Organized Play Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just noting that Eskimo is a fraught term that has at times been a contributing factor in cultural erasure and general ignoranceThe same thing happens with the term Eskimo or Native American.
Yes, that is exactly why I used the example. Society sometimes adopts terms or nomenclature and the application amounts to misinformation. Barbarian could refer to people who live in a entire region, a specific tribe, or the individuals that fight in a certain way. Some or none of them might actually belong to the OOC class, but none of that precludes more accurate classifications.
Hopefully my reference to that fact was not construed in a negative fashion.
I think we're mostly pointed in the same direction. My point was that the vast majority of people who get lumped into "Eskimo" actually aren't Eskimo and the average person would be no more likely to know the difference between a champion and a cleric or a fighter or a barbarian than the on-average-much-better-educated people of the real world are able to distinguish between Inupiat and Tsimshian. So even if there is a terminology that is used as a general point of reference, it not be accurate enough to actually provide any meaningful information.
Tangential, combat style is also something that almost never is distinguishable enough to establish identity on outside of narrow groups, and then typically it's a super specific identification tied to a famous school or fighter. "Monk" or even "unarmed fighter" is almost too meta to actually come into common use the way that "boxer", "kickboxer", and "grappler" are. And those are at the level of fighting styles, where they would all likely be subsets of a single Pathfinder class. So there's a notable possibility that while people in world might actually recognize "duelists" or "archers" might be recognized groups in game, no one, possibly even including themselves, would ever think they were part of the same class, because from their perspective the training, execution, and role are entirely different.
The more the differences are thematic, rather than mechanical, the more likely they are to matter in-world. A fighter, ranger, or rogue with a bow might all identify and be identified as archers, because the differences between them are largely in the fine details of how they execute the same task. Magic has bigger differentials, like source, appearance, effects, and the differences start at a deeper level in the lore of the world at a fundamental level of access. Even then of course, there's differences that probably aren't relevant or understood in-world, or mechanical limitations that are representative of a general truth molded to the game's framework than an accurate representation of what is universally true in-world.
I mean, there is no reason why they couldn't.sure, and so long as you agree that they won't then asert they're a "barbarian", then we're in agreement. the only thing i think is unfounded, is whether or not a barbarian or others would group other barbarians together even though they have diverse cultural backgrounds and each class has fairly decent overlap in what you could consider their training versus their abilities.I mean the reality is most of that is fluff and doesn't really address the fact that people can tell the difference between different styles of combat. I can just as easily counter with:
"He is a skilled warrior and may follow the treatises but his foot movements are all wrong. I don't know where he got his treatises training but it wasn't in Varisia. Plus, any self respecting greatsword treatise school would have beaten those anger issues out of him."
right but could they tell that a specific boxer and a specific greatsword user, are both actually fury barbarians?
i don't mind so much saying they fight differently, it's when you then go, but *they* fight the same. even though both the fighter and barbarian would likely be still be called followers of the treatises.
Why not? One person can fight with fists and the other a spear and both recognizably use Tai Chi. The students in the example above would be be called students of the Brittle Iron school, but are different classes and go about the business of fighting differently, even if they use similar techniques.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But they aren't. They could be, but they aren't. A Barbarian doesn't get Twin Takedown or Hunted Shot. A Ranger doesn't get Point Blank Shot or Double Slice. It'd be one thing if the strikes all had the exact same outcomes and triggers and description, but they don't (thank god.) So I'm going to know that someone who comes out and fights like a kickboxer isn't going to know Brazilian Ju-Jitsu. In real life, some people do cross train styles, those would be multi-classers.
Sorry to pick and choose with my response here, but I think this gets to a core thing I wanted to call out. Someone might know that a particular move is taught by a particular subgroup rather than another (though I think there's room for debate there) but what I said was
"Monk" or even "unarmed fighter" is almost too meta to actually come into common use the way that "boxer", "kickboxer", and "grappler" are. And those are at the level of fighting styles, where they would all likely be subsets of a single Pathfinder class.
A monk can specifically be all three. You can play a puncher monk, a kickboxer monk, or a grappler monk and they play extremely differently. Moreover, a monk who goes Ki Rush, Crushing Grab, Flurry of Maneuvers has less in common with how they fight compared to a monk who goes Dragon Stance, Elemental Fist, Flying Kick, than they do with an unarmed and unarmored fighter who goes Sudden Charge, Combat Grab, Knockdown. Generally, martially-oriented characters using the same basic combat style from two different classes are going to have more visibly in common with each other than they'll have with characters from the same class using a different combat style. An archer fighter and archer ranger will have more in common than an archer fighter and a bully fighter.
From an in-game perspective what is important is what a person does; so the archers would probably all be "archers" first, and then people in-world would likely break them down as "flurry archers" or "snipers" or "sport archers", etc. Classes work OOC because they're abstractions based on how people access the game, but IC most of the elements that form a class are intangibles that aren't necessarily obvious or even visible.
Ultimately the abstraction itself is only as important as what it adds to the group. You could have the hyper-literal Order of the Stick style interpretation where everyone knows exactly what class they are, say the name of the spell as their verbal component, and can have an in-depth conversation about how they're socially a samurai but have the paladin and monk classes. You could have the opposite, where essentially all game terms are known to be abstractions that occasionally overlap with in-world terms but are generally not something interacted with IC unless specifically noted in some way.
From the viewpoint of the OP topic, it seems that the question leans more towards the OotS interpretation, where everyone is fully aware of the exact class/archetype/level/ability scores and feat choices they have in-character. I'm inclined to think that way of looking at the game world is too limiting, because very often (especially in PF1) there were multiple roads to the same result, and typically there were subcomponents of that which were much more important than the class. Fighting with a klar and earthbreaker is a much more notable thing about a person than whether they're a ranger (skirmisher) or a fighter (vengeful hunter), in much the same way that a person's ability to mumble in broken Celestial and cause someone's wounds to heal is more notable and relevant than whether they used the Celestial word for "heal" or "cure light wounds" (which might be the same symbol or word in Celestial anyways, because what one language prioritizes is often quite different than what another language does).
Why not? One person can fight with fists and the other a spear and both recognizably use Tai Chi. The students in the example above would be be called students of the Brittle Iron school, but are different classes and go about the business of fighting differently, even if they use similar techniques.I mean, there is no reason why they couldn't.sure, and so long as you agree that they won't then asert they're a "barbarian", then we're in agreement. the only thing i think is unfounded, is whether or not a barbarian or others would group other barbarians together even though they have diverse cultural backgrounds and each class has fairly decent overlap in what you could consider their training versus their abilities.I mean the reality is most of that is fluff and doesn't really address the fact that people can tell the difference between different styles of combat. I can just as easily counter with:
"He is a skilled warrior and may follow the treatises but his foot movements are all wrong. I don't know where he got his treatises training but it wasn't in Varisia. Plus, any self respecting greatsword treatise school would have beaten those anger issues out of him."
right but could they tell that a specific boxer and a specific greatsword user, are both actually fury barbarians?
i don't mind so much saying they fight differently, it's when you then go, but *they* fight the same. even though both the fighter and barbarian would likely be still be called followers of the treatises.
Okay for ease of use, let's pretend tai chi is the golarion equivalent of say the fighter class, would it then make sense to call someone on another continent speaking a different language, who is also a fighter and using weapons that aren't used on the previous continent, a tai chi practitioner?
I don't think so, their origins of fighting are so far remove from each other and classes in golarion obviously spring up all over the place regardless of training or background.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost like people can't fathom that mechanics are an abstraction of how Golarion works and not the literal way the world works in setting.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's keep it civil folks! Everyone has different levels of comfort with the degree to which they think elements of the game are or should be literal or abstracted. There's very few "wrong" answers and quite a few that are equally valid despite disagreeing with each other. The hobby flourishes best when everyone can share their thoughts and opinions on how best to play and interpret the game without disagreement breeding discord.
Going all the way back to the OP?
Now there aren't any stat boosting spells in the game, how are you going to explain where they went in world?
I'll explain it the same way, back in my D&D campaign setting days, I explained dwarves suddenly being able to use arcane magic, sorcerers existing at all, dual-classing no longer being a thing, multiclassing suddenly being available to everyone, rangers no longer having to be good-aligned, or where all of these flaming, frost, shock, and radiant energy weapons came from. The same way I explained percentile scores at 18 Strength going away, and the disappearance (for a long time, anyway) of the half-orc, assassin, and cavalier. The same way Tanar'ri and Baatezu became a thing. The same way 3.0 rangers became the less front-loaded 3.5 rangers.
"Let us never speak of this again."
It's almost like people can't fathom that mechanics are an abstraction of how Golarion works and not the literal way the world works in setting.It's called an "abstraction" because it's the mechanical way the game represents what's actually happening. The Rage mechanic is a way to abstract the ability for a character to go berserk in a fight.
it would appear that the concept of abstractions has people thinking there is no in-game analogue. That would be a fallacy. At best, you can argue that the in-game analogue isn't perceivable/knowable at all or to some degree. That might be true with something like a Saving Throw, it would be untrue for something like Rage.
You tap into your inner fury and begin raging.That isn't an abstraction. That is a description of what your character does in-game. The abstraction arises when we translate that into game mechanics.
I don't know, maybe we are saying the same thing?
Do you allow any reskinning at all? Or are all players slavishly tied to the lore attached to the mechanics?
Do all barbarians HAVE to "tap into your inner fury and begin raging." Or can it represent other things.
Also to be honest, I only really take issue with the people who say things like "Paizo doesn't care at all about CONTINUITY" because a few spells have been removed. Or the number of times you can Lay on Hands has changed.
As though changes like that, which are abstractions of how things work in the world to help us engage on both a fiction and game level, mean that suddenly up is down, left is right, and all continuity is thrown out the window.
Do you allow any reskinning at all? Or are all players slavishly tied to the lore attached to the mechanics?
Do all barbarians HAVE to "tap into your inner fury and begin raging." Or can it represent other things.
Sure, but what about fluff changes prevent characters from being able to observe abilities in-universe? Does a Wizard having green fireballs suddenly mean no one can recognize what spell they cast? What about what you said is an argument for NOT being able to recognize differences in martial characters?
As though changes like that, which are abstractions of how things work in the world to help us engage on both a fiction and game level, mean that suddenly up is down, left is right, and all continuity is thrown out the window.
First, as has been covered numerous times, many of those "abstractions" are things directly measurable in-universe. Secondly, details are the foundation upon which the story is built. Changing details easily prevents the story from happening as is. Saying "well something else happened instead" is the same as saying a completely different story took place.
And to be clear, the fact that things changed is not why continuity doesn't matter. It's that observable, in-universe rules changed without a story explanation but a retcon that continuity doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether someone used one use of lay on hands or two uses of lay on hands in a fight matters not one iota to the continuity of the setting.
None. Zilch. Zero.
And do you seriously think "Reskinning" is as simplistic as "oh the fireball is green"?
You can do a whole lot without ever changing any mechanics. Classes are just bags of abilities. They have default lore, but you can change that lore any way you want to. The entire way you cast could be changed as long as it mechanically behaved the same.
And that is why I'm saying its all a heavy abstraction. Because otherwise it completely falls apart. Why would two people with completely and utterly DIFFERENT lore reasons for their abilities have the exact same capabilities?
They don't, its just a shortcut so that we can play them in a game.
Whether someone used one use of lay on hands or two uses of lay on hands in a fight matters not one iota to the continuity of the setting.
None. Zilch. Zero.
It absolutely does. It's a distinct difference in the combat and healing ability of a Paladin. In-universe it is an observable change to how things work. You are free to not care about it, but that is all that means. You might as well say the magic to fly or teleport doesn't matter one iota to the setting. Or hell, that magic itself doesn't make a difference in the setting. All are the same, the only difference is in degree .
And do you seriously think "Reskinning" is as simplistic as "oh the fireball is green"?
Yup, why wouldn't it be. What would be your reskin for rage that is any different than changing the fluff of spells?
You can do a whole lot without ever changing any mechanics. Classes are just bags of abilities. They have default lore, but you can change that lore any way you want to. The entire way you cast could be changed as long as it mechanically behaved the same.
Of course you can change the lore. It's called a retcon and it's what you do when you don't care about/like the already established continuity. Do you think any of my arguments are based on Paizo's physical inability to change what they write in books?
And that is why I'm saying its all a heavy abstraction. Because otherwise it completely falls apart. Why would two people with completely and utterly DIFFERENT lore reasons for their abilities have the exact same capabilities?
You having difficulty wrapping your head around it doesn't make it heavy abstraction, it just means you have difficulty wrapping your head around it. Two Barbarians could have UTTERLY DIFFERENT lore reasons for their abilities and both are still Barbarians. A Barbarian from Minkai and a Barbarian from the Cinderlands don't have the same lore, the same fluff. I mean f*&@ dude, you JUST put out there changing the fluff of a Barbarian's rage. EXACTLY what do you think the difference between the two is?
Everything written as a game mechanic is not an observable, in-universe rule.
No one has every claimed that everything written is an observable, in-universe rule. Goal post is back over there -> where we the discussion is about some of them being observable in-universe. Would you care to join us?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... You guys have a really narrow definition of what "different lore" means.
... You guys have a really narrow definition of what "different lore" means.
Please explain exactly how our definition is narrow and what definition you are using.
Since Corrik has not responded...
Okay for ease of use, let's pretend tai chi is the golarion equivalent of say the fighter class, would it then make sense to call someone on another continent speaking a different language, who is also a fighter and using weapons that aren't used on the previous continent, a tai chi practitioner?This seems like a trick question. If someone has the set of skills that comprise tai chi, why would they not be a tai chi practitioner?
People learn to play professional tennis in Russia, Argentina, South Africa, Guam, India, Australia, Japan, China, France, and the US. Would any of them not be tennis players?
I don't think so, their origins of fighting are so far remove from each other...And why would that matter? If the definition of tai chi can be satisfied, why wouldn't that person be so classified?
Perhaps you can answer a question that perplexes me. Why is there so much resistance to the idea of an OOC class being the basis for one of many classifications a character might identify with? I have trouble understanding why the substantive differences between Fighter and Barbarian must be dismissed so that they cannot be distinguished? How does that erode the quality of your game-play?
Consider that characters who had the OOC class of Barbarian would have a reputation for getting fatigued after fights. This would be in stark contrast to all other adventurers. Don't you think something like this would be exploited in wars and combat? If you know that the enemy is dominated by warriors who become berserk during combat, but then are fatigued after it? Hit-and-run techniques would work really well against Barbarians and be far less effective against Fighters.
It's also easy to imagine that Barbarians might perceive their "rage" as fighting with spirit or passion or the might of their ancestors. They might perceive Fighters as warriors who lacked the fighting spirit, who were soulless, or had no connection with their...
i think you misunderstand, he has the same mechanical abilities of a tai chi practitioner, however they're both taught entirely differently and have no connection to each other. they use different weapons as they're available, are based in different languages. they both have different connotations and beliefs, but both at the end of the day give you fighter feats per level.
on your barbarian example, HP is also often used as a stand in for fatigue, and since barbarian fatigue only lasts a minute even with them running up hill, etc, i don't think necessarily think it's them getting fatigued. the mechanics aren't a 1-1 mirror of reality and their descriptions aren't always that accurate.
also a barbarians MIGHT perceive their rage that way, or just not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would:
I get really angry
and
I am possessed by the spirits of my ancestors
behave 100% the same.
And why would both be identifiable as the same class?
I posit that they don't behave identically, it just isn't worth redesigning a mechanic for every single possible explanation, and the purpose of the mechanics is to get "close enough" so that we can engage with the world and the game, and not to perfectly model the world.
It's a near enough abstraction.
Just like two diagonal squares isn't actually 15', but its close enough.
So if I believe that when a Barbarian uses Rage they "tap into their inner fury and begin raging," I'm being "hyper literal?" Or only if I believe all Barbarians do that? So which ones do that and which ones don't?
the ones that don't, we have no actual collection of people to survey or whatever, it's an arbitrary decision at each character's creation, NPC or otherwise.
Why would:
I get really angry
and
I am possessed by the spirits of my ancestors
behave 100% the same.
Different fluff, also not the topic at hand. Why would "I get angry" and "I entirely focused on battle" necessitate being a different class?
I posit that they don't behave identically, it just isn't worth redesigning a mechanic for every single possible explanation, and the purpose of the mechanics is to get "close enough" so that we can engage with the world and the game, and not to perfectly model the world.
Luckily we aren't trying to perfectly model the world, goal post is back that way ->
What about this statement requires game mechanics to be 100% hidden from people? Prevents experts in martial arts from telling a Monk and a Fighter apart?
Now please stop shouting that you don't understand things and explain, in detail, how my definition of lore is narrow and what definition of lore you are using.
no two longswords look alike and that means you can't recognize a longsword for what it is because the description of a longsword is an abstraction.
Well put.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now please stop shouting that you don't understand things...
Yeah, no, sorry man, I'm not going to engage with people who are trying to characterize me as though I'm somehow emotional and angry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't need to be accurate, but they are consistent. Whatever you want to happen to a Barbarian during its Fatigue status, it happens to all Barbarians. Arguing otherwise is like my saying, no two longswords look alike and that means you can't recognize a longsword for what it is because the description of a longsword is an abstraction.
i disagree, and i also agree that no two longswords look alike, and there's a fair amount of debate on what actually is a longsword, versus say a greatsword or shortsword. and yet in pathfinder mechanically they are hard cut.
a longsword is just a sword that is long, this covered many many designs, many of which have different names and come from different cultures. the sword comes up more in cultures that have high quality iron, as they can make longer and stronger metal objects and more armor.
likewise a barbarian needs have no basis and can come from any number of directions so long as the right qualities are there. a longsword is a sword that is long, the best you can describe a barbarian as is someone who fights minute to minute, and i'm not sure that's something that would gain it's own classification or not.
Why is there so much resistance to the idea of an OOC class being the basis for one of many classifications a character might identify with? *** How does that erode the quality of your game-play?
people don't do things unless they have a reason to, and i don't think people really have a reason to call everyone who happens to be of the barbarian class a barbarian. there is little resemblance except for mechanics.
Now please stop shouting that you don't understand things...Yeah, no, sorry man, I'm not going to engage with people who are trying to characterize me as though I'm somehow emotional and angry.
Guess you didn't have much of a point with that comment then. Well then bye, Felicia.
people don't do things unless they have a reason to, and i don't think people really have a reason to call everyone who happens to be of the barbarian class a barbarian. there is little resemblance except for mechanics.
They wouldn't, no more than every country would call a sword a sword. That isn't even close to the argument at hand. A Barbarian in Minkai might be called a Nobhito or literally anything else. What about that prevents people from being able to recognize class or mechanic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also mechanics can be functionally identical while not appearing identical in world.
For instance, let's look at a fighter's Legendary Weapon proficiency.
One fighter's accuracy might come down to the speed of their strikes.
Another fighter's accuracy might come down to a style of strikes that make redirecting a swing easier.
Another fighter's accuracy might just come from strikes that are designed to come from angles that are just harder to block or dodge.
All of these are modeled by a +2 to hit over someone with Master proficiency in the weapon, but in no way would these be identifiable as the same "class" because while the mechanics are the same, the way they would appear to someone watching them is not.
While the mechanical solution to these problems is the same "just getting more AC" the in universe solutions are not the same.
Also mechanics can be functionally identical while not appearing identical in world.
For instance, let's look at a fighter's Legendary Weapon proficiency.
One fighter's accuracy might come down to the speed of their strikes.
Another fighter's accuracy might come down to a style of strikes that make redirecting a swing easier.
Another fighter's accuracy might just come from strikes that are designed to come from angles that are just harder to block or dodge.
All of these are modeled by a +2 to hit over someone with Master proficiency in the weapon, but in no way would these be identifiable as the same "class" because while the mechanics are the same, the way they would appear to someone watching them is not.
While the mechanical solution to these problems is the same "just getting more AC" the in universe solutions are not the same.
Nothing you've described precludes someone from identifying these things as being from a fighter. And Fighters have an entire class chassis from which to identify them. An orange fireball is as easily identified as a green fireball. Or as N N 959 put it, one longsword looking different from another does not mean people lack the ability to classify it as a longsword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On top of all this, not every person even is one of the classes.
An NPC might have none of the classes, but still have legendary proficiency with a sword.
Would they then be a fighter because they have something a fighter has?
The reason that I don't think the concept of class as an in universe thing is useful is because all it does is inspire rigid classifications which is something real worlds DON'T have.
Class based systems exist because it's a quick shorthand mechanically, but classes just aren't realistic. Real life skills of human beings just aren't that rigid, and honestly the fiction of Golarion isn't that rigid either.
Like I'd love to see anyone try to recreate Varian Jeggare in Pathfinder. It doesn't work, cause his skillset has a combination of uber-competence in a frankly absurd amount of disciplines, which is not something possible in a class based system.
Whether someone used one use of lay on hands or two uses of lay on hands in a fight matters not one iota to the continuity of the setting.
None. Zilch. Zero.
And do you seriously think "Reskinning" is as simplistic as "oh the fireball is green"?
You can do a whole lot without ever changing any mechanics. Classes are just bags of abilities. They have default lore, but you can change that lore any way you want to. The entire way you cast could be changed as long as it mechanically behaved the same.
And that is why I'm saying its all a heavy abstraction. Because otherwise it completely falls apart. Why would two people with completely and utterly DIFFERENT lore reasons for their abilities have the exact same capabilities?
They don't, its just a shortcut so that we can play them in a game.
I have played games where the mechanics dont mean anything in game. You can flavour it however you want because the mechanics have zero impact on the story. That isnt the case with Pathfinder (especially Pathfinder 2e) and that is one of its strengths.
In PF1e I played a barbarian as an alcoholic college dropout and his rage was fueled by his alcoholism (I took the Drunken Brute archetype). In PF2e that would be 100 times harder due to the anathema. Anathema tie the mechanics even more tightly into the story. That isn't a bad thing.
Of course you can spend even more effort trying to reflavour it further. Or you can use the flavour of the game by going along with the built in flavour. I would personally rather do the latter. If I wanted a game where mechanics were completely divorced from flavour I certainly wouldn't play Pathfinder 2e, and I would hesitate to play Pathfinder 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you have to use different classes depending on "when you are building him for" absolutely proves my point that statting him based on what he can do in the fiction doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, which makes more sense:
The only skillsets people can have in the world are the exact ones defined by classes.
-OR-
The classes are a game construct that exists so that we can more easily balance and advance the mechanical portion of the game.
The fact that you have to use different classes depending on "when you are building him for" absolutely proves my point that statting him based on what he can do in the fiction doesn't work.
What the f#@~ are you talking about? He doesn't start as a sorcerer, he starts with Wizard levels and then later learns about his sorcerer blood and switches to that. Your statement makes even less sense in 2E where retraining is core.
And just to be clear, the fact that the creator of the character has a build for him doesn't disprove your point? That's how your mind is working right now?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you have to use different classes depending on "when you are building him for" absolutely proves my point that statting him based on what he can do in the fiction doesn't work.What the f+$& are you talking about? He doesn't start as a sorcerer, he starts with Wizard levels and then later learns about his sorcerer blood and switches to that. Your statement makes even less sense in 2E where retraining is core.
And just to be clear, the fact that the creator of the character has a build for him doesn't disprove your point? That's how your mind is working right now?
You can't retrain your class. If you are saying that the mechanics literally represent the world there is no way he can "Start as a wizard with fighter dedication, then switch to a sorcerer with fighter dedication."
Without house rules, that is literally impossible.
Therefore "The fact that you have to us different classes depending on "when you are building him for" absolutely proves my point."
Also just because the creator statted him doesn't actually mean that those stats actually represent his skill level in the fiction. I could stat anything using ancestries and class levels, that doesn't mean that what I create is actually going to be accurate to what the characters are portrayed as capable of.
You play games where you create NPCs with stats that don't represent their actual capabilities?
Can you actually explain how that works? Because that makes no sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You play games where you create NPCs with stats that don't represent their actual capabilities?
Can you actually explain how that works? Because that makes no sense to me.
I'm referring to a lore character who is from the Pathfinder novels.
I'm saying that while he is statted by the author of those novels, that doesn't mean that the stats he wrote actually support the incredibly diverse skillset and competence shown by the character in the novels.
Things like "he was a wizard, but now he is a sorcerer" just don't work in Pathfinder, yet we have evidence that that is a thing that has happened in the lore of the world.
Classes are used as a game structure in order for us to create characters. As approximations of what characters would be capable of and to create a fun play experience.
The current game even admits that this is not how the world works on the whole. That is why while you CAN use the Class system to create NPCs, NPCs can entirely be statted without them, by just giving them stats and ablities appropriate for their fiction. This is actually how I'd create Varian Jeggare because his abilities just don't fit very well into the PF class system, either 1e or 2e.
Classes exist to to ease player character creation, not as a straightjacket for the existence of all mortals in the world.
Oh yeah. We've got D&D 4th ed NPCs. I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also just because the creator statted him doesn't actually mean that those stats actually represent his skill level in the fiction. I could stat anything using ancestries and class levels, that doesn't mean that what I create is actually going to be accurate to what the characters are portrayed as capable of.
Just because there is a build for him doesn't mean there is a build for him. Okay buddy, you think what you like despite reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also just because the creator statted him doesn't actually mean that those stats actually represent his skill level in the fiction. I could stat anything using ancestries and class levels, that doesn't mean that what I create is actually going to be accurate to what the characters are portrayed as capable of.Just because there is a build for him doesn't mean there is a build for him. Okay buddy, you think what you like despite reality.
Just because there is a build for him doesn't mean that there is a build for him that ACTUALLY REFLECTS WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF IN THE NOVELS.
I think you are purposely attempting to misconstrue my point. Maybe care more about understanding what someone says than being "right".
Or how about going back and explaining how he retrained his base class. I noticed you didn't respond at all to that one.
The build has the explicit purpose of keeping track of what the character can do. The author certainly thinks other people can replicate the build. You shouting that the build couldn't possibly reflect the novel means nothing.
I'm not misconstruing your point, you are merely attempting to walk it back. You stated the character couldn't be built, that is a blatant falsehood based on absolutely nothing. Not only can the character be built, he is built.
I didn't address retraining because its nothing more than a goal post move. Now how about you go back and read the blog post, look up all of the builds for the character, and please point out how they don't work. Again, you shouting they don't work holds as much water as a colander.