Page 1 of 1
Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:28 pm
by kiljaedon
Ever since the change to pale masters being changed from a token application to a class free to be made I felt it has diminished the class and its RP aesthetics for a cheap powerhouse way to have its potent defensive stats. I use to know two PM's who were created with token and they took the role seriously with rituals and roleplaying missions that involved going around researching undead and spending time collecting lore/experimenting on themselves and others.
This change has been something I feel has not had good results thus far and few it any people roleplay the class the way it was meant to be presented. As a Frankenstein esque experiment.
Re: Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:58 pm
by Reallylongunneededplayername
Same can be said of many other classes and races.
First one to pop my mind would be shadow dancer.
Unlike shadow dancer, Palemaster can be taken really early, Wich could make waiting for a token a hell.
Re: Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:12 am
by kiljaedon
I actually place Palemaster as very unique in this regard. It is a high ceiling role in the game and is attractive more for its power then actual lore. The SD imo pales in comparison to the roleplaying to develop a change of half dead/undead over time and being a skilled shadow manipulator which could be an innate ability to some races/people.
Re: Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:14 am
by Apokriphos
I generally consider classes that should require a token to be very specific and lore heavy where a player should be educated on their intricacies such as alignment actions and other restrictions before playing one.
In this definition, Paladin comes to mind. I can just imagine the DM workload if that ever became a requirement, given its pervasiveness in Arelith and strong mechanical incentives.
Shadowdancer is quite ambiguous, especially when it comes to both alignment and lore. Palemaster is also surprisingly ambigious if you look for pnp templates of the lore online.
Re: Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:33 am
by kiljaedon
Not really. Pale master is very specifically stated as self-experimentation on him/herself in order to maintain their life by grafting undead appendages on their body. That is very specific and an advanced part I would venture to guess a few people seem to ignore that aspect of their character in order to roleplay a more normalized spell caster.
Re: Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:37 am
by Wuthering
PMs got restricted to "evil only" and have plenty of warnings when you take the class/read the Wiki, if you think someone is abusing it then tell a DM?
Like it was said above there are a lot of other classes that require a certain amount of investment. I think a badly played cleric is a lot worse for everyone than a weak PM because a cleric can spoil a whole community's RP. But I'd prefer we had the benefit of the doubt and freedom to fail than start locking every difficult to RP class behind tokens.
Re: Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:52 am
by Apokriphos
kiljaedon wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:33 am
Not really. Pale master is very specifically stated as self-experimentation on him/herself in order to maintain their life by grafting undead appendages on their body. That is very specific and an advanced part I would venture to guess a few people seem to ignore that aspect of their character in order to roleplay a more normalized spell caster.
The lore is ambiguous as in there are many ways to become a palemaster. Even Arelith wiki says as much. And I second other posters in this thread in that we should be able to trust the typical Arelith player to roleplay straightforward classes (evil, experiments on self until eventually grafting a bone arm towards pursuit of undeath).
However if you asking why players dont advertise this fact of their identity in everyday conversation, that would be because of their general dislike on the continent. Players should be free to hide aspects of their character (as much as they are able given mechanical and ig consequence, such as disguise) from those who might do them harm.
Re: Reconsider putting PMs back to a token class.
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:57 am
by Spyre
Just to re-iterate what was said when it was first released from requiring a token:
The Palemaster class has to be taken seriously, if people are not appropriately playing the class, it will once again be locked behind a token. Address your changes as you delve into the art of Palemastery, do not play a lich, etc.
If there is concern about players not respecting the lore or acknowledging it, report it. I can say that we have not had any reports on Palemasters. We would need solid evidence and reports to put it behind a token again.