Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 21, 2022, 10:31:22 AM
Honestly, that's pretty awesome! What I've managed to do at most was create a sequel for "Races of the Dragon" for Dungeons & Dragons 5E, though I spend quite a few years on that. Here is a link to one of the races in case you are interested (the book will have 150 pages and this is a preview, but I'm hoping to start a kickstarter for it next year), which is my half dragon player race. I was never a fan of making the half-dragon a template, so I made it a complete race instead, with the dragon breath recharging on a 6 on a d6 die roll.: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d-XqrHLMfd7MCoNFn7KMK5T5iPPtsIrs/view

In fairness I think the whole "half-anything" is silly - especially interspecies arbitrary things like Half-dragons... without context. Consider what that actually means: Dragons themselves are relative to their settings. But navigating those mediums of assumptions - near immortal, possibly arch-mage levels of magic use, nigh-omnipotent apex predators cross breeding with humans? 1) for WHAT? 2) In what context do Dragons and Humans mate with enough degree to produce a distinct race with a culture to support them 3) by your write up half-dragons want nothing more than to become DRAGONS. I can easily see why humans would be resentful of such intrusions... and want to kill Dragons among other erasons.

Now if you came up with a setting where there was a solid reason beyond "I want to look like an fey-anime-human with ubiquitous fae/but-not-fae/tieflingish features but I'm dragon-blooded (yeah!)" and pretend that the other extant cultures might have a dim view of scaly monsters lurking in their midsts banging away and breeding these mutants into their society where their primary goal is to become/identify with those self-same monsters"... Yeah there's a LOT of unspoken blankspots in this concept on its own. But the devil is in the details... and if there's too much devil then you'll have tieflings. /snicker.

Your technical presentation for layout is excellent. The content needs work - but if you're just making stuff for Pathfinder players to do whatever with, you'll probably be fine.

Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 21, 2022, 10:31:22 AMAlso, the races as classes idea was a pretty good idea, as it gave players some more hit points while still giving them those thematic boons.

But I'm a bit confused what you mean with "that article", as in the one that made you loathe 3x ? Which article are you referring to?

It was a horrible idea *because* editorial at WotC which had oversight of Paizo (when I was working for them) vetoed what *should* have been a 5-level PrC. They instead wanted/forced me to spread the races out across 20-levels. Mind you - this was in lieu of having an actual CLASS. So no, you didn't get more HP. In fact you got tended to get median or less.

The article was just one of many I did for Dragon as a feature writer. (Feature writers were the small stable of writers that were "go to" writers they could count on for both for their own ideas for projects as well as projects coming from editorial). Frankly it was the anvil that broke my back on 3.x. I was ALL IN at the start, but it was so clunky, and got clunkier as time wore on.

There *are* good flavors of 3.x - but precisely none of them are particularly popular. Fantasy Craft is probably my favorite. But I like True20, and M&M as well.

Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 21, 2022, 10:31:22 AMAnd I've never played 2nd edition to be honest, but I did play Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn (which was an amazing game by the way!). When compared, what did you feel 3rd edition dit better to 2nd edition, and what did it to worse? I kept hearing how 3rd edition was more "realistic".

3x RAW, is only better than 2e in superficial ways. Unified stats, ascending AC, etc. were a good step in the right direction. But their class builds are extremely flawed in that they effectively reduce the actual game to playing the mechanics AS the game. Where people make builds, and the narrative fluff of the race/class combinations becoming further and further removed from any kind of setting assumptions. This became more pronounced in 4e and 5e.

2e isn't perfect either. But it holds closer to the emergent play intended (though some would argue OSR editions are the only real exemplars of this - I would disagree) by Gary and Dave. The mechanics should only explain how the players do the things they intend, they are not the game itself.

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2022, 01:30:59 PM

Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 21, 2022, 10:31:22 AM
Honestly, that's pretty awesome! What I've managed to do at most was create a sequel for "Races of the Dragon" for Dungeons & Dragons 5E, though I spend quite a few years on that. Here is a link to one of the races in case you are interested (the book will have 150 pages and this is a preview, but I'm hoping to start a kickstarter for it next year), which is my half dragon player race. I was never a fan of making the half-dragon a template, so I made it a complete race instead, with the dragon breath recharging on a 6 on a d6 die roll.: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d-XqrHLMfd7MCoNFn7KMK5T5iPPtsIrs/view

In fairness I think the whole "half-anything" is silly - especially interspecies arbitrary things like Half-dragons... without context. Consider what that actually means: Dragons themselves are relative to their settings. But navigating those mediums of assumptions - near immortal, possibly arch-mage levels of magic use, nigh-omnipotent apex predators cross breeding with humans? 1) for WHAT? 2) In what context do Dragons and Humans mate with enough degree to produce a distinct race with a culture to support them 3) by your write up half-dragons want nothing more than to become DRAGONS. I can easily see why humans would be resentful of such intrusions... and want to kill Dragons among other erasons.

Now if you came up with a setting where there was a solid reason beyond "I want to look like an fey-anime-human with ubiquitous fae/but-not-fae/tieflingish features but I'm dragon-blooded (yeah!)" and pretend that the other extant cultures might have a dim view of scaly monsters lurking in their midsts banging away and breeding these mutants into their society where their primary goal is to become/identify with those self-same monsters"... Yeah there's a LOT of unspoken blankspots in this concept on its own. But the devil is in the details... and if there's too much devil then you'll have tieflings. /snicker.

Your technical presentation for layout is excellent. The content needs work - but if you're just making stuff for Pathfinder players to do whatever with, you'll probably be fine.

Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 21, 2022, 10:31:22 AMAlso, the races as classes idea was a pretty good idea, as it gave players some more hit points while still giving them those thematic boons.

But I'm a bit confused what you mean with "that article", as in the one that made you loathe 3x ? Which article are you referring to?

It was a horrible idea *because* editorial at WotC which had oversight of Paizo (when I was working for them) vetoed what *should* have been a 5-level PrC. They instead wanted/forced me to spread the races out across 20-levels. Mind you - this was in lieu of having an actual CLASS. So no, you didn't get more HP. In fact you got tended to get median or less.

The article was just one of many I did for Dragon as a feature writer. (Feature writers were the small stable of writers that were "go to" writers they could count on for both for their own ideas for projects as well as projects coming from editorial). Frankly it was the anvil that broke my back on 3.x. I was ALL IN at the start, but it was so clunky, and got clunkier as time wore on.

There *are* good flavors of 3.x - but precisely none of them are particularly popular. Fantasy Craft is probably my favorite. But I like True20, and M&M as well.

Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 21, 2022, 10:31:22 AMAnd I've never played 2nd edition to be honest, but I did play Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn (which was an amazing game by the way!). When compared, what did you feel 3rd edition dit better to 2nd edition, and what did it to worse? I kept hearing how 3rd edition was more "realistic".

3x RAW, is only better than 2e in superficial ways. Unified stats, ascending AC, etc. were a good step in the right direction. But their class builds are extremely flawed in that they effectively reduce the actual game to playing the mechanics AS the game. Where people make builds, and the narrative fluff of the race/class combinations becoming further and further removed from any kind of setting assumptions. This became more pronounced in 4e and 5e.

2e isn't perfect either. But it holds closer to the emergent play intended (though some would argue OSR editions are the only real exemplars of this - I would disagree) by Gary and Dave. The mechanics should only explain how the players do the things they intend, they are not the game itself.

I'm a bit confused, as I did remember seeing "monster races" where a Drow had like 1 or 2 levels of being "Drow", which was basically a "monster class" of sorts. Or did that come later on? I have been looking online a bit, but I can't seem to find it myself anymore. But I do recall reading a D&D book where you could have several "monster levels" before you could go and take a character class.

"There *are* good flavors of 3.x - but precisely none of them are particularly popular. Fantasy Craft is probably my favorite. But I like True20, and M&M as well."

With flavors, you mean like versions that are based on 3.x similar to what Pathfinder 1st edition did? I looked up Fantasy Craft and found this: https://www.amazon.com/Fantasy-Craft-CFG01001-Alex-Flagg/dp/0982684304 What exactly does that work add? Or is it meant to be a alternative version of 3rd edition?

"3x RAW, is only better than 2e in superficial ways. Unified stats, ascending AC, etc. were a good step in the right direction. But their class builds are extremely flawed in that they effectively reduce the actual game to playing the mechanics AS the game. Where people make builds, and the narrative fluff of the race/class combinations becoming further and further removed from any kind of setting assumptions. This became more pronounced in 4e and 5e."

So what you are saying is essentially that the class options that they added were not diverse enough in order to create the kind of character that you wanted? Or did you mean that they got too overly complex with the options and rules?

"2e isn't perfect either. But it holds closer to the emergent play intended (though some would argue OSR editions are the only real exemplars of this - I would disagree) by Gary and Dave. The mechanics should only explain how the players do the things they intend, they are not the game itself."

Why would they say that OSR editions are the only real examplars of this?

Enjoy the read...

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/3e-side-by-side-battle-pathfinder-dd-3-5-fantasy-craft-walk-into-the-thunderdome/

*I* would never be the guy on this forum to tell you which OSR game to play as I don't actually play any touted brand of OSR (and I'm embarrassed to say even after all these years, I don't know what OSR *really* means outside of brands of d20 that riff off Basic, or 1e/2e rules). Getting some definitive answer to that question seems... difficult. But when people say OSR to me? It pretty much means a system which is based on a strain of D&D pre-3.x

OSR fans feel free to chip in.

I've been bandying around my 2e-ish heartbreaker for years now. I'm more interested in doing that rather than running some existing OSR-specific brand mostly because I like the idea of spending some elbow-grease and building it myself for the love of the process.

Also, I just noticed that I had posted the older version of my "Unchained" Ninja optional feature, as I still had the old optional rules posted there. Here is the updated version:

"Unchained" Ninja + Nokizaru Archetype
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1auY5Qi-SG0F_sEXiHr8mILhGvW5f3Y9l/view

And here is an update to my Catfolk player race for Pathfinder 1st edition, to which I added an additional alternate racial trait. For those that want to use these traits when playing as a Strength based Beastfolk race (such like a wolf-folk or tiger-folk etc.), either Nekomimi or furry (which are two separate things). Hope you guys will like this as well!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hxn22W0P-C-RhqpuRO31TTRZgceJuhsI/view