From the Map in The Lost Omens book, Korvosa is at the bottom edge of The Saga Lands. Going by the scale 50m south would probably be in the top of Old Cheliax
Is the map in the book a different one from the one they posted in May? https://cdn.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderWorldGuides/20190521-LostOmen sMap.jpg
Because per that one the border of Saga Lands and Old Cheliax runs at the north end of the bay Korvose is located at the south end of.
The zoomed in location map has the border of Cheliax below the bay and Korvosa
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Except you literally can't use it without knowing what the favored weapons are. It is literally, not possible without houseruling out that requirement. The requirement is a MECHANICAL REQUIREMENT. Without knowing the lore, you cannot know if you qualify for the MECHANICAL REQUIREMENT of the archetype.
It is, not playable as written in the book without 1. Outside information(whether from online or from 1e books), or 2. GM Intervention(houseruling the requirement out, or making up the favored weapons for an order)
There is no other option here, and to argue otherwise is incredibly disingenuous.
I cannot fathom how "This is literally unusable from the book" is such a controversial statement. It is. It is not usable as written from the book. In no case should they print something that literally CAN't BE USED without information not present in 2e books at all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if someone got the book and thought "I'm gonna play a Hellknight" and then realizes that the weapon they need to be proficient in for a specific order isn't identified in the book is not going to throw their hands up and declare it's all useless, they're going to go looking (such as here on the Paizo boards).
Since it is possible to find this information (multiple people have supplied it in this thread) this is not an unworkable situation. It is not ideal, but Paizo can't exactly unprint the book.
In the case where you have a gaming group who has no access to the internet, I would suggest the GM and the player just work together to invent their own Hellknight Order.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot fathom how "This is literally unusable from the book" is such a controversial statement.Because it's not true.
In no case should they print something that literally CAN't BE USED without information not present in 2e books at all.
The Pathfinder/Golarion/Lost Omens Campaign Setting wasn't just invented, it's been around for 12 years. To ignore every bit of lore and narrative that came before second edition is rather odd, especially when it's so easy to get a hold of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it feels a bit of an 'own goal' not to have included a bit more. But there's enough for just about any non-PFS player to work out something with their GM.
Paizo has said they don't want to just re-sell all the old material, re-bundled for us. I'm generally happy to see old-lore simply adopted in without needing a new book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if someone got the book and thought "I'm gonna play a Hellknight" and then realizes that the weapon they need to be proficient in for a specific order isn't identified in the book is not going to throw their hands up and declare it's all useless, they're going to go looking (such as here on the Paizo boards).
Since it is possible to find this information (multiple people have supplied it in this thread) this is not an unworkable situation. It is not ideal, but Paizo can't exactly unprint the book.
In the case where you have a gaming group who has no access to the internet, I would suggest the GM and the player just work together to invent their own Hellknight Order.
Yea I agree, for my group as the DM I can see getting a msg "What are the different Hellknight orders?" and then I link them to the relevant wiki page and we move on with our lives.
We're running Age of Ashes and none of them even know what Hellknights are since they've never played in Golarion, when it came up they asked "Would our characters know what Hellknights are?" and then I explained what they would probably know. I don't expect them to know the history of the world, it's my job to provide the setting details.
Nobody got upset that Hellknights aren't detailed in the CRB/Player's Guide to the adventure even though they're a major part of the adventure path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most likely the details on the orders are going to be in whichever book has the actual Hellknight dedication (presumably the Lost Omens Character Guide) which comes out in a couple of months.
I figure the only reason you would want to be an Armiger is so you can become a full Hellknight eventually, so hold off on your Hellknight characters until the archetype exists if this bothers you.
Of course, for Armigers, there's always the fighter route where you can say "Oh, I'm proficient with every weapon... flickmaces, plasma cannons, you name it."
Also, with retraining, you can let the game play on, lead it to you wanting to be a member of a specific order, that you will see in play, and then you can start retraining feats to qualify for the specific order that fits the game. You don't have to know the weapon in advance to eventually qualify for the archetype.
It would have been an "own goal" situation if they had included all of that info in this book. All of that info is in the very next book which includes the actual Hellknight and Signifer dedications and info on the organization. It would have literally been reprinting info in two sequential books.
it is only weird because this book came out first by a month. As of next month.. it will no longer have that problem.
Yes, it feels a bit of an 'own goal' not to have included a bit more. But there's enough for just about any non-PFS player to work out something with their GM.
Paizo has said they don't want to just re-sell all the old material, re-bundled for us. I'm generally happy to see old-lore simply adopted in without needing a new book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the "relevant information" is already out and well known.
It's not missing any mechanics.
Mark Moreland has said it is a goal of PF2e for players to not have to sift through 12 years of content to play in Golarion. So can we let this idea die now?
If they truly are going to release the missing information in October I am flabbergasted as to why they wouldn't release the Hellknight Armiger in that book. It literally makes no sense to me. Unfortunately this is the situation we are in. However I think it is well within the reasonable right of someone new to Golarion to complain about that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, legitimately one reason not to print the Hellknight Orders in this book is to encourage people to come up with their own. Listing the Hellknight Orders sort of sends the idea that "these are all there are" when even Paizo will just invent a new one for anything they want to do with it, with the cover that "there are a whole bunch of lesser orders". I figure GMs and their players can use that excuse just as much as Paizo can.
So if you want a Hellknight Order that hunts the fae, or that delivers the mail, or opposes counterfeiting, or that is concerned with the aesthetics of public buildings and spaces, or whatever... just make it up.
Like the Order of the Torrent was created in order to have a sympathetic, primarily good, Hellknight Order... their provenance was "kidnapping". Do we really think people got kidnapped so often in Kintargo that they didn't just spend a lot of time standing around waiting for something to do?
|
|
Mark Moreland has said it is a goal of PF2e for players to not have to sift through 12 years of content to play in Golarion. So can we let this idea die now?Because the "relevant information" is already out and well known.
It's not missing any mechanics.
And you don’t have to sift through 12 years of content to find Order and Order weapon.
And also what PossibleCabbage said.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, legitimately one reason not to print the Hellknight Orders in this book is to encourage people to come up with their own. Listing the Hellknight Orders sort of sends the idea that "these are all there are" when even Paizo will just invent a new one for anything they want to do with it, with the cover that "there are a whole bunch of lesser orders". I figure GMs and their players can use that excuse just as much as Paizo can.
So if you want a Hellknight Order that hunts the fae, or that delivers the mail, or opposes counterfeiting, or that is concerned with the aesthetics of public buildings and spaces, or whatever... just make it up.
Like the Order of the Torrent was created in order to have a sympathetic, primarily good, Hellknight Order... their provenance was "kidnapping". Do we really think people got kidnapped so often in Kintargo that they didn't just spend a lot of time standing around waiting for something to do?
Except there isn't even a footnote saying that the point is for the GM to create their own order.
Even a footnote saying that the intention was for the GM of the game to come up with an order and its purpose/favored weapons would have been better than literally just leaving the information necessary to play the archetype out of the book completely.
And when they do detail the Hellknight Orders in a further book, or someone uses the 1e ones listed, doesn't that just completely remove your point. For you to say "well, by not defining any it frees GMs to make their own", wouldn't the moment they define it in a further book completely remove that supposed goal?
I truly feel like there are some posters here who will straight defend and excuse anything Paizo does, in the face of logic, common sense, or anything else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, legitimately one reason not to print the Hellknight Orders in this book is to encourage people to come up with their own. Listing the Hellknight Orders sort of sends the idea that "these are all there are" when even Paizo will just invent a new one for anything they want to do with it, with the cover that "there are a whole bunch of lesser orders". I figure GMs and their players can use that excuse just as much as Paizo can.
So if you want a Hellknight Order that hunts the fae, or that delivers the mail, or opposes counterfeiting, or that is concerned with the aesthetics of public buildings and spaces, or whatever... just make it up.
Like the Order of the Torrent was created in order to have a sympathetic, primarily good, Hellknight Order... their provenance was "kidnapping". Do we really think people got kidnapped so often in Kintargo that they didn't just spend a lot of time standing around waiting for something to do?
Except there isn't even a footnote saying that the point is for the GM to create their own order.
Even a footnote saying that the intention was for the GM of the game to come up with an order and its purpose/favored weapons would have been better than literally just leaving the information necessary to play the archetype out of the book completely.
And when they do detail the Hellknight Orders in a further book, or someone uses the 1e ones listed, doesn't that just completely remove your point. For you to say "well, by not defining any it frees GMs to make their own", wouldn't the moment they define it in a further book completely remove that supposed goal?
I truly feel like there are some posters here who will straight defend and excuse anything Paizo does, in the face of logic, common sense, or anything else.
Does everything you’re able to do with it have to be written out for it to be useful?
1) It was put into an Atlas type book that talks a little about a bunch of areas, and the Armiger was shown for Cheliax.
2) The first AP involves Hellknights.
To anyone that knows about Golarion it shows familiarity; while to anyone new to the game it’s meant as foreshadowing. It’s pretty obvious that some people just didn’t take to it that well, and fair enough. To each their own. In a home game, the prerequisites can be waived or researched. In an AP or PFS game an opportunity has to specifically present itself. Plenty of options have been given in the thread already to incorporate the Hellknight Orders. If none of them tickle your fancy than just tough it out with the rest of us; since, you know, we all have to wait for the same content.
|
|
It’s not excusing anything, it’s just that the “issue” is so minor it’s silly.
And when they release the “official” 2e list of Hellknight Orders that won’t contradict what PossibleCabbage suggested. Paizo themselves added more Orders as time went on. They’re mercenary companies, not the specific armies for nations or anything.
It’s not excusing anything, it’s just that the “issue” is so minor it’s silly.
That's a really welcoming environment your creating for new people.
To the OP and new people with similar concerns: I hope you have found some of this helpful and I hope you continue to stick around. Not everyone is dismissive of your concerns and issues. In fact there's lots of good members of this community. Deadmanwalking is regarded pretty highly by almost everyone. I've never seen them people like those unwilling to help out new people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game doesn't need to tell you "you can make something up that you like to put here". That you can do this is a foundational axiom of roleplaying games.
One shouldn't need to be told "there are more Hellknight Orders than are described in the books" any more than one needs to be told "there are more towns in Cheliax than will be described in the books". The campaign setting books are going to give you the highlights, you (or the adventure author) are going to have to fill in the gaps.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
John, if you spent less time insulting others and instead reading the thread you might have noticed that the OP thanked everyone for their answers and seemed to be satisfied with them a few posts after this thread got started, and hasn’t been back since.
“I've never seen them people like those unwilling to help out new people.”
We are willing, we’ve pointed out the Pathfinderwiki and Archives of Nethys multiple times and others have outright listed the weapons of the Orders. Refusing to use resources doesn’t make those resources not exist. Which is what the current argument is about, people saying the class is unplayable since an easily found bit of flavor is not in the book but is easily and widely available elsewhere.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you tell people that you need to be proficient with favored weapons of your Hellknight order but in no place mention the hellknight orders, it makes people feel like they are missing things.
You are right that there is generally no reason to say "you can make things up" but there should be exceptions for calling out when the rules reference something that isn't actually covered in the book.
If the intention is for you to make up your own, then state that intention.
If the intention is to look it up in another book, state that intention.
When you place something in a book that references something that DOESN'T EXIST in that book or the CRB without pointing out where to get that information, you are creating issues where people are flipping back and forth through the book going "hey wait, what?". This is not good for new players.
I'm somehow dumbfounded at how dismissive people are about the fact that leaving new players confused as to if they are missing something in the book is good for the game.
Is it a minor issue? Probably. But if it points to a long term design decision to rely on the old books for information needed for the mechanics, then that is a problem that should be snipped now rather than waiting for something more egregious.
And considering that we have a link to one of the staff saying the intention was not to require old books for information, I think it was an oversight rather than intentional.
Acting like people pointing out an oversight, or people who are confused are the problem, rather than the oversight to begin with is absurd.
An example: if the god favored weapons weren't included in the CRB, would you have thought that was an issue for the many Cleric and Champion feats that reference them? Or would it have been OK cause I can look it up online?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would add that "trained in the order's favoured weapon" is a non-issue for most Hellknight characters (i.e. fighters or other martial classes) as they start trained with all martial weapons and none of the orders' favoured weapons are advanced. It would matter if someone started to build a caster Signifier... except the Signifier archetype isn't released yet.
Calling the concerns of new people minor and silly is really quite crass.
I think the OP concerns have been addressed in the first few posts, haven't they? The practical solution for them is to look up the Wiki, and the info has been helpfully reposted into the thread. The discussion of how bad the book/Paizo is because of the missing info is not helping the OP in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is what the current argument is about, people saying the class is unplayable since an easily found bit of flavor is not in the book but is easily and widely available elsewhere.
This is a strawman. no one said it was unplayable, I said it was UNPLAYABLE USING THE INFORMATION FOUND IN 2E.
There is a difference. It is not the same thing.
They have stated that their design goal is to not require people to use past books to be able to play the current edition. With that design goal in mind, which is a very good design goal as it is very welcoming to new players, this is a clear error on the part of the designers.
Continuing to refuse that this doesn't fit into their stated design goals, and strawmanning the people who disagree with you is incredibly disingenuous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the intention is for you to make up your own, then state that intention.
If the intention is to look it up in another book, state that intention.
”Make your own” has always been the unspoken boon for TTRPGs, the book doesn’t need to say it. As for referencing, that’s only occurred when referencing to mechanics, not flavor or narrative in Paizo products.
People are capable are looking things up, i’d fully expect and have faith in them to do so knowing that they’re playing something leveled with a Second Edition on it.
But if it points to a long term design decision to rely on the old books for information needed for the mechanics, then that is a problem that should be snipped now rather than waiting for something more egregious.
Then you should prepared to be disappointed, as Paizo’s stance is that books from 3.5 and P1 are completely valid until a later book on the subject comes out, in which case use the newer one.
For example, the Absalom setting book was 3.5, we didn’t get an update since it was mostly flavor and narrative and lore until now, with the soon to be out Absalom book. So P1 players had to use the 3.5 book.
Not obsoleting previous books and their lore (and thus purchases) is a boon, not a bane.
An example: if the god favored weapons weren't included in the CRB, would you have thought that was an issue for the many Cleric and Champion feats that reference them? Or would it have been OK cause I can look it up online?
The latter, the same as above. Sarenrae favoring the scimitar and Iomedae the longsword are well known and again, easy to find out.
I don’t say this to be cold, but because I don’t think most people are helpless. Especially on something so minor.
I like that you cut out an incredible amount of my point that doesn't match your narrative.
Do you think it is a good design decision to leave readers confused over whether they are missing something in the book?
Because referencing a mechanical requirement "proficiency with the favored weapon of the order" and then saying literally NOTHING about what those are, not even saying "this information is not in this book", is going to lead to confusion "wait where is that, flip flip flip flip, check index, flip flip". Hence... you know this thread in the first place.
|
|
Point, but then, the existence of 2E doesn’t make P1, 3.5, Pathfinderwiki, and the Archives of Nethys not exist.This is a strawman. no one said it was unplayable, I said it was UNPLAYABLE USING THE INFORMATION FOUND IN 2E.
There is a difference. It is not the same thing.
They have stated that their design goal is to not require people to use past books to be able to play the current edition.
They don’t. But flavor and lore are different than mechanics.
You don't need the books past or present to look up the Order’s weapons, just like you don’t need a 2e setting book to play a character from a certain area. We just got a book for Druma as the last P1 supplement, we’re not gonna get a 2e Druma book anytime soon, or at all.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like that you cut out an incredible amount of my point that doesn't match your narrative.I didn’t cut it to make you appear misleading or false, i do it be succinct and respond to specific parts.
Do you think it is a good design decision to leave readers confused over whether they are missing something in the book?
Because referencing a mechanical requirement "proficiency with the favored weapon of the order" and then saying literally NOTHING about what those are, not even saying "this information is not in this book", is going to lead to confusion "wait where is that, flip flip flip flip, check index, flip flip". Hence... you know this thread in the first place.
I’m saying it’s a non issue.
OP couldn’t find it, so they came to this board and found their answers, issue solved. Which I expect most people to do. Or use the Internet search and find the Wiki or AoN. That’s what these are there for.
The Order weapons aren’t non-existent, they’re established.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My position is that other new players confused by the printed archetype will read this thread from the beginning and find the answer in it; and that further it would have been a more welcoming environment without conjectures suggesting that the book is a failure or all further books will have similar problems.
I believe that the intention is to reprint all the necessary info as soon as possible (given the developers said as much) but I recognize it's not possible to do it all at once with material accumulated over a decade and suggest that the reasonable course of action when encountering a reference to not-yet-reprinted setting material is to reuse the existing and freely accessible 1E one, seeing as it does not require any additional effort beyond googling, instead of crying foul and declaring the material unplayable. Not sure what's controversial about that.
My other (controversial) stance is that printed RPG books should be relegated to collector's editions and the primary way of releasing material should be directly online with living updates; but I know I'm in the minority here (yet).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You heard it here folks, "This rulebook can be confusing" is a non-issue of design.
Yeah, I'm out. Thinking clarity is unimportant because people can come to forums to ask questions is ridiculous.
I believe that the intention is to reprint all the necessary info as soon as possible (given the developers said as much) but I recognize it's not possible to do it all at once with material accumulated over a decade
I do not think anyone has taken the stance that all information must be reprinted in order for anyone to be able to play the game. The fact you would feel the need to state that you haven't adopted this stance confuses me and I'd welcome you to expand as to why you thought it was necessary to state it.
Do you believe anyone in this thread is demanding that 10 years worth of content be reproduced immediately in a PF2e book?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you believe anyone in this thread is demanding that 10 years worth of content be reproduced immediately in a PF2e book?
Again, I am trying to separate the setting material from class mechanics here. But yes, how else should I interpret complaints that an archetype references a not-yet-reprinted bit of established lore? The 2E mechanics for the weapons are there, only the order list is missing but it's identical to 1E one (until they publish a book detailing appearance of a new order or removal of existing one as part of setting advancement). The only way to completely avoid such things is to pretend that anything not reprinted for 2E doesn't exist in Golarion until it is reprinted, which would be very strange. Realistically we will stumble upon missing material all the time until it is reprinted. I draw analogy with another recent thread which complained that a monster ability referenced a term "mortal" that is not defined in the Bestiary or CRB. I think it's perfectly fine to rely upon the 1E definition of the term in the meantime (especially given that it wasn't defined in 1E from the start either). And to be clear, I say that only about setting material - a glaive is a glaive in the world even if it has different properties on the charsheet now.
I suspect that Paizo's intention could have been to release LOWG and LOCG at the same time which would hopefully paint a complete picture but they couldn't do it for internal reasons and decided not to delay both products, thus creating a minor short-term issue. I could be proven wrong once LOCG comes out, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how else should I interpret complaints that an archetype references a not-yet-reprinted bit of established lore?
Perhaps you should reread the complaints. I feel like people have been very clear on this point.
Or just read below because I'm going to defend them yet again:
The 2E mechanics for the weapons are there
What (presumably) isn't there is:
1) Information on how to become a member of a hellknight order.2) Information as to what favoured weapon ANY order has.
I think the complaint has been very reasonable and can be succinctly summarised as "Don't produce an archetype that has prerequisites which are not fully detailed in the book that the archetype appears in."
The fact Paizo are (possibly) going to produce this content in October (I don't know where we've gotten confirmation for that) really raises the question of "why not just release this archetype in the october book?"
only the order list is missing but it's identical to 1E one
No-one has demanded every order be detailed. What has been asked for is at least one order be detailed in the product that reqiures knowledge of the order to be properly used at the gaming table.
I suspect that Paizo's intention could have been to release LOWG and LOCG
IMO this would have mitigated the complaint but not completely resolved it. If the LOCG has the orders, why not move this archetype into the LOCG? By including the archetype in one book and the information required to adequately implement that archetype at your gaming table in another book, you create a situation where both books are required to be purchased in order to play the Hellknight Armiger.
Now if it was WotC I would most definitely accuse them of doing so deliberately in order to force more people to buy both books. I have a much higher opinion of Paizo so I am instead going to simply see this as an oversight. But if it is an oversight it is perfectly valid to complain about it.
Characterising people's very reasonable complaint as "they're demanding 10 years worth of content be produced immediately" is very uncharitable and frankly beneath you. You can do better.
@Justinian9 I believe your post is missing a close quote. If you catch in the next little bit (30 mins?) you can actually edit it in. Otherwise I have guessed as to where it was below so that people can try to see your post correctly and understand what your saying.
PF1 CRB was published in Aug 2009. ISWG was published in Mar 2011. For almost two years, PF1 players were using the information from the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting published in Aug 2008 for the 3.5 edition. That was also before the free online resources such as AON and PFWiki became widespread and chock-full of content.
Now, the LOWG is published a few weeks after the edition change and heaps of setting info are available online, and yet still people complain that the same info hasn't been reprinted with the PF2 tag on it, despite it not being related to the system mechanics at all... *eyeroll*
As a new Pathfinder players I must say I am a bit disappointed that when I reach out to the Pathfinder community I get a comment like this. Pathfinder system is completely different than the D&D I played in my youth and 5ed.
I wanted to start looking at how to build a Hellknight, you know required stats, and all that other stuff, but nothing.... no stat requirement but I would think cha would be required... Does not even state you have to be lawful. So I can not look at a build, I must wait for more info to be published as I get a feeling the orders will have the requirements not the general Armiger
I am grateful that you came back to give the community this feedback. As I said in a few posts before this one there are lot of people who genuinely are a good sort and I hope any unpleasantness you've experienced in this thread doesn't dissuade you from participating on the forums in the future :)
Hopefully we can create a more welcoming environment for you when you do :)
|
|
So I can not look at a build, I must wait for more info to be published as I get a feeling the orders will have the requirements not the general Armiger
Hellknights main thing are their armor, so I would say Strength. It doesn't vary much beyond that except in the case of Signifers (the casters).
So build them as you would a melee character.
|
|
Path of the Hellknight (Blue means it's a link)
Order of the Torrent and Order of the Pike are both good for more Good aligned Hellknight orders :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm genuinely sorry that Justinian9 felt disappointed by my tone. To clarify, I have no issue with the OP - they were understandably confused, got their rightful answer, and were not incendiary in their posting.
My desire to join the thread was ignited by NA Palm's use of the word "copout" which I interpreted as ascribing deliberate negligence to Paizo. To clarify, English is not my first language and I don't live in US so maybe I misinterpreted the tone.
I don't dismiss the issue as invalid, but just point out that it is made easily solvable by virtue of free access to Golarion lore which hasn't changed between editions and because of that it is not unacceptable.
What has been asked for is at least one order be detailed in the product
Suppose ONE order was detailed, I'm sure there would be similar posts complaining other established orders are unplayable in 2E, don't you agree? It is this train of thought that led me to the 'demanding 10 years of content' extrapolation.
you create a situation where both books are required to be purchased in order to play the Hellknight Armiger.
Well here is an interesting issue because Armiger is a 'partial' archetype, you wouldn't normally take it without intending to go full Hellknight which is in another book anyway. And I think devs stated that there will be more of those 'gateway' archetypes? So perhaps this kind of book-splitting will be the norm going forwards? And in this case I still think it's fine because of free online access policy (it would not be fine in WOTC case).
I actually don't disagree with the rest of your last post.
As you honestly sound like you are trying to have a much more reasonable conversation, I feel I should respond.
I think you are misunderstanding me. The word copout was not used to describe what Paizo was doing, it was used to describe what posters in the thread were doing. They were saying "oh its available online its not an issue" "people can post on forums to ask questions its not an issue".
The fact that you can do these things makes it a SOLVABLE issue, but it doesn't make it not an issue.
I'm actually sure that it was an oversight on Paizo's part. I just think the way everyone is basically acting like it was in no way a mistake, or confusing, or a problem was a copout.
I imagine if you asked a designer at Paizo they would say "you know, that shouldn't have happened".
It is clearly confusing as written in the book.
And the thing I'm saying is not "10 years of lore has to be shoved in these books" its "don't make mechanics that can't be used without lore not yet included". Saying "well if they put one in there people would complain that there wasn't more" is a slippery slope argument.
I'm not sure how you can't see the difference between:
1. Currently without information outside of 2e books or GM rulings, you can't play any character with this archetype. Without outside information, the archetype serves no purpose at all.
2. Currently you can't play all Hellknight Armigers types using this archetype with what is in 2e books right now.
1 is a problem in my opinion. 2 is not.
The idea that it has to be all or nothing slippery slope is a fallacy.
Suppose ONE order was detailed, I'm sure there would be similar posts complaining other established orders are unplayable in 2E, don't you agree?
Even if they did, it would be far less reasonable.
The fact that this archetype is only half the picture is even more worrying. I really hope this is an isolated incident and DOESN’T become the norm. If it does become the norm I hope it’s limited entirely to the Lost Omens series so I can avoid it.
I have recently defended Paizo when an unfair complaint was leveled against them. I don’t feel the complaints raised in this thread have been unfair. The effort that has been made to characterise then as unfair is, I think, not good.
|
|
1. Currently without information outside of 2e books or GM rulings, you can't play any character with this archetype. Without outside information, the archetype serves no purpose at all.
This statement has me curious.
How much must be put out before your mind on this matter changes?
For example Planar Adventures and the Druma setting books were just released in the twilight of 1e, so there's very little chance that 2e will versions of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there an archetype that mechanically requires information from Planar Adventures or Druma and doesn't include that information? Then that is a problem.
You can't give the mechanics for something and NOT tell me enough to play it mechanically.
Literally the only part needed to mechanically play it is the favored weapon list. The fact that you think putting the favored weapons list in the same book that tells you you need to be proficient in the favored weapon to qualify for something, which took like, 2-3 lines in a response on this board, is a bridge too far to require for designers is bizarre.
I'm not saying "You have to give me every bit of lore right now!" I'm saying "If you release a mechanical feature, you need to give us enough of the lore to mechanically use it."
How in gods name is that hard to understand?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Currently without information outside of 2e books or GM rulings, you can't play any character with this archetype. Without outside information, the archetype serves no purpose at all.This statement has me curious.
How much must be put out before your mind on this matter changes?
For example Planar Adventures and the Druma setting books were just released in the twilight of 1e, so there's very little chance that 2e will versions of them.
A single example hellknight order in the same book would have been enough.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess because i don't see it as a mechanic. We have the mechanics, the feats, the proficiency, and the weapons. It's only the flavor not immediately apparent.
Which to me feels the same if they soon come out with Planar Achetypes, or a Blackjacket one.
Thanks for responding.
So if an archetype said "you need some feats" as a requirement you'd be fine with that? Dude...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if an archetype said "you need some feats" as a requirement you'd be fine with that? Dude...I guess because i don't see it as a mechanic. We have the mechanics, the feats, the proficiency, and the weapons. It's only the flavor not immediately apparent.
Which to me feels the same if they soon come out with Planar Achetypes, or a Blackjacket one.
Thanks for responding.
Not even in the vicinity of the same situation.
The archetype explicitly tells what it needs, and what it needs, exists.