Aioran's page

Optimisation is not the opposite of roleplaying. The Stormwind Fallacy's suggestion that there is a spectrum with Optimisers at one end and roleplaying at the other is obviously false.

Instead there are two parallel spectrums

Roleplay ---------------- No Roleplay

Optimisation ------------- No Optimisation

Saying that someone is a Fluffkin is as distasteful as calling someone a powerplayer, which thankfully is seen rarely now. No player is soley interested in fluff, as long as they are rolling hit points and chosing stats.

The sad thing if it is so difficult to push someone out of a window that no one would ever do it, that is probably a shame. I sometimes think Pathfinder has created so many rules we have reached the point where there is no discretion any more and rules lawyers trump the intention.

In my opinion, mechanics should reflect player choices. Player choices shouldnt be determined by the mechanics. That said, I do think some newer players come to the game expecting to be a superhero power at first level. Thats not a rules issue, its a character issues.

I think you need to actually read the Stormwind Fallacy. It doesn't do what you say it does, and it does exactly what you are suggesting it should do. Or at the very least, read the bolded corollary below.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Edit: Formatting from the other site is messy on paizo's forum :(

I think there's a also an elf wizard favored class option that increases by 200g the amount of the magic item you can make per day, so at lvl 5 that wizard could make magic items in half of this time.

Wizard: Select one item creation feat known by the wizard. Whenever he crafts an item using that feat, the amount of progress he makes in an 8-hour period increases by 200 gp (50 gp if crafting while adventuring). This does not reduce the cost of the item; it just increases the rate at which the item is crafted.

Interesting. But let's go deeper.

First, players can't take the "Ability Focus" feat, as it is reserved for monsters.

This is debatable. Craft Construct is a prerequisite for a PrC, and available as a feat in a bloodline. I don't think it's special exemption for monster feats, so I would argue that if you met the prerequisites you could take ability focus.

What is the Eldritch Heritage Bonus here?

Shadowstrike (Sp): At 1st level, you can make a melee touch attack as a standard action that inflicts 1d4 points of nonlethal damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. In addition, the target is dazzled for 1 minute. Creatures with low-light vision or darkvision are not dazzled by this ability. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.

The Druid class experienced a complete metamorphosis from 3.5 to PF.

In DnD it was primarily a flavor class. In PF it has become an unparalleled power house of imbalance!

...

No.

C(leric)orD(ruid)-zilla

In 3.5:
->Cast Bite of Were<animal>, longterm buffs like Venomfire, GMF, Barkskin, Heart of the X, Primal X, your AC could also get some of these buffs,
->Wildshape away your terrible base physical stats (if you're boring you become an animal, probably you become something significantly better)
-> AC's >>> Fighter/ Most Martials
-> Wreck people better solo than some people do as a party

The problem you are having is that the floor power level (I think there's a better term for it but w/e) was raised in PF. It's significantly easier to make a good druid, but it's now impossible to make a godlike druid (at least by 3.5 standards)

I'll take the $5 discount, but I don't care about supporting local companies over foreign ones and I'm not American :P

~Can't wait for the updated playtest~

Because when they're Half-Elves they can Paragon Surge Expanded Arcana and Eldritch Heritage for any spell on the Cleric/Wizard lists.

EDIT: OR if you prefer something else, you can get an AC, as well as initiative, AC, and Reflex running off Cha at level 1.

I always responded with "I don't own the book, and I won't allow you to have it unless I have to book. If you want it that bad, but me the book. No PDFs."

I think I would end up buying you a lot of books.

Craft Rod is pretty awesome, you just add 5 to the DC and you can make yourself a metamagic rod of something.

So it really got me thinking:

* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?

Those people don't post threads on the forum asking for help, they don't need it. Except sometimes for outside input on group drama.

TL;DR I worship a new god, his name is "F$+% your Encounter". Who wants to help me make a character to do it best?

If I could favourite your post multiple times I would.

Definitely the best post I've read in a long time.

[Insert class dependent on a central item here*]

*This list could include, but is not limited to:
-The Fighter
-Any Archer Build
-The Witch
-The Cleric
-The Druid
-The Bladebound Magus
-The Monk, in general

Turns out, if you ruin people's class abilities they kind of suck. Who'd have thought?

Agreements are reached all the time, most of they aren't is because people don't share opinions and you can't persuade them, which is fine. I recall Ciertose and AD agreeing in another thread... with yelling on all sides around.

As to this topic, a recap!

-> Dabbler's long post saying that Monks can't really do any of/fails at the things that their flavour says they should be able to do.
-> Shallowsoul says that doesn't happen when he plays a monk. Facetiously appologise.
-> Dabbler says no-one he knows who plays monks is like that. Questions the environment in which Shallowsoul plays. Mentions supportive evidence.
-> Durngrun ask why Dabbler is threatened by the monk's inability to excel in any field except unbuffed land movement

I'm going to point out that Dabbler's and Shallowsoul's experiences are both equally valid. Both of them love the class. Both of them enjoy playing it. They only disagree on the power level and flexibility, the viability, of the class. Dabbler thinks it should be improved, Shallowsoul thinks Monks are good enough as is.

The reason you can't correctly interpret Dabbler's arguments is because you think you're taking a defensive position against his attacks against the class. He never questioned whether anyone had fun with them, he never said anyone didn't have fun with them, he never said you were playing them wrong. (I don't know why you think this, if you could quote the relevant sections? :s) The whole point of his arguments is that the proverbial Monk doesn't shine. Not that you can't make a character shine that is a monk.

First hypothetical,

1) The timing. You do not read a character's back story (which they give you before the game) and then later on invalidate a large selection of their mechanical choices because of the background fluff they gave their character without first talking to the player about it. No, it doesn't differ between post-start/mid/finish of the campaign, it's just a dick move. If you broached the idea that their bloodline changes and they were okay with it then sure. It's a co-operative endeavour. Springing it on the player is bad. Reflavouring is more appropriate. Purely cosmetic changes I'd be okay with. Not necessarily like, but conceptually okay with.

2) Fiends are fiends because they are made of evilly-aligned planar material and embody negative/evil things, characters become those things because they embraced them in life. That's how the cosmic punishment works for this sort of thing. Heaven sends in the holy vengeance and sends the person to hell that way. They don't really do corrupting curses, they might forcibly sever the pacts but I just don't feel it's thematically appropriate to change the bloodline like that.

3) There's no mechanical justification for it. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely. just speaks to me of the hit squad being dispatched, or at worst, the armies of heaven. As a player I'd feel that the entire thing was unfair and I was being singled out.

Second Hypothetical,

It's a cute idea but it sounds like it was implemented very badly. If a player doesn't want an item you make but you made it so they can't get rid of it you've basically just put them in shackles. They will either find some way of removing it, dealing with it, or just leave (either by rolling a new character or leaving the game).
If it was a more appropriate weapon, it let any weapon feat/feature apply to it, fulfilled a role (since it's a sentient character) in the party that was otherwise absent, then I'd deal with it. I'd probably like it regardless, if it was a well done character.
The GM has the right to do this because they directly control the setting and act as a medium which the party uses to interact with it. A GM can create an item with all these properties. That doesn't mean they should.
The players have the right to use or not use items they come across. Otherwise the DM should just hire actors or write the novel he's always wanted to.

Odraude wrote:

So... what's the challenge exactly?

Well, itis not exactly defined.

OH RLY?

Well that was a pig to copy paste/format.

tl;dr the challenge is:
-20 round timer
-10 mooks (CR 5 enemy), all one type of creature, your choice
-13th level (or 10 if you think you can do it) monk to kill or disable all the mooks
-No enemy >100ft away from you on turn 1
-No enemy <15ft of each other
-Mooks aim is to disrupt the party engaging the BBEG, they will focus primarily on that, ignoring you until you go for them
-You have to survive, obv

EDIT: The only point of contention I can think of is the terrain, but since Ashiel stated several times she made it favour the monk the assumption I would make is that the terrain is flat and open to allow the monk the best use of it.

Well monks do excel at getting where they need to go. That speed, that acrobatics. Mmmmmm.

Cavaliers and pallies have a lot more mobility problems than they do. We could ignore this entirely though and call them a flat tire and make a travel analogy (when monks actually travel well and fast).

Yeah but they actually contribute to combat.

The fundamental problem with the fighter - and the source of the class's perceived weakness - is that Pathfinder (and by extension D&D) is a resource management paradigm, and the fighter class, as presently designed, doesn't fit into that paragdigm. Every other class has an exhaustable resource that determines a significant part of their combat ability, so adventuring is designed around management those resources - a.k.a. the party adventures until they run out of spells/rage rounds/smites/etc. then rests.

Thus the fighter's unique strength, that its abilities are inexhaustable, are never able to be put into play, except for very rare circumstances. Since the fact that the fighter's abilities more or less work all the time regardless of the circumstances, they are by necessity of game balance weaker than abilties that have finite use.

But they do have a resource that determines their combat ability! It's the same resource everyone has, HP. People just forget it's a resource because it's so easy to get back and losing it doesn't do anything until you hit 0.

Actually, it occurs to me now that only the Fighter doesn't have a way to restore HP. Even the Barbarian has rage powers for that, and Wizards/Sorcerers have infernal healing. I guess that makes it far more valuable to a fighter than anyone else?

(I agree about the class homogenisation, I would also rather have differing class power instead.)

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Evasion, good saves all round and still mind can be pretty nifty. Still in control of the monk-flurrywagon!

do not forget the double edge of spell resistance.

Qinggong Monk is good for that.

30 STR = 10 mod = 20 damage its two handed archetype. 20 + 4 WT +2 gloves + 5 enchant + 24 power attack (read the archetype) + 2 (base weapon damage)+4 Spec=61*5=305.

To compare Barbarian. HP from class 7* 20 +5=145 Favored class bonus for fun 165. Rage Bonus +10 Con = +100. 265. 305-265=40/20=2 So yeah Low con Barbarian with favored class bonus of health, the Raging vitality feat, and his 20th level rage is one shotted by base damage.

if you want I can do casters though they won't fair nearly as well.

The game isn't balanced for PvP, and if your THF-spec'd fighter was pit against a full caster the most probable outcome depends on how contrived the setup is. If it's a small arena then you favour the fighter but the caster can still win if they get initiative, if it's not an arena then the fighter loses because trying to hit someone with a sword who can teleport is generally rather hard.

Please use the quote function properly when replying to a poster, it makes it easier to read your post and respond to it. As is, it's going to take me a while to break up your post, reformat it, and then reply to each point.

No, I dont let my buddies walk all over me, because I don't drink at all. That was a general statement as an example to the above, in reference to people saying majority rules should be right, because the majority came up with it.

And as I said, you are using hyperbole and personal/subjective experience to justify your opinion because there isn't/wasn't anything directly from the OP's post that supported it. It's also the reverse situation to the one the OP described.

A mindless skeleton, hmmmm if it's not controlled it will attack, if it is controlled, the cleric they are looking for can use it. so if it's not a random vicious skeleton, it's being controlled.

You're misinterpreting what I said, or at least I assume so because you just rehashed my point about the mindless skeleton. The fact that it's being controlled is the reason I said it wasn't an issue, you cannot just cast a spell and summon/command every undead in your service. They have to actually be able to hear and understand your commands. The skeleton already had a command to follow, it was 'guard'.

The skeleton is guarding an empty room?

I never said, nor implied this.

No it must be guarding something.

Yes, that could be anything. Assuming that it's a valuable is either jumping to conclusions or metagaming.

What thing would be worth guarding? do you think maybe it might be something important or worth having?

It's irrelevant what it might have, the important thing was that it wasn't the cleric(s) they were looking for. They were under time and resource constraints. "Might be something important or worth having [so we'd kill and loot everything we come across]" doesn't make any sense at all because it's at odds with the group objective.

Again, the concept of trying to delve straight to the cleric in charge still doesn't make any sense. Like the sands of the hour glass is running out or something?

Yes, yes they are. That's the whole point!

From the sounds of it, they must be in the moat house, if they were actually in the temple it's self, this tactic is really going to get them killed. More than a few NPCs are trapped in there from previous groups for literally just that tactic.

I believe you chastised the OP for metagaming and cheating and now you're doing the same thing? Not to mention spoilers.

It's an ogre skeleton, they have a cleric, it should have been an easy battle with little or no damage and they might have found something valuable....

"you see a guard"

Oh let's ignore that, there is nothing important here.

Yes there is always a guard post at a random urinal.

More metagaming, there's no guarantee IC that when you kill something you'll get anything out of it. That's an entirely OOC concept brought about by loot tables and GP value on monster entries.

I think the fighter has very good reason to want to go in that room, and still stand by the groups idea of bypass whatever they can is foolish,

The group idea is perfectly fine so long as they realise what can be bypassed. I think a mindless undead, with no master around, under orders to stand in a room doing something qualifies.

and certainly leaving your traveling companion to get pelted, and then letting unused spells expire is even more foolish.

The fighter ran off of his own volition. It's not the rest of the party's fault that he did this, they can't play his character for him when he wants to make bad decisions. They didn't 'let him' do anything. Yes, the cleric not healing him was a bad decision, but the fighter going in there in the first place to get the skeleton to attack was significantly worse (he didn't need to go in there since he's using a bow anyway) because he actively ignored the rest of the party's wishes. Trust is an incredibly important part of any adventuring group and if you can't trust the guy in front to not just do what he wants then you are stuck either: a) always doing what he wants to ensure things happen as planned (tyranny of the minority), or b) being paranoid he's going to just do what he wants anyway. Loose cannons tend to blow up in your face. This time he almost died, next time he could take someone else down with him.

If I were the fighter would I have gone in alone?No.

If I were the cleric would I have let him fight alone once he did, and/or not heal him later? No.

That's not really fair to the cleric. Because of how initiative/turn order works I can imagine the fighter going in as soon as he's released, triggering the skeleton (readied action) who walks up and hits him, party moves to a tactically sound position, fighter runs triggering AoO and gets hit, skeleton follows, party attacks skeleton.

I might however, have my character choose not to continue adventuring with that fighter, at a later date.

Not every business venture (which is what an adventuring company is) is a "Hive mind".

Well yes, similarly I would have requested that the fighter either change his ways, or the player make a new PC because ICly he's getting the boot.

However, Does a cleric of the god of battle have to heal a warrior who 'battled' if he didn't agree with the choice to battle. No, I dont believe so. He's a cleric, not a puppet.

It wasn't really a battle on the part of the fighter. He ran in there and got wailed on, then ran. Gorum would not be impressed with this sort of cowardly behaviour and the PCs weren't impressed with the fighters lack of respect for the group. As punishment for both, or for ignoring the group, either works, the cleric refused to used the gifts of his god on the fighter.

IMO, Druid/Monk is a nearly unstoppable killing machine.

Circle kicking bear! (For anyone who played NWN ;D)

@OP: Typically Gestalt works best when you take a 'Passive Class' and an 'Active Class' whose saves, HD, and BAB combine to give you >=D10, all good saves, full bab.

eg. Gunslinger/Witch, Cleric or Druid/Monk, Barbarian/Scarred Witch Doctor, Paladin/Sorcerer or Oracle

You can even PrC with them as long as you don't advance the same class features twice at any given level. Gunslinger or Ranger/Wizard, Witch, Or Sage -> Duelist/EK

Classes that sit halfway between other classes like Magus or Bard or Inqusitor are doable with gestalt, you just have to pick another class that compliments the character's role with those classes. It can be a little difficult since they're already jack-of-all-trade classes.

I thought the biggest problem with Fighter is the lack of out of combat class features anyway, not combat capability.

Normally I would just ignore this sort of thing but there's only so much wrong I can ignore.

You're saying this guy has to do what everyone else decides to do, because majority rule is always right? Yea, that's always proven to be true.

Hyperbole.

My buddies all think we should go out drinking and driving, I have to follow along because they all decided it was right.

Part of me thinks I shouldn't comment on this because how you deal with your friends is your own business but you brought it up as subjective experience to prove your point and IMO that means it's fair game. It sounds like you let your friends walk over you, which is the opposite of what the Fighter did. He went in despite his friends not wanting to, not in spite of his own personal desire not to.

The players made a meta-game decision (according to the OP) to not go into the room because they didn't want to "activate" the "aggro". Totally meta game, there was no reasonable in game conversation that could have taken place between the characters. It was ALL out of character jibber jabber (and essentially cheating)

Lol no. Don't quote people saying things they didn't actually say. Yes he did say aggro, but it wasn't a noun so he wasn't using it like you used it, and he never even said activate. Not only is that incredibly bad form, it's misleading and confuses people. What the OP actually said was:

The fighter of the party decided that he wanted to enter a room guarded by an Ogre skeleton, even though it didn't aggro when we opened the door.

The rest of the party did not. We're currently looking for the Cleric or Clerics in charge, not random monsters that aren't actively attacking us. We voted up or down to go in the room and he was the only one who wanted to go in.

->looking for clerics in charge, open a door, see a skeleton in a room, party decides not to go in because they have a more important goal, fighter disobeys party wishes tries to go in anyway, they restrain him, warn him they won't back him up, he goes in anyway and almost dies.

I imagine the Cleric with Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill is going to know that if the mindless skeleton didn't attack automatically it was probably following a command, something like "guard". In fact, anyone with a little int would suspect something after the skeleton stayed put.

As to the metagame issue, not only was there a proper conversation (actions the characters took and what the OP said more than suggests it's IC too) but automatically assuming their game is full of metagame and 'cheating' is frankly offensive. I'm not surprised the OP hasn't posted in this thread again with so many people letting their personal issues cloud their judgement.

How did they know there was an active ogre skeleton in the room?

And if they DID know it was there, WHY would they leave it there and continue on, knowing full well it was somewhere behind them?

1) They saw an upright skeleton of an Ogre, they tend not to be that way if they're not magically held together. Not to mention they're in the Temple of Elemental Evil. Pretty safe guess, even without Knowledge (Religion) rolls.

Sure, you can sneak by an encounter if you need to, but if room 1 has the ogre skeleton in it, and room 2 has the BBEG, then don't you think this ogre skeleton is going to get involved anyway?

Oh yes, how silly of me. Every time there's a fight with a BBEG he's going to blow his magic whistle and call every single enemy left in the entire dungeon instantly to him to teach players to kill everything else first. No, I don't think so at all. Especially with the PC knowing how undead work.

You would have to have reasonable belief that you would be able to sneak past it and get far enough away from it before there was another encounter that it would be totally bypassed.

Well normally, at least at my table, when you try to avoid encounters you don't have to worry about your party members actively sabotaging you.

But the characters are in the Temple of Elemental EVIL. The entire place is a ward of evil psychos who are all out to get you. Random troll encounter in the woods on the way to the temple? sure avoid them. Deep dungeon crawl?

Leaving enemies to your rear is suicidal.

Nothing more than a broad sweeping generalisation. The only threat to the party's safety was a member of the party. (First the Fighter, then the Cleric)

They never said they left active threats behind, just this one mindless undead. Just this Ogre Skeleton, which they killed anyway. Stop making generalisations about their play style and inferring their game is full of badwrongfun.

The idea of trying to spend up as much or all of your resources to get to the end fight sooner, with more is very very dumb,

This doesn't make grammatical sense. I'm not sure what you could be trying to say, but I assume that up isn't supposed to be there. In which case: They're not expending resources to get to the end sooner, they're looking for specific cleric(s) and avoiding spending resources to do it. We can disagree about what is the best move from a tactical standpoint, you thinking you should spend resources on every enemy, me spending no resources to bypass some enemies.

what if you have to retreat? now instead of running backwards through empty hall ways and cleared rooms, you have enemy to your rear between you, safety and your supply line.

Well it won't be from the mindless skeleton that's guarding that one room many floors below. The OP hasn't mentioned other enemies, or what his party would do in those instances. He only mentioned this one encounter and only what happened in this instance.

So again, why was by passing the room a good idea?

Meta game, dont activate the encounter and it wont exist!

Not a good reason, besides, there could have been treasure in there or even something that could have helped with the end goal.

You're assuming far too much about his party, reading into things that aren't there, and generally letting your own personal bias blind you to what the OP actually said.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ld3d?FAQ-Attack

Is the aquatic sorcerer bloodline (Advanced Players Guide, page 136) supposed to get geyser as a bonus spell at sorcerer level 9, even though that’s normally a 5th-level sorcerer/wizard spell and unavailable to sorcerers before caster level 10?

Yes, and the sorcerer learns it as a 4th-level spell. Note that geyser is also a 4th-level druid spell (available at character level 7), so the aquatic sorcerer gaining it at character level 9 as a 4th-level arcane spell isn’t too powerful.

Vod Canockers wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does multiclassing work in your world?

Assuming you are asking me, the PC would have to take roughly 3 years of game time off studying and training to learn the new class, and come up with the money to pay for all the training.

So you've effectively banned multiclassing except in rare corner cases (time-skips and very long games)? I hope you tell your players that at the beginning of the campaign rather than when they try to do it.

Who needs multiclassing anyway? I'll play an elven wizard and laugh hysterically at the short lived humans trying to pick up multiple classes. Guess who'll be more effective and do more adventuring too?

Aioran wrote:

Sitri wrote:

<Blood Types>

Can we please stop trying to use genetics, or science in general, to explain how a Planetouched child is born. It doesn't really work because a Native Outsider is fundamentally different to their Humanoid parent, their soul is not separate from their body. No gene is capable of that, and trying to attribute something like levels dominance/recessivity is frankly asinine and only serves to strain verisimilitude.

No. If you don't care to think about it, by all means do not, but telling others to place a big X over what can be thought about and explained to gain verisimilitude is asinine.

A mule is fundamentally different from its parents. What's your point? Decent with modification says we are all fundamentally different than our distant ancestors. If you really care to argue a possible genetic justification to metaphysics of the game, which I don't think you do, I am willing to further this line of thought.

The OP asked for a reason why some strange things would happen with the blood lines that he thought was illogical and I gave an explanation that could serve in the absence of an official one.

I won't tell you to increase the level of thought you have to put into your game and I will not reduce mine for you.

Ugh. I'm a little put out that you'd think I wasn't interested in debating this since I clearly think it's important. Also, descent with modification is irrelevant in this context because the change from generation to generation is purely cosmetic until the birth of the planetouched offspring which is blatantly not gradual. Which is something we can prove because it's defined in the metagame.

I am not telling you to reduce the level of thought, I am telling you to use MORE! A simplistic punnet square style explanation with relative dominance of one blood factor is a far cry from explaining why an Aasimar is not Human. Thinking about it from a purely genetic standpoint causes all sorts of indirect questions to pop up. None of which are immediately related to your point I suppose.

A mule is not fundamentally different to a Horse or a Donkey in the same way that an Outsider (Native) is different to its Humanoid <race> parents. On the one hand you have direct hybridisation between two related species, on the other you have the sudden transformation of the genetic lineage from one race to an entirely distinct one with unique metaphysical properties. There's no protein structure, no pathway, no interactions that could possibly justify the fusion of a soul and a body. It's absurd! Not to mention that some of the features would be carried by the parents, so to say it was entirely heritable and then mysteriously isn't expressed in either parents or familial line in any record and just shows up in a number that can't be quantified but can easily be explained by a Punnet Square is not something that makes any sense.

That's not to say you couldn't attribute it to genetics, Faith Hunter's Rogue Mage novel series does a reasonable attempt at it but it doesn't have this 'only when the stars align' do you see a planetouched. It has obvious issues of hybrid sterility, implied genetic relationships between Seraphs and Neo-Mages because of viable offspring (I think that's what they're called IIRC), and logically consistent points. Pathfinder/DnD on the other hand really just uses the "Because ... Dragons!" reasoning for this sort of thing with the way the fluff/crunch is written.

I knew using "the Weave" would get me in trouble. I like the phrase, but I actually know very, very little about Forgotten Realms. (And computer games are one of the major blind-spots in my geekdom, so that's two strikes.)

On topic: I'm glad AD and Ciertose's discussion came to a happy resolution.

Kthulhu wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

KenderKin wrote:

The kender do not have this problem, as they all come from close knit communities and learn a bit about all the paths and options before apprenticeship with a master.

So much so that they (as a race) are able and often do multi-class on a whim.

I don't care WHAT class Kender take. And it doesn't matter WHAT class I am playing when I see one. Soon as I see kender, I kill kender. End of story. Wouldn't care if I lost my class as a result, or if I lost the character.

Had some baaaaaad experiences with them once upon a time!

Dragonlance elves are far more worthy of genocide than kender. Bunch of racist, xenophobic, arrogant jackasses.

Ever adventured with a kender? They are kleptomaniacs with zillions of pockets, claim they never steal (lie shamelessly) and routinely get you into massive trouble through either you coming up short when you need your gear, or doing something stupid like asking a red dragon for a light, or ticking something off that you KNOW is gonna get everyone else in the party dead, EXCEPT the damned kender.

Kender are a menace that should STAY dead with extreme prejudice!!!!!!!!!

Don't forget their GM fiat-based immunities and refusal to hand anything back because after they got it it's 'theirs'. Worst race ever printed, imprisonment+sympathy the whole lot of them.

Edit: Playing a Cleric of Erastil recently, I proposed taking a level of Ranger. Obviously not nonsensical, but the other players & GM told me no, they didn't want my healing ability weakened. Certainly none of them thought it was solely up to me what class I took.

Did you end up taking that level in Ranger? To me, and my group, telling someone they couldn't take a level in a class would be almost anathema.

Roberta Yang wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Come again?

What does Weapon Training allow the Fighter to do that nobody else can exactly?

It allows the fighter to be disappointed when he finds a +4 greataxe while he's using a +3 greatsword. No other class has that feature.

I love these poor arguments. It really shows how many straws people really have to grab at.

Tell you what, I'll start using that one for every spellcaster argument. Awwww, you went in looking for X spell but could only find A which is one you already have.

Funny how there are supposed to he magic shops but in all these fighter arguments he just happens to find the opposite weapon he needs but Wizards or custom builds seem to have no problem.

Sad really.

I don't think you can out sarcasm Roberta.

EDIT: I remember Ashiel posting in a thread ages back about the probability of finding a desired weapon and it wasn't very likely. You had to roll on the table (many visits to many large population centers) to find anything resembling what you wanted.

Okay, who else gets increasing bonuses to attack and damage {edit}that stack with EVERYTHING ELSE{/edit} with entire categories of weapons as a class feature? What other ability out there provides that kind of bonus in such a flexible fashion?

Rangers (Favoured Enemy+Instant Enemy), Bards (Inspire Courage or the Archaeologist ability), Druids (Wildshape), Paladin (Divine Bond and Smite Evil+Evil Target), Inquisitor (Judgement and Bane). Then there are a host of spells out there that do the same thing. As Rynjin says adding +'s are not unique.

Aioran wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Then I find you to be overly sensitive.

Doesn't fecking matter. DM's should be allowed to ban things from their games without being ridiculed for it.

You shouldn't misspell words to circumvent the filter.

You shouldn't assume I was doing that.

"Fecking" is a word that is used in Ireland a lot to mean "freaking".

That just reinforces the fact that it's a euphemism for the unmentionable word and a circumvention of the word filter.

If you want to ban things then you're entitled to your opinion but posters shouldn't have to see you use (what you might deem socially acceptable) profanity to read your opinion.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Then I find you to be overly sensitive.

Doesn't fecking matter. DM's should be allowed to ban things from their games without being ridiculed for it.

You shouldn't misspell words to circumvent the filter.

This is kind of unrelated but I can see the potential for a mostly Wizard PC dipping a divine caster before entering Hellknight Signifier with Warrior Priest for levelled up domains or mysteries.

By the way Aioran, If I'm not mistaken you gave me advice for a travel/luck cleric I am using in another campaign. I DON'T regret your advice, and my DM for THAT game allowed a guided weapon. Happy as a clam, and so is my party with the re-roll abilities.

Oh I wondered what happened with that. Good to hear it worked out for you and your group! :>

Wow, please share with me the wealth of your inexperience some more, I can always use such material to brighten my day.

I thought that's what you had Daylight for.

Gorbacz wrote:

John-Andre wrote:

Besides which, go ahead and build a table of all spellcasters, no mundanes. I'm betting that it'll be a TPK in a matter of a few rounds of combat. Tanks, stealthers, maneuver masters and archers all have their place in the game alongside the casters. Don't say that this game is only for the spellcasters.

Summoner, Druid, Wizard, Cleric. If there's a fifth slot: Inquisitor/Bard. Every front covered. Even the "but golems" argument is invalid, because the pets are gonna tear them a new one.

Well, shoot. I guess I've been proven wrong. Okay, everyone, stop playing your non-spellcaster classes, those no longer matter!

</sarcasm>

Surprise! No class is necessary.

No, it checks for evil, then checks auras. It specifically states in the first round "1st Round: Presence or absence of evil." Not "1st Round: Presence or absence of evil auras". If you have a rules citation, FAQ, errata, or something else to suggest otherwise I would very much like to see it.

By the way, I found a citation for you, by James Jacobs (from about 2 weeks ago).

I'd agree RAW you could detect evil from a person without an aura. And it doesn't even have to contradict what James Jacob said.

You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round: Presence or absence of evil.

2nd Round: Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present.

If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.

3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.

1st round gives you a yes/no answer. You could never detect the aura of a person without an aura so you could never locate the evil. You'd just know that there was evil in your 30ft cone.

It doesn't say he can't use FoM with armor on so he can use FoM with armor on.

:> Awesome, normally someone asks for advice (in general, not just on this forum) and I post something and other people post something and the usual discussion happens but I haven't gotten any feedback on my advice so it'd be good to see how much I am actually helping.

Azten wrote:

Shadow Evocation is an Illusion spell that does damage. Other than that, most illusions don't physically hurt people.

Even if they don't disbelieve?

20% damage if they disbelieve, 20% as strong or 20% chance for additional effects of the real spell to occur.

I was going to respond to each point but that would just get really long. Suffice to say:
-The divine spell list is not as good as the arcane spell list.
-Healing is not effective use of actions in combat and out of combat healing can be done by wands.
-Cleric offensive spells are less common and have more draw backs. Arcane casters can, and do, spam damage spells with no saves, no SR, no AC, or some combination thereof.
-Magic Vestment is not that good until higher levels when you don't need it. +Saving throw spells generally don't stack with items or other spells. Death Ward is a good spell against negative energy but arcane casters avoid it with other methods.
-Only the oracle of lore and nature archetypes get mysteries that give charisma to AC. Paladins get charisma to saves, that is so much better. (Getting both is even more amazing).
-Arcane casters have defences that ignore attack rolls, displacement, mirror image, blink, invisibility, etc. AC isn't relevant if they can't hit you anyway.
-Restoration spells are nice but not so useful actually in combat. There's probably an arcane spell that does what you need and has inbuilt buff, Protection against <alignment>, for example.
-Miracle requires GP to duplicate spells with expensive (>100) components or expensive (25,000) magical effects.

Also, they do different things and have different roles. And a lot of it is how well built the character is.