Mutasafen

Demon Lord of Paladins!'s page

213 posts. Alias of seekerofshadowlight.


RSS

1 to 50 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

13 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest once it said LG only I stopped reading.


I do not think I can keep up with that posting rate, so I shall bow out. Have fun.


I think I may try warlock


Congrats guys, have fun!


I am down for any of them, my RL group just started Storm kings thunder, but we have not gotten very fair. I say get what you want to run, players will come.


WhtKnt wrote:
Understood about the aliases. I have the same problem. Wish you could delete unused ones.

You can rename them if they have under 10 posts. This will not help with many names, but you might have one or two you could do this to. I tend to just reuse names.


Why not, lets see what we get

4d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 2, 1) = 13
4d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 4, 4) = 10
4d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 5, 2) = 13
4d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 4, 4) = 16
4d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 3, 2) = 14
4d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 1, 4) = 11

So 12,9,12,14,12,10 not great, not bad


I think it will. The fact is PF1e is going way, its soon to be a dead system. And yes, some folks will stick to it, we have some tiny number who re still 3.5 or never left AD&D 1e. But once the core drop s PF 1e is dead system.

It my take a while, but many folks will switch over, the hope is it will also bring back some folks and bring in new people. They will lose some, but all the doom and gloom is normal.


Full Bleed wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
This to me is why HP's will never be injury. Have you tried 5e's lingering wound option?

Have you tried Pathfinders Unchained Wound Levels?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/woundLevels.html

I have not as I left PF before that book came out. Its neat if you're gonna act like they are meat points, but I like the other way and sy you are not wounded until you hit 0


kyrt-ryder wrote:
I hear that. If my GMing style wasn't so ridiculously laid back and laissez faire [within the context of my houserules that make the system work very well for me under those conditions] I'd never touch anything over level 12.

Above 12 IMO, the system breaks hard, its just too much work. I have ran as high as 25 before, but its just to complex, too fiddly.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Haha, are you saying you just avoid GMing high levels entirely?

That was one of the things that totally burned me out on 3.x/PF.


Too much GD work as a GM to ever touch it honestly.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
To me that 'cartoon sillyness' is what high levels is all about

As I said, to each his own. I don't play D&D/PF for super hero silliness, its not built to handle it.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ah. Yeah that sort of game can be a ton of fun.

Reminds me of an experience in Warhammer Fantasy RP.

But for Pathfinder and its derivatives I like characters who are just that tough

To each his own, I never liked the cartoon sillyness of 500 arrows and still fighting


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Why would I when I like HP exactly the way they are in 3.P?

I like characters tanking swords and ballista bolts and canon balls and lava and soldiering on unimpeded if the damage isn't enough to force them out of consciousness.

Just asked if you had. My cleric lost a hand due to that chart, good times.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Really, people need to get out of this idea that HP are wounds, they aren't.

Except when they are? (Re: lava)

As both a GM and as a player I PREFER the narrative of meat points.

Except they almost never are. You don't fight worse with 1/4th HP than at Full. You re still just as good at everything at 1 HP as t 100 HP, except it takes 1 Hp to take you out.

Been ages since I played PF so no clue how lava is, but the game just does not treat them as being hurt in almost all cases until you hit 0.

Lava is treated the same as any other damage.

It is endured until it overwhelms a character's hit points.

So no injury at all into you hit 0
Correct, no handicapping/actions impacting injury until you hit 0.

This to me is why HP's will never be injury. Have you tried 5e's lingering wound option?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Really, people need to get out of this idea that HP are wounds, they aren't.

Except when they are? (Re: lava)

As both a GM and as a player I PREFER the narrative of meat points.

Except they almost never are. You don't fight worse with 1/4th HP than at Full. You re still just as good at everything at 1 HP as t 100 HP, except it takes 1 Hp to take you out.

Been ages since I played PF so no clue how lava is, but the game just does not treat them as being hurt in almost all cases until you hit 0.

Lava is treated the same as any other damage.

It is endured until it overwhelms a character's hit points.

So no injury at all into you hit 0


I love the mention of counter spelling and non caster, magic item crafting


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Really, people need to get out of this idea that HP are wounds, they aren't.

Except when they are? (Re: lava)

As both a GM and as a player I PREFER the narrative of meat points.

Except they almost never are. You don't fight worse with 1/4th HP than at Full. You re still just as good at everything at 1 HP as t 100 HP, except it takes 1 Hp to take you out.

Been ages since I played PF so no clue how lava is, but the game just does not treat them as being hurt in almost all cases until you hit 0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something like short and long rest works great. Really, people need to get out of this idea that HP are wounds, they aren't.


Planpanther wrote:
I fear a lot more of these topics are going to pop up with Golarion being tied tighter to PF2.

The only way this stops is

A: they remove the paladin totally
B: They allow paladins of any AL and more than single code

Option B actually fits Golarion better anyhow as they have jumped though hoops to both bend the "LG only" as far as they can and keep making work around that simply could be a non-LG paladin.

Really how often do you see this stuff about 5e paladins?


Zaister wrote:


Well, I have looked at my share of RPG books with interest over the last 35 years, and don't find the advantage/disadvantage system all that bad, and it certainly hasn't sucked any joy out of me. In fact I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder campaign where the GM has adopted this system to replace various situational bonuses or penalties, such as flanking, or attacking invisbly. I find this highly interesting, and it has greatly influenced the build of my swashbuckler character.

Everyone at our tables loves advantage/disadvntage. It smooths play, makes it faster and makes players try epic stuff they would not dare to in 3.x. Such as flinging ones self off ceiling to try and impale dragon, you can only kind see, 40 feet below in the water. In 3.x you would need 3 or more buffs, and magic items and then everyone at the table yelling other buffs you forgot, to have tiny, tiny Chance. With A/D, you have a chance ( totally nailed that dragon btw). IMO, PF 2 could do far, far worse.

Anguish wrote:


Oh, they have data all right. But it may be misleading.

It could be misleading, but here is the issue. They re losing sales, their player base is shrinking and will keep doing so. They are not getting enough new folks and have lost many 3.x folks, such as myself.

All game systems age, 10 years is well past time most companies would have made a new edition, its 18 years old at this point. And we all know it shows its age.

Sure, they re gonna lose folks with PF2, but if they do not change, those die hards will be ll they have and they re too large a company to live off that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:


So you really just want to have all the benefits that a powerful class like the Paladin has with none of the restrictions. You want the mechanics of the class, but not the heart of the class.

Dude, in PF a paladin is tier 4 class, out of 5. Its bottom rung of power gaming, on power gamer worth the name is looking to powergame freaking paladin.

Now I was asked what could make one fall, and really if your belief is powering you, not much can make you fall. People do some, evil, evil things and still think they are the "good guys" and are doing the right thing. This is why, to me paladins need a god.

And the Oathbreaker Oath from 5e is not "free", you have thrown away everything you are to get it. You can be redeemed,but its there for those who throw away their very self image, but want to cling to paladin hood.

5e has many Oaths,each and every one has a code. There is no need to be LG, so being an Oathbreaker is big deal. Its a bigger deal than falling over n Alignment argument or moment of weakness, because you tossed away your Oath, you broke it , not by mistake, not over an Argument over AL which no two people even agree on, but a clear cut, well lid out oath you tossed to the ground and walked all over.

You see "power gaming" where I see fantastic Roleplying.


graystone wrote:


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Paladins arent just soldiers of certain deities

Aren't they just that in golarion? As I understand, golarion is going to be infused into 2e making it's fluff default so I think going forward we can expect gods to be influential to paladins.

Expanding on that, several of the paladin codes currently out there stretch the bounds of LG already. It seems a natural progression to put more focus on the code.

FR was the same way, Paladins serve a god. Not sure bout which other settings, but it always made sense to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

[

They are both reestrictions, they are both the same.

You clearly believe one should be removed, but ultimately that is just your preference over one reestriction to go and one to remain.

Having codes is core of pathfinder paladin? It certanly is, but here is the thing, so is being LG.

Ofc people can houserule this, but we can do so anything the game has too.

And so, the equivalence fallacy.

A code and alignment are not the same, not even close. The code can be done by wide range of alignments and, as has been explained to you, is clear cut. Its not open for two people to disagree on what it might mean. Because two people will ever agree on how a set AL should act.

The code is not the same as LG. Mny AL's can pull that code off NG, LN, TN, CG,heck LE could likely pull the code off.

And it has been explained to you a dozen times over why "You can just house rule it" does not work as a defense or argument.

Quote:

I chose to invoke the 5th edt paladin because it is tossed around often as it is the same as the pathfinder paladin. Which it isnt.

The name "paladin" can be granted to both, that doesnt make both the same. The name paladin is actually tossed around a LOT, it has a LOT of variation, even if it has a general concept, it is far from being exactly the same each time.

You invoked D&D. It is a paladin, says so in the PHB, so you're incorrect claiming it is not. Once you bring D&D into the argument, you brought in 5E and its non-LG paladins.

Quote:


Im going to go on a limb here and say they probably also stopped to think about it before they bindly make the call that if it is house ruled often, then it should change.

Which is exactly what they should do here once more. Ultimately, it will be for sure houseruled back too, since over 10 years of PF this has been core to the paladin, therefore, if it is simply because it will get house ruled anyway, then there is no point for the change at all.

No, it won't be Houseruled back in many games, You are making the same kinda claims made about taking away human only. We see how well that held up. Or how often its houseruled in 5e, not every often by the look of things because guess what? Non-LG Devotion paladins keep to the classic code.

You have yet to show a single reason why it should stay LG only. D&D has shown that is not needed and removing it not only brings more paladins to the table, it kills one of the oldest game killing arguments in the game. Heck, people no longer fear paladins in the party as its no longer a game killer.

Prft, a single edition of game is not even a tradition, you are building it off D&D, you have invoked it a number of times. D&D says you are wrong, and has proven it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
I tend to ignore them myself other than as fluff.
Me too. It is easy to do, and other people enjoy them, so I see no point removing them

Move em to "optional" as some folks re strictly RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
I tend to ignore them myself other than as fluff.
They are basically fluff... but very fun fluff with the occasional mechanical impact.

I ignore the second, and really only use the first if player wants to use it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to ignore them myself other than as fluff.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:


You got the irony of this debacle.

The answer? Cause they think this is the stop gap.

Nope, I have never seen anyone claim this, ever.

Quote:


They accuse others of being too restrictive while keeping restrictions themselves, ofc the ones they deem resonable, which all is too hilarious.

One has little to do with the other. You are making a false equivalency claim here

Quote:
Again paladin is LG in PF, a 5th paladin is NOT a pathfinder paladin AT ALL. In PF keeping paladin LG and with its code is quite reasonable, it is how it works and how many expect it to work, as been seem in the previous pool thread.

You choose to invoked D&D and that is a D&D paladin, which puts lie to many claims you make. You can stick by the classic code and be non-LG or have a non-classic code and guess what, you're still a paladin.

Quote:
Also, pointing that people houserule this a lot is meaningless, it will also be houseruled back a lot even if removed, i already even know what my houserule number 1 will be if paizo changes this.

No, its not pointless, this was one reason the race restriction got removed. Because like AL, it was house ruled all the time.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
What happens when a code pally breaks the code?

It depends on who gives him his power. If he gives it to himself, not a damned thing. I like 5e's oathbreker path myself.


graystone wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil.
This is false since the publishing of Dnd 5e, at the very least
Or the very first paladin as they required lawful alignment [good alignment didn't exist].

Also, they were restricted to humans


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
What I dont get is if Pallys dont need alignment, then why do they need codes?

The codes IMO re a core part of the paladin, they are an oath, a knightly code of their order. This is not the same as an AL. And there should be many codes and many orders. Paizo has done this with its gods paladins, all the while trying to tip-toe round a silly limit


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Sorry but no:

-you can’t “make a CE paladin right now”. You can make an anti paladin, with MANDATORY CE alignment, notice how (1) anti paladin is a different class from paladin and (2) how “anti paladin” actually means “the opposite of paladin”.

Yet, its pretty much paladin but made cartoony evil

Quote:


-The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil. You want to change the class to a generic holy warrior class that can champion any alignment, which is the problem for the many people who oppose the change you incessantly lobby for.

Paladins in D&D are not limited to LG. You may choose to play a LG paladin if you wish, but its not required. Paladins re not champions of n alignment, they are holy warriors and that has always been the core of the class

Quote:


-All this doesn’t mean you can’t have of should have different classes who embody different alignments. I think they should be designed and implemented in the game. They won’t be paladins but something else though. And each one should have its own MANDATORY ALIGNMENT.

A non-LG paladin is still a paladin, good, evil or in between. No need for new class. D&D puts lie to your claim non LG paladins re not paladins.

Quote:


-That said, I must admit I do believe the people who keep lobbying for removal of the paladin as is don’t really care about the class at all and just keep asking because they see this as an important step for removing alignment entirely, something they feel it would be easier to obtain if the paladin were no longer the embodyment of LG ideale.

No, its just a stupid restriction, like the Human only was a stupid restriction and Druids having to be TN only was stupid restriction. This has been on of the most common house rules since the creation of the class. D&D has proved you can be non- LG and still be a pure up classic paladin, but thats simply not the only way to play a paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:

err.. I have a name, you know, you can use it.

on the topic of

Quote:
as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doing

are you sure? look at what Marvel Studios has done over the last decade with their Cinematic Universe. Now THAT was a game changer. Look at all the businesses that tried their best to emulate that model and see how fast they crashed and burned. Was it in Universal's best interest to try to start their cinematic universe and crashland twice over the last, what?, 5 years? Was it in WB's best business interest to try to start their DC cinematic universe with Green Lantern, only to fail spectaculary and then to start it again with those awful Snyder movies?

Sometimes the best one business can do is to look at what the competitors do and just go in a different direction than to try and copy their success

WB's Arrowverse has done the same thing as the MCU and id doing dmned well in its nitch. The fact DC's movies can't is a management issue, not a flaw in the product they failed to emulate. DC simply did suck job of copying and did it wrong.

I m not saying for Paizo to copy 5e, but you can bet they are watching it. And one thing 5e has over PF is ease of use, its easy to teach and pick up. 3.x is not and never has been.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

This again?

"We want no more alignment and we'll keep making the same argument over and over again until we get what we want!"

"Me want play chaotic evil "paladin" of gruesome destruction! Gnurf!"

You can do CE paladins now. Funny how you can have any AL paladins in 5e, yet the world did not end and the game runs fine. Your first comment is pretty much the reason given for not allowing non-LG paladins "we don't want them, shut up" even though its likely the most common house rules in D&D history.


graystone wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
It is a bit absurd to say that a mechanic in it is universally disliked by the enterity population of people who has ever read a RPG book.

Almost as absurd as saying that it's universally the best thing since sliced bread? IMO, it's a super divisive mechanic you either love or hate. People that like it play 5e. People that don't play something else... What incentive is there to add it here?

Fad: you've paid WAY, WAY, WAY more attention to who is more popular than who than I EVER have. I play what I like and avoid what I don't and care little for who else does. As such... fad seems appropriate to me for something new and shiny gaining interest over the current offerings. Is there a time limit when something stops being a fad and become a trend? For me, I seems still a fad.

For your personal taste this is fine to ignore facts, but as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doing s it is dominating big time.


Kerrilyn wrote:


We'd be playing 5e right now if it were covered more by the OGL. We do like thingies to be a bit crunchier than 5e, but it wouldn't take a lot of crunchy to make it acceptable.

The lack of things like cheap PDFs, d20pfsrd / neyths etc are a no-no for 5e for us.

master_marshmallow wrote:
And I'm fine with a simpler system, but simple also does not mean better.

Um, nopers. Simpler is always better, unless it costs something else valuable in the process. We still use THAC0 in PF1, but it's been simplified since 1e. The only thing we lost is those weird adjustments between specific weapons and armors from 1e, and there's nothing stopping us from putting them back into play with BAB/to-hit. If we wanted to.

What's that quote my husband loves so much? Oh yes, here it is (thanks google!):

"In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away"

Your husband is spot on here. 5e does have an SRD by the way, but WOTC only made one of each 3rd level option open. Which is bummer, but does not make it unplayable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

And I'm fine with a simpler system, but simple also does not mean better.

Consistency makes game design easier, not necessarily simple consistency.

Other side of the coin man, complexity does not mean better either. If it would run as easy and simple as 5e, with pathfinders flare for options, it would be a winner. To many people confuse options with more rules and rules blot and PF they often re one and the same. But they need not be.


To be honest, My group has had far more fun, and far more roleplying, since the switch to 5e and the need to no longer master a super crunchy system with 47 conditions and 38 modifiers dominated game play.

PF could be less crunchy then PF 1 , but easily more than 5e. But IMO if they stick with complex just to be complex, they miss the lesson of 5e


4 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Well, then you must love derailing your game every 5 minutes to explain to him how the rules work and making sure he understands how his character works while everyone else at the table sits there bored too.

It depends on the game. In 5e, it takes seconds, with PF it derailed whole game when one player did not worship the rules set like holy write


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
"This new system is worse than the old one, go back and tweak that instead of this new thing." is a valid response to changes. I just have to hope that Paizo is as open-minded as they're expecting us to be. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've been good in the past.

This is unreasonable and not gonna happen after 2 years of in house development.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Joana wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.
Since Power Attack and Sudden Charge each take two actions and you only get three actions in a round, I'm guessing not.
I'd like an option to add power attack onto other things by increasing their action cost by one, I guess. So you could sudden charge for 2 and Power Attack for +1, using all three of your actions.

That would be 4 actions however, I don't see stuff being allowed at a discount as that is screaming spell abuse.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like how Power Attack is automatically better on bigger weapons now- that feels right.

I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Both cost 2 actions to use. You get 3 actions per round. So no unless you can build up over 2 rounds or something.


This spunds very promising.


graystone wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
As someone who started with AD&D, played a ton of 3.5, and got started with Pathfinder pretty early on, I'm excited for a new edition.
Myself, I started with chainmail/blackmoor, played through 3.0-3.5 and hopped on the pathfinder tain after wandering around a bit after 3.5 died... Personally, I NOT excited for the new version of pathfinder. Every blog/podcast/ect seems to bring in a mechanic from 5e and it fills me with unease. It doesn't help the dribbles of info are more fueling my dissatisfaction of it's direction than stoak interest. Sigh... Maybe I should just take a nap until august because so far what I'm seeing isn't making me a happy camper.

Personally, I would be happier if they took some of the better ideas from 5e. The ones they are seeming to take, they are making them more complex for no reason IMO.

I am not saying make it a 5e clone, but 5e did a lot of things right IMO


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Kain Dragonhand wrote:

One thing I do not understand is people calling for multi-classing to be more generous for casters.

"We need to address the power gap between the high level casters and the high level martials!"

At the same time they say

"Multi-classing needs to be better for casters!"

Multi-classing for martial type characters in Pathfinder is usually a way for martials to close the gap with casters. You make it easier for casters to multi-class and you're only going to increase the disparity at higher levels.

Some people dip for flavor, but 90%+ of them dip because it is entirely beneficial to their character to do so.

Because those two are unrelated issues.

They ARE related... But not quite in the way he suggests.

Make martial characters scale up to par with 9th level spellcasting and suddenly that parity opens up the design space for valuable multiclassing for all.

This is more what I meant. the caster/ non-caster issue is its own set of issues that needs addressed. I do not however see PF doing this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:

One thing I do not understand is people calling for multi-classing to be more generous for casters.

"We need to address the power gap between the high level casters and the high level martials!"

At the same time they say

"Multi-classing needs to be better for casters!"

Multi-classing for martial type characters in Pathfinder is usually a way for martials to close the gap with casters. You make it easier for casters to multi-class and you're only going to increase the disparity at higher levels.

Some people dip for flavor, but 90%+ of them dip because it is entirely beneficial to their character to do so.

Because those two are unrelated issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I do like the 5e paladin a lot, although I wouldn't say it is perfect compared to the PF version. Smite working on single attacks instead of a combat long buff doesn't strike me as strictly better design, and neither does it consuming spell slots. Divine Senses felt a little wonky too. But the oaths and alignment usage is pure gold.

I also gotta say, while I have been critical of 5e archetypes not kicking in until level 3 because it makes the first two levels feel super vanilla, oaths at 3rd level worked well for me. Gave me a chance to see the direction the campaign and my character were going and adjust accordingly.

I agree not perfect, but IMO the oath system is damned near perfect. So easy to plug new ones in and puts lie to the Idea paladin must be LG s Devotion is pure up the classic code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Honestly, I think 5e did this very well and I would support PF2 just completely ripping it off. Alignment exists, but is rarely tied to any class features or spells. Paladins instead get a list of oaths to follow, and thematic abilities based around those oaths. Most oaths lean in a LG direction but don't actually require it. Things like smite now work on anything but do bonus damage to a broad list of creatures.

I'd also support a deity specific code that applies to all divinely empowered followers of said deity. I like using things like this to inform role-play, but I think the current system is too restrictive and also too vague.

The 5e paladin is simply great and the oath system is nice. The Devotion oath is classic, but no longer LG only. While the other oaths re fun and bring new flavors to the class


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing wrong with level dipping if it makes your character what you want it to be.

1 to 50 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>