush? I would have to actually play a genuinely horrible a$@$$!+~ to take that feat, but a shield basher would love it. I don't like nihilist :(
|
No, I can make a character who fights with a glaive and worships Asmodeus. It can be every bit as effective as a Shelynite doing the same, just not in the specific context of this feat [dex-based.]
And frankly, I disagree with that.
Correct. You can be an awesome glaive wielder and worship Asmodeus, just not better than the Sheylnite in that scenario.
I'm okay with that. You're still effective, you're just not the very best ever.
I hate the idea of any sort of physical prowess restricted by anything other than the BAB, Skill Ranks or Physiology [species] of a character, and in many cases Race is used as a gateway inappropriately.
Would the god-fueled fighting techniques be less irksome if they were clearly overtly magical in effect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I mean, this is what I do when I have a great idea that has a RP cost tagged on- I call myself a worshiper of X, go through the motions, yadda yadda sun god whatever, because I want that feat, but I'm not going to mention it in my RPing unless I absolutely have to.So to the people who say this is good because it makes you think about your RP, stop power gaming, etc, I ask:
What is worse, someone who "powergames" (or just wants to play a cool idea) and is able to RP whatever they want with a fairly easy conscience, or someone who "powergames" and is forced into having specific traits which they will then ignore? I personally think the former is less stressful for everyone involved.
I wanted to answer this: depends on the GM. If you get a GM like me I try to make your choices of background matter incorporating them into the story. Which means if you have built a devoted Shelynite I'll go out of my way in order to have that aspect of your character come out. If you refuse to aknowledge that your character is a Shelynite I'd start to ask why and this can lead to more roleplaying opportunities (which, depending on your character's reactions could very well prove costy).
In a roleplaying game background choices can matter as much or more so than mechanical choices, it just depends on the amount of work your GM is willing to shoulder.|
|
I hate the idea of any sort of physical prowess restricted by anything other than the BAB, Skill Ranks or Physiology [species] of a character, and in many cases Race is used as a gateway inappropriately.Would the god-fueled fighting techniques be less irksome if they were clearly overtly magical in effect?
We would have less arguments probably... but the techniques would get shut down in an Anti-magic Field...
And lets not get into how some gods are extremely inappropriate to worship ever. Lamashtu grants Fearsome Finish, which is baller for Intimidate builds, but what good party would have a servant of Lamashtu with them without really good cause? Why must I worship Lamashtu to make a really gorey finish?
Extending that a little farther - what Good (as in alignment) party would want to associate with someone who scares the weewees out of their enemies by making a really gory finish? Wouldn't the sadism inherent to that approach kind of put off a Good party too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If even the idea of god powered powers is too much for you, you are at the real heart of the problem where the game really is not ready to indulge every idea you have.I love the idea of god-powered powers.
I hate the idea of any sort of physical prowess restricted by anything other than the BAB, Skill Ranks or Physiology [species] of a character, and in many cases Race is used as a gateway inappropriately.
Martial arts, fighting skills are cultural.
If different cultures are to be different in how they fight, they will get rules to differentiate each others.Because only RULES makes flavor meaningful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules & setting fluff should be strictly separate. Just because it's the standard fighting technique of one faction to use a set of feats in no way means another cannot learn the same, especially as the rules are (or should be) an abstraction.
Absolutely not. One of the worst things to come down from the publishers of D&D was the sense that "fluff" and "crunch" were some kind of separate entities. These are RPGs, not board games. The "fluff" is as important as the "crunch".
That said, the setting-specific stuff is as reskinable as it has always been, which is to say, infinitely reskinable.
I agree fluff is important, but it has no purpose interacting with the system beyond whatever basics is required. A combat encounter doesn't care what gods you worship, how devoted you are to your lord, or your dream to avenger your father, or whether you were bullied as a kid. It cares what your attack bonuses, damage & defenses are. It cares about your initiative. A raging river doesn't care if you have a heart of gold, simply how well you can swim (or fly over it). If you start tying these things together you start saying "only characters of x are (best) equipped for these kinds of challenges". Hence why people make fun of the number of bullied adventurers...
@UnArcaneElection I think you confused player statement with character statement. My description of the greateaxe wielding slayer would be one I (the player) give to someone else, not as a character to another character. It would be as if I were to say the main character of Consider Phlebas was a swashbuckling rogue, dancing around lasers in fights the same way he dances around authorities. It's not an accurate description because nothing he does (or nothing the character in my previous description can do) conforms to that description. This is why mechanics are necessary whenever talking about how a character operates in game apart from "personality" that is transferable to any concievable chassis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the idea of any sort of physical prowess restricted by anything other than the BAB, Skill Ranks or Physiology [species] of a character, and in many cases Race is used as a gateway inappropriately.Would the god-fueled fighting techniques be less irksome if they were clearly overtly magical in effect?
Absolutely! It doesn't even have to be directly *magical* in the mechanical sense of interactions with anti-magic, for example, but it should clearly have something going on that can only be explained by divine intervention rather than straightforward training. For example, Desna's Shooting Star lets you use Charisma to attack and damage with Starknives--I'm fine with that being restricted to Desna, because there's clearly something not *natural* about that. But Bladed Brush? To all appearances, it's just physically training oneself to wield a Glaive in a swashbuckly dancing fashion. It makes perfect sense that Shelynites would have developed it before anyone else, due to their unique situation of valuing grace and beauty while favoring (for complex reasons) a weapon not normally associated with such. But there's no apparent reason that, once the technique is developed, that it couldn't be studied and trained in by anyone.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's really the crux of the matter, isn't it? Finding a way to maintain the flavor of various campaign elements without unnecessarily restricting a player's creative options.
I think this is definitely something that game developers should pay more attention to moving forward.
It's okay to have restrictions, but they should probably be mechanical in nature, not tied to flavor elements such as campaign organizations. For one, it limits players' concepts, which is the opposite of what flavor is supposed to do. For two, a GM running a homebrew game with the ability to house rule such a restriction away, is just as likely to say "no" to that character option altogether, rather than have to go through the hassle of making and tracking another house rule.
The problem you have isn't that the developers aren't paying enough attention to it.
The problem is that the developers *are* paying close attention to it, and they like the balance they have struck.
This is a genuine philosophical design difference -- there isn't an objectively right answer to the question "how much should flavor figure into prerequisites?" I know where my line on that is, but I respect every place different people draw the line for themselves. My line only matters in games that I run.
And when you're talking to your GM about it, I wouldn't throw this in the bin of "one more house rule among many." I would suggest approaching it from the holistic "where do you stand on flavor prerequisites?" Because then you can replace lots of individual house rules with one more systematic one.
Besides, this is one of the more vital conversations to have, because then you'll know a lot more about what kind of game they are planning on running, and can often avoid individual discussions about race restrictions, what religion means in the world, what kind of tone they like. Most GMs have strong opinions on these things, and have an intuition for how it all hangs together, but can't always lay it out coherently without prompting. This is a great prompt.
And if they *don't* have an opinion on any of this, that tells you a lot about the game, too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, it's cool for GMs to lift it if they want to. It's bad for players to demand it, but not bad for them to ask.
I don't see a problem with reflavoring in general, but I also don't see a problem with GMs making sure the reflavoring fits their version of the setting.
Okay, cool. I just wanted to make sure that was mentioned. Demanding anything of a DM is really disrespectful. But asking is never bad. Working on a nice middle-ground solution would be a good compromise, which is fairly common gaming etiquette, and I was worried this was getting lost somewhere in the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They would benefit from it, yes, but it's not required, moreso when other factors enter the mix.
DR slows most martials down if they don't have something to bypass it, it doesn't make you incompetent.
If you can't do damage to it, you're not being slowed down. And that's where a lot of DEX builds that don't get DEX to damage end up, particularly in those levels where DR is first showing up, but while they still have limited weapon enchantments. So around 4-6 is where I really get worried, but those are really important levels, many games end around there (a reason I don't really like E6, tbqh).
I also want to ask... is there a way to even get Weapon Finesse on Glaives without this prestige class? This topic is the first I've even heard of this option, so I genuinely don't know. But if you can't, then that's the biggest hurdle to running a dex based Glaive build (and why I never even considered it until now).
SO in order to preserve flavour we should remove flavour? Again, this feat goes beyond "basic effort", you do not need it to be competent, just look at every glaive wielding character before this feat.
I don't want to get rid of flavor entirely, just not make it mechanically binding. I'm fine with just saying "people who worship Shelyn tend to take this", or even "people who worship Shelyn can ignore some other mechanical prereq" would be fine with me. (Obviously Paizo disagrees, and I'm ultimately fine with that.)
Um, what? Okay, whoa, hold up.
This is no longer a build or competency issue, this is a "you're playing with a!*$*~+s" issue. And I know you don't like us using that term but this reads as a very toxic powergaming mindset. You have to be super-competent and effective in order to be competent? That does not sound like a pleasant group.
It's more like, you need to be able to do ~ 10+ damage consistently around level 4 or so (which is when DR 10 creatures start showing up). I don't consider this super competent, but it does require some basic mechanics wrangling. Usually applying a stat to damage solves this, but DEX builds are unique in that they lack this option without mechanic wrangling.
And I mean, as far as the toxic atmosphere goes It tends to happen without people realizing it in my groups. The problem is, people in the groups I play in have a tendency to want to be funny. They crack jokes. The most common thing that prompts jokes is failure. Should someone fail too often, they end up getting made fun of fairly often. I don't like it either, and I try to be POSITIVE in my comments, but I've seen it happen when someone rolls with a subpar build, or tries to do something their build doesn't support. So my solution, at least, is to try to get consistent damage and consistent accuracy. I don't consider that power gaming, I just consider that dealing with the mechanics of the game. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. If so, I can understand your earlier response a bit more.
Anyway, thank you for giving me a more thorough response, I'm going back to work though so I won't be able to respond further (just a heads up).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you are in luck then: GMs already have that kind of power.I know but I honestly can't tell how exactly what I'm saying is badwrongfun. It's either bad etique for GM's to lift it ,or any restriction placed by the developers should be respected. Or it is bad on the player for expecting mechanical benefits from a game weighted heavily on combat or even worse for them to ask for that restriction to be lifted when it doesn't provide any actual mechanical impact for doing so.
I don't see the problem with reflavouring content to fit a different idea that what it was intended. But I get the feeling there is a problem.
I don't think that anyone in this conversation has criticized the idea of a GM lifting the restrictions in their game. And no player should feel bad for asking to have ithem lifted.
The only pushback I have seen is against the idea that the developers are wrong to have put the restrictions in in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or she might grant a "Glaive Aura" that lets the glaive be treated as a finesse weapon. (Or whatever else this feat does.)
Just like Desna could grant a Star-Knife aura that lets you use charisma to attack and damage with them.
And these would be super special auras that aren't affected by antimagic. :)
Eh, personally I'm content with organizations, religious and otherwise, only teaching certain things to reasonably devoted members of said organizations. Gotta keep your trade secrets secret, don't you?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@PK, it's a feat, not a Prestige Class :3
And to my knowledge, no.
"It's more like, you need to be able to do ~ 10+ damage consistently around level 4 or so (which is when DR 10 creatures start showing up)."?!?!
Do you play published adventures or home games, cause I don't tend to see those till later.
Regarding your group, I would seriously suggest you talk with them about this or even find another group if their first response towards someone with an alternate or "subpar" build is outright mockery and jokes at their expense. That doesn't sound like a pleasant group, not does it sound like it's good for your mental health.
Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.
Why?
Simple for me. It's a setting book with rules in it for the setting. Perfectly appropriate as something for the setting.
If it had been a RPG line book untied to the setting, then it would have been a bad idea.
This has been mentioned in the thread, but that is basically what it comes down to, for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you get s GM like me I try to make your choices of background matter incorporating them into the story. Which means if you have built a devoted Shelynite I'll go out of my way in order to have that aspect of your character come out. If you refuse to aknowledge that your character is a Shelynite I'd start to ask why and this can lead to more roleplaying opportunities (which, depending on your character's reactions could very well prove costy).
In a roleplaying game background choices can matter as much or more so than mechanical choices, it just depends on the amount of work your GM is willing to shoulder.I... fail to understand why we're on separate sides of this argument.
We both treasure story and creating meaningful impact from background choices.
Probably because I believe in making different choices meaningful on a mechanical level too.
As I see things you can have great glaive fighters in Golarion without worshipping Sheylin and having found one of the secret masters of her particular martial style teaching you their techniques. You just won't be the best at glaive fighting and I'm fine with it because that gives something cool to those people who choose to play a Shelyinite.That said, as a GM I would do probably rule this way: you can't have access to special religious techniques unless you respect the common prerequisites. BUT if you are willing to spend time and effort in game to achieve the aim of learning those I will accomodate your wish by giving you a subplot dealing with the issue. With the correct choices (and possible failure) you'll be able to get what you want, just not as quickly as someone going through the "proper channels".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, personally I'm content with organizations, religious and otherwise, only teaching certain things to reasonably devoted members of said organizations. Gotta keep your trade secrets secret, don't you?By all means try to keep your 'trade secrets.'
Claim ownership of them even though others might either steal them or develop them independently.
Just don't break the fourth wall and beg the GM / Game Developers to protect your 'trade secrets' for you.
I'm not aware that we're the ones doing the begging here. Seems like the game designers are on board with organizations keeping their secrets secret and you're on the side begging for those secrets to be out in the wind. And GMs don't need to beg for it because they can always dispense with that requirement should they so choose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, personally I'm content with organizations, religious and otherwise, only teaching certain things to reasonably devoted members of said organizations. Gotta keep your trade secrets secret, don't you?
I feel like these situations are better handled by stuff like, for example:
Although the vast majority of deep marshals are dwarves, a few non-dwarves have earned enough trust to be trained as deep marshals, or have learned the same techniques from studying old dwarven spellbooks.
A thing can be specific to a people or an organization that developed it and generally only practiced by members of that group, without having rules text that makes it specific to that group.
I mean, if it's just "here's a way you can fight, if you train real hard" isn't going to be the sort of thing that you can only keep within the organization for very long (I mean, someone can watch you and make careful notes and try to figure out your fighting techniques on their own.) The only way "you literally have to worship this god in order to do this thing" makes sense to me is if there's some amount of divine approval invested in it somehow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But "Secret fighting technique passed down for years" stories in fiction generally revolve around one person who has turned away from the true path and is corrupting their teachings for personal gain and they must be stopped by the people who understand their true meaning.
I mean, this is basically the plot of Executioners of Shaolin, Abbot of Shaolin, Clan of the White Lotus, etc.
If you want to make "gotta be a member" a hard and fast rule, you're precluding telling that story.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, conceptually "lightly armored, agile, mobile long weapon user" is a concept whose fiction is sufficiently strong (and common) that there ought to be a number of ways to accomplish it anyway.
Heck, it's not just fiction either. Back in the days of gladiator matches the Romans loved match-ups that put light-armored agile guys against big guys in heavy armor, and would endlessly debate which style of gladiator was better.
Paizo has published many rules for specific groups in Golarion that say they are typically (usually, primarily, etc.) restricted to that group. In some cases, like this feat, they restrict it outright. The former is the appropriate way to do it. The later is unnecessarily restrictive and goes against logic for many things.
For example, being a paladin that literally turns rock maybe only makes sense for dwarves. But being able to use a glaive dexterously? That has nothing to do with worship, other than the words on the page that says it's required.
For those that require worship, can't you be worshipping all gods and thereby use any of those feats?