|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
From an ICD viewpoint it makes sense to optimize. This is because most characters understand the world they live in. A Fighter, for example, is going to attempt to be the best Fighter (s)he can because they know they're walking into situations where life and death literally can hang in the balance. So because combat is so perilous, preparing for it in the most optimized way possible gives someone a better chance of survival.
The problem is that after AD&D, the alignment restrictions don't justify their perceived power level. They're no longer "Fighter plus Extra". Fighters, especially in Pathfinder, have a TON more options that also make them powerful. Especially with the myriad of options in later supplements. It's not to say that the Paladin isn't powerful, it's to point out that so are other classes that DON'T have nearly the same level of forced role-play requirements.
Clerics, Druids, Wizarsds, Summoners (not the Unchained one), and a few others would largely disagree.
Powerful compared to whom? Cleric, Druids, and Wizards?
I think the biggest problem that crops up is that a player's expectation for what's evil and the DM's is sometimes very different, regardless of context and the character suffers a significant setback. Is killing a tyrant of a nobleman in his bed chamber murder if you have proof he's evil and actively causing harm? One DM might say no and the other yes. Can a Paladin torture a creature of the lower planes of hell to extract information so he can save hundreds or thousands? One DM might say yes because it's for a good cause AND because the creature is pure evil and the other DM might say No and recite old adage "road, hell, paved with good intentions" blah blah...
When I play paladins I usually defer to killing the evil subject on two merits:
1. Is it a humanoid creature? If yes, then chances are they can be redeemed or punished by some other means other than death. Subdual damage is the way to go here unless continued resistance, then kill it. Some creatures of this type are more difficult than others, like Ogres, Giants, and Trolls. These might get the sword because they're too dangerous to bring to captivity.
2. Is it a monster? Pretty much all Abberations, Chromatic Dragons, Evil Fey, evil Magical Beasts, Monstrous humanoids, Outsiders, Undead, and Vermin. If yes, smite it and hope it dies quickly.
IMPROVED TRIP (v3.5)
If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
So using Full-Attack:
Trip (if successful) lands you a second attack with the same weapon as if you hadn't spent your turn tripping. If not successful you can continue with your off-hand attack.
On topic: I think the first 3 are easier to measure, especially Strength. Intelligence can also be measured in a number of ways. But Wisdom and Charisma are pretty damn hard. How does one really justify an 8 or an 18? I was one of 4 co-captains on my football team but that doesn't mean I'm super Charismatic. The "popular" kids in any given social environment don't all have 18's, comeliness aside. And shy or quiet doesn't necessarily mean their Cha is low. It's one of those stats that really didn't make much sense overall IMO.
Using 3.5 stats...
Str 15 - max load 200 lbs over my head
I think I'd make a good Crusader, Fighter, or Cavalier (PF) character.
Lucas Yew wrote:
If changing the base full-round action rules can empower monster damage greatly, why don't just make the full-move full attack exclusive to frontline classes as a class feature? And never forget to patch up that horrible and irrational -15 penalty to the final iterative attack, too...
Yeeup. Like in 5e, additional attacks are specifically a class feature only some of the classes get. I'd be fine giving The Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Barbarian a full 4 attacks by 20th level. Paladin, Ranger, Bard 3 attacks by 20th level. Cleric, Druid, and Wizard 2 attacks (or heck, keep them at 1) by 20th level. The more agency they have with spells the less likely they're going to be spending their turn swinging a weapon.
Also, iterative attack penalties are dumb and have zero reason for existing.
First, no one's asking for 100% success rate. Second, I'm all for keeping the majority 9f status effects in the hands of spellcasters. Third, the fighter/martial still has to hit to be effective (just as people have to fail saves from spells) so just because you get more attacks on a standard action doesn't mean you'll be successful 100% and might drop to 50% or even 0%. And finally, all were asking for is Agency. Pretty much the sole reason Path of War exists.
Edit: and please, resource management for spellcasters pretty much stops being a thing about 7th level to 10th level.
In my experiences most 3.5/PF games become rocket tag in later stages anyways. But for some reason casters still get SoD or SoS spells that are single and multi-target that takes 6 seconds but Fighters can't have the same capabilities. To me, if a Wizard or spellcaster (considering NPCS and monsters use the same spells as PCs) can shut down or instantly kill a target with a standard action, the fighter should be awarded the same opportunity via attacks.
More seriously, issues like this is kinda why I like Path of War. Want more out of your martial than full attack (or buff, THEN full attack)? There is your answer.
Yep. I really couldn't see myself playing Pathfinder without the Path of War supplement like I really can't see myself playing v3.5 without access to the Tome of Battle. I like my non-casters to have nice things.
What if when your BAB hit 6 you could 10ft step (like a 5ft step but twice as far) and still have a full attack action left. At BAB 11 you could 15ft step and full attack or as long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your highest 2 iterative attacks (lose the 3rd). And finally at BAB 16 you can 20ft step and full attack or so long as you move less than your full movement speed you get your 3 highest iterative attacks (lose the 4th).
I.....actually really like this idea. Kudos!
Full Druid would work well here. Feats are ALL pretty much open for you though you'll want to take Natural Spell at 6th level. Personally I'd go with the following stats:
Though you could change around a few to suit your playstyle. I like Str 12 just because later on you're probably going to be wild shaping when you get into melee so Str isn't a very high priority and until then, Summon spells and buffing is a great role early on. Still you could easily swap Con and Str. As for Race, I'd go Human as you can hardly beat the extra feat and added skill points. Elf is a nice secondary choice too and if you're allowed to pull from the Monster Manual then you might want to see if you can be a Wood Elf as they also get +2 Str, -2 Int on top of +2 Dex, -2 Con.
Some additional feats that I've found useful at levels 1-3 were Spell Focus (Conjuration) and Augment Summoning. Later on the summons will get better and getting that extra attack and HP is always a help.
It's an interesting idea. Personally I like BA because I'm pretty darn sick of +35/+31/+blah blah and AC in the 49's and all the saves being all ridiculous all off of a d20. And because progression is really far too fast IMO.
As far as years go and leveling, I think there's a disconnect here. A human character can go from 1st to 20th level if they're consistent with adventuring in about a year. That's it. 1 Year and they've unlocked ALL the secrets of their trade (ie. class) and that's just purely ridiculous. Hence why Level has no actual mapping when it comes to the immersion part of the game.
An Elf can live to be 1000 years old but if the majority of that isn't in combat and isn't fighting for their life every 3 days and it's mostly hidden away in the seclusion of their own private sanctum or in the deep bowels of their forest fortress, how are they ever going to truely know they're might is as great as they believe?
Thanks for the suggestions. I found a pretty decent used one (only 1 open door missing) for $85 on eBay. Should be pretty easy to find a replacement door sometime down the road.
By the by...
Has anyone used alternative characters in their games for HeroQuest? As I delve more into the game and homebrews I've come across a LOT of different characters from Paladins to Assassins and Amazons and Bards, etc. Anyone use one or a few and see a difference in the game?
Nox Aeterna wrote:
It's not about being the Best though, it's about being competent. A Wizard who picks mostly Evocation-based spells and feats to augment that can still cast spells that aren't evocation and be good with them too. They still have a good chance of succeeding or doing their intended job/effect.
A Fighter, OTOH, wants to do a combat maneuver but has a significant chance at failure unless they specialize. They can use a weapon to slightly make it better but then you'll have fighters carrying around a giant golf-bag of weapons over their shoulder OR until they find a bag of holding. Either way they can't just perform a maneuver and expect a decent level of competency.
Maybe PF 2.0 should make spellcasters require equipment for specific school of magic to use well? That would be interesting! For summoning you'd need a body part or bone of the animal you want to summon as a focus. You'd need a wand for evocation spells and a mirror for scrying spells. But of course the magic will be pretty strong and sooner or later the focus will become destroyed so you'll have to keep a nice hefty stock in case that happens.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
But the feats they do choose don't limit or hinder spells chosen from a different school. A Wizard who specializes in Enchantments (and doesn't prohibit evocation) still gets DC 10 + spell level + ability modifier to evocation spells and still does the same amount of die of damage to the same amount of radius as any other non-evocation specialized wizard.
A Fighter, who takes Power Attack and Weapon Focus and Furious Focus will do a significantly worse job at tripping an opponent only because they didn't specialize in Tripping. Do you see the difference here?
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Well there's FAR more issues than that, unfortunately. Spells are also often open ended to allow a good deal of versatility outside their intended scope. For example, using Unseen Servant to drag a 20-lb rock down a hallway to spring any traps or using scorching ray to melt ice and other frozen items or catch stuff on fire.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
But that is the way the game was made to work, one can change that so that casters need to be more selective on their choices? Ofc you can , but that means cutting the entire party utility down , since the wizard that wanted to summon things for sure wont give up on what he wanted to do to become a buffer/heal... bot for martials.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
They will also lose the option to bypass tons of different kinds of issues since hey , now it isn't just about casting fly and going over the wall , nope now the caster (actually the whole party ) needs to invest points in climb.
Again, why is that wrong or a bad thing? Maybe the fighter can utilize his strength and climb parts of the wall to help up the other people? Maybe the rogue can find a way through the labyrinth of tunnels that run through the ice wall if there is any. Maybe physical obstacles can be more of a deterrent to the adventure, forcing a different line of thinking other than: "Lets fix the problem with magic."
Nox Aeterna wrote:
The idea of changing casters so they become to closer to how martials do in-combat affect them directly outside combat, if they need to select a path the whole game changes , the solutions to issues changes...
That's actually a pretty good deal IMO. If you choose to be a super-awesome warmage with powerful offensive capabilities then maybe you shouldn't be able to buff the party, fly over mountains, cast invisibility to scout ahead (better than the Rogue who's invested 10 ranks in Stealth), or cast X, Y, or Z spells outside the purview of Awesome Warmage.
Except that there are very few limitations to what these abilities do and the game (both 3.X and PF) have pretty much removed most of what made them "balanced" compared to non-spellcasters. And the balance that was inherently there have ways via character options to reduce or outright remove them.
•Don't I need to keep track of my spell Components? Nope there's Eschew Materials feat for that AND many (I'd say most) DMs don't bother with that level of minutia.
• Isn't casting time a problem? Nope, everyone can cast on their turn as their initiative comes up.
• What if someone is in my face about to blast you with their sword if I start casting? Easy! Just use a 5-ft step AND/OR cast defensively! PLUS there are ways of making casting defensively more effective which means by a certain level, casting defensively isn't even worth rolling for.
• But all these cosmic powers are limited by my spell slots? Naw, we gave spellcasters x/day in-class abilities that are used for things that magic doesn't neccessairly need to be used for. And you have at-will Cantrips for non-combat aspects. Being forced to not fight, or use mundane weapons you're not very good with OR forcing the entire group to rest when you're fresh out of spells is a mostly thing of the past.
• Happy Overloarding!!!
Then the flip side...
• Can I attack a guy multiple times OR with each weapon I'm wielding if I move more than 10-feet? Nope. That's preposterous!
• Can I attack a guy with my shield? Sure, but you'll need a Feat.....and it's not very effective. You'd need additional class features AND some more feats to make it worth your while. And it's just some additional damage, nothing really else to have happen here...
• But I get many attacks as I get better right? Sure! But each attack depreciates by 5, so when you finally get 4 full attacks, you're basically crit-fishing the last two anyways.
• But I get these feats, that are supposed to all be pretty awesome! Yep, so does everyone else. You get MORE than most, so that's a plus but most of the good ones are hidden behind Ability scores you have almost zero use for OR they're the 3rd, 4th, or 5th in down the line to even attempt to use. AND by the time you can most of them aren't worth the paper they're written on.
• OK but I'll get LOADS of magical Items to help! You sure do, and so does every other player and they usually spend them on making their spellcasting beter or more available during the adventuring day.
• So I don't get fancy spells or ways to make the world bend to my will but I CAN intimidate better than anyone and I can do stuff Strong and Fast people can do, probably even better! Yeah, that's pretty much what wands and other magical trinkets and baubles Wizards and Spellcasters spend their gold on, so that they don't have to worry about keep picking up other people's slack.
•.......can I impose status effects like Blind, Daze, Deafen, Paralysis, or Unconsciousness? Yes but you need magic or special elixers/poisons. No. Yes but you need feats. No. Yes but you take a substantial penalty when you try unless you have magic or a feat.
• I wanna play a spellcaster!!!
Thanks. The temp hit points come from the monsters/targets total HD and it doesn't stack with any other forms of temployment hit points. So if you kill a creature with 8 HD, you gain only 8 but if you kill 4 creatures with 5 HD each, you'd gain 20.
The thiNG is that a lot of PC features focus on short rest reliance and when you take it, the THP are lost. So if a Blood Knight takes a feat that gives him maneuvers he's more likely to take more short rests.
Bad strategy? Not really, it's different and does have the chance of the player choosing a difficult class but how's that different than you're method and them saying "I want to play a guy who throws around fireballs and flys and cast spells" OR is more generic like "I wanna play a guy like Gandalf"?
If someone wants to play a tricky concept (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) based on the rules and spell selection then that's what they're going to pick regardless of me saying "stick within this book" or them describing it to me.
I don't think "giving" a player a class is probably the best direction. If I have a new player I usually give them a book and say "Pick a class out of this, but understand some classes are more difficult than others." and many times the Fighter is chosen because in MOST games the Fighter is the easiest to play.
With that said I believe a DM should be very tolerant of the choices a new player picks. If they're playing a Fighter and at 1st level they choose feats that you know won't be that great, allow them their choice and let them play them out for a few sessions. If at that point the player doesn't like his choices or doesn't think they work well, let them choose different ones. Let them know that this is mainly because the heavy level of system master for the system but as they become more familiar with the game, they won't be allowed to arbitrarily change feats in the future (unless you allow retraining or just swapping at each level of course).
So here's my take on a sort of half-vampire/dhampire theme build for Fighters.
Perhaps the thirst for blood runs in your lineage or maybe you've had the misfortune of coming across a vampire and thus have been bit. Regardless of the reasons, the abilities of a vampire slowly build within you. Although you’re not truly a full-fledged creature of the night, you start to exhibit the blood thirst common among that specific kind of undead. The seducing lure of darkness has enthralled you and you intend to embrace it’s power.
Blood Knight Features
Drain the Vein
Do you believe they'll go back and re-write their rules to accommodate this? MAYBE if Pathfinder 2e comes out, but definitely not now.
Untrue, this is why there is an Antipaladin (CE, complete with a code).
The Lawful Good Paladin falls if he commits an evil act. The same conditions must be true for a Neutraladin on some level for a sense of equality to be present. There must be some action taken that will cause him to fall outright. Problem is, the Neutraladin is not the antithesis of anything. He does not strongly oppose any alignment. So what causes him to lose his powers? Nothing? Anything?
Actually, quite the contrary. He's the antithesis of extremism. This is seen in four other alignments; Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil. These represent the 4 corners of the ultimate beliefs and thus the greatest paths to corruption and personal liberty. They are the antithesis to altruism and depravity.
Is his code of conduct simply a 'don't be too good/evil and don't be too lawful/chaotic?'
More or less don't let the extremes override the common. Lawful Good may take extremes, for example, to achieve what they desire, especially in places where law isn't significantly present. It's easy to see where evil lies, less so with Good but it is still there. A TN Paladin would strive, most likely, to keep peace through neutrality.
If so, this is a significantly relaxed view of a Paladin's code that I can't agree with. Any character can have a 'general set of behaviors that I sometimes deviate from'. A Code of Conduct entails consistency and strong self discipline.
Not all that difficult to create really.
These are traits of a lawful person who is compelled to adhere to a set of rules. Neutral characters are not compelled in such a manner.
Sure they are if there is a reason to be invested, and doubly so for a TN Paladin.
That's a fair question. If we have multiclassing and things like the Warpriest, why not Axe the Paladin entirely and just make up Archtypes for the Warpriest. A LG-ONly Warpriest with more emhpasis on smite can be called Paladin. Done...
Judging by the commentary on this thread, they probably would rejoice at more restrictions and requirements. That they don't enforce them at their table, however, just shows the level of hypocrisy that's going on.
So....you find it difficult in real life NOT to lie, cheat, steal, poison others, or help those who possibly require assistance??
That really says a lot.
Yea thats why
Except that the restrictions were placed on it specifically due to numerical IMBALANCE it created mechanically. For the most part that mechanical imbalance is now gone. The "rarity" of making Paladins is gone. So yeah, give a numerical justification for the alignment restrictions other than nostalgia and lore.
What are the mechanical benefits for me being unable to cheat and steal?
Heavily depends on whether or not you have the skills to achieve such. Just because you can (like anyone can *try*) doesn't mean you will based solely upon your skill set and chance of success. But I'm sure your non-Paladin characters, wearing full-plate ALWAYS try pick pocketing....
Of not being able to use poison?
Same as above. Only in the most rarest of occasions are players going to even attempt to use poison without the Poison Use feature.
ALL of this is just pure fluff and role-play. What about those non-Paladins who do this? What numerical benefit to they get from acting this way??
Being able to lie and use poison are rather "blah", mechanically speaking, in the overall scheme of the game. Talk about pretentious...
It's not about mechanics. It's about reality and expectations.
Aaaaaaand this is where you lose me. Reality? C'mon, man.
And somehow Paladins of other alignments take this iconic notion away? How? Explain why, if Paladins were open to other alignment it restrictions YOU from playing this paragon of virtue? Tell me how this somehow hurts your ability to do you own thing? Because someone, somewhere is playing the game differently? This has SOOO MUCH wrongbadfun attached to it, it's sort of scary...
The paladin makes that trope a fact of life. To a lesser degree, the monk does for self-discipline and an ascetic lifestyle.
Yea, the monk discipline is moronic on it's face. You know what takes serious discipline? Studying magic. Therefore and under that logic ALL Wizards should have to be Lawful too. Except there not. You can have CG, CN, CE wizards who still somehow hold onto "reality" and discipline long enough to grasp cosmic magical energies to bend to their will.
Basically Discipline =/= Lawful and it never has.
Sure, if DMs forced this upon you. And those mechanics are now gone. I wonder why, hhmmmm....
All those restrictions are there to emulate the fact that acting as a proper paladin was hard, and furthermore that failing lost all your cool stuff from being a paragon of virtue, back to being like everyone else.
See DM Safety valve with Catch-22 scenarios.....
But hey, you no longer had to give away half your loot, could own a golf bag of gear, could lie cheat and steal if you liked, do whatever. You just couldn't be a paladin.
If it's for the greater good, Paladins of Freedom could. And you can do the same thing in 4e and 5e.
Bwhahahahah, reward? Yeah like we said back in the day you were rewarded for being lucky for rolling good stats. Nowadays, however, none of that applies. Try again?
And if you're going to say the paladin is just about the mechanics and anyone can play one...then you don't understand what it represents, at all.
No, we do it just doesn't match up with your nostalgia-tinted glasses.
Wow.....um I'm pretty sure you do NOT want to travel down this road..
Women have less upper body strength on average and at maximum then men do. Do your mothers and sisters go screaming at nature for the reality of that? No. The game reflected what is real, and it was the only ability score impacted, much against the prejudice of medieval eras where women were considered inferior in all respects.
*sigh* and I'm sure you heavily use this in your games, right? Because reality is something EVERY D&D game must adhere to...[/sarcasm]
Women could still wear gauntlets and girdles and be as strong as the men who wore the same things, so eventual equality at the upper end was built right into the system, and it had no impact whatsoever at the average level! Forgive gygax for modelling actual reality rather then video game reality when he set the stat ranges in!
I really don't have to forgive him for anything. Do you seriously wonder WHY these rules don't exist today? Yea, modeling reality is something D&D has been SUPER amazing at!!
That's sarcasm BTW....
I can only surmise that the rationale behind the good reasons for blank are two-fold:
1. Identity. Despite the fact that there have been paladins of other alignments officially printed by WotC and in Dragon mag the imagery of the Crusader/Holy Knight is something of an appealing concept. Lancelot, Galahad, Knight Templars, and chivalry in-general conjures this picture of purity and justice (reality shows us it's anything BUT) clad in shining plate mail with lance or sword held high on a charge to fight evil head-on. COOL! You get all these COOL powers but you have to uphold the code of chivalry and honor. Your dedication to truth and justice cannot waver, even in the more dire circumstances.
Basically early version of the game gave us this AWESOME imagery and a lot of nifty things to go with that. It was strictly better than the Fighter. It was hard to become a Paladin (due to racial/stat requirements) and thus not everyone could roll one up. Plus it's the whole cliche "With Power comes Responsibility..." blah blah. The alignment was, at the time, a nice safety valve for the DM to pull (in convoluted Catch-22 scenarios) if the Paladin player was hogging too much spotlight.
2. Traditionalism. You said it yourself LOADS of people point to earlier parts of D&D and the game and say that it's always been like that. This tradition helps with point #1 in continuing it's identity. None of the mechanics need the alignment restriction. The Paladin, as I've seen it since 3e til now, isn't anything BETTER than other classes and is actually quite dwarfed mechanically against things like a Cleric or Cleric/Fighter. Truthfully it serves to keep traditionalists and classicists happy and content with things they've grown up to believe as unwavering truth. Many of these same people also dislike more modern approaches to the game, especially player options. They're just as likely to hate things like Tieflings and Drow characters as PCs because of tradition. And of course to these same ones, there's NO clear indication of martial disparity plus most extraordinary feats and abilities go against their sense of verisimilitude as well.
Hope that helps!
All I need to do is point straight at 5e to completely invalidate that assertion. I was involved with the 5e Playtest from the very first release (5 pre-generated characters advancing to only 2nd level) and involved with every survey up until the initial release of the actual game. In that time span they:
• polled class balance, what worked and what didn't.
From there they tweaked the "Core" or Basic game. This was your elf, dwarf, human, and halfling along with the Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. Lets just say just THAT process took almost a full year to compile and institute. And I think they learned a lot, from not wanting a HUGE amount of mechanics thrown at the game early on (3e, PF, and 4e problem) to not wanting a LOT of bookkeeping from turn-to-turn (4e's problem) and fiddly bits (loads of minuscule modifiers, ie. 3.PF problem).
Then they started with a more broader class selection, and this is where the Paladin came in. Initially with the Paladin it was required to just be Lawful. Any Lawful, but lawful-something. And people howled. LOUD and a LOT. The boards raged with discussions JUST like this one, not only so-called "balance" but the whole identity the class had come to be. Many people were mad it was JUST Lawful and not required to be good, thus sullying the name. Others yelled that being lawful was far too restricting, wrecking interesting role-playing concepts. Additionally the Monk also had to be Lawful as well, which gained a slightly less heated argument, mostly because the monk never generated as much alignment controversy as the Paladin did.
Finally the devs, after two additional releases of play-test material (with the Lawful tag still required) it was removed. It took two additional playtest releases without the Lawful tag before people realized that the alignment restrictions on both the Paladin and Monk (and subsequently the Barbarian and Druid) would be a thing of D&D's past, much like 5 different saving throws, THAC0, gender attributes, and weapon speeds (at least as default goes).
So basically 5e is a direct result of the player base nudging and pushing design of the entire system, from classes and races and feats and backgrounds, and features into the direction of popular opinion. Why do you think SO much 4e-isms still snuck their way into the design space? At-will scaling cantrip damage with character (and not class) level, using hit die healing (similar to Healing Surges), full HP on 1-night rests, no alignment restrictions, battle master maneuvers, non-magical healing (mostly prevalent in 4e), etc.
So far 5e has been doing fairly well for itself, as most can clearly see.
So one of my co-workers and I were talking about old games, mostly computer and console games like Modern Warfare, Halo, Star Craft, etc. and he had mentioned that one of the only fun board games he played growing up was this obscure game called Hero Quest. "Obscure?!" I shouted, because who didn't know or at least play this epic, amazing board game back in the late 80's / early 90's? It was a game like Dungeons and Dragons but not as convoluted (at the time) and was LOADS of fun for hours. I'd swear that game kept me from getting into actual trouble growing up.
As we were reminiscing about it, I tried to see how much one would go for on EBay or similar selling site. And, like all cool retro things, it cost a LOT of money. A used one with a scraped up box was at the least - $150.00 and new ones (what few were left) were in the $300+ range. I found one being produced for it's 25th anniversary, but that was it's own €110.00.
One thing I saw, however, was that a LOT of the miniatures were staple creatures of most D&D games. Skeletons, Orges, Orcs, goblins, etc. Having a pretty substantial amount of minis myself, I got to thinking....Can I just download the cards, adventures and rules, character sheets, and similar items on PDF and use D&D tiles/props?
I'm not sure of the legality of this or if it could properly be done? I could probably get more common minis like skeletons and orcs and stuff while using tokens in the mean time. Though there are things like props (doors, chests, tables, alchemy labs, etc.) that are one of the coolest parts of the game, making it "3D". Are there sites you can just buy these piece-meal?
basically I want to get Hero Quest going again but don't want to shell out over $150.00 for it.
Yeah I don't buy ANY of that. Do you wanna know why Paladins in 5e (and 4e) aren't restricted to a specific alignment? Because polls and surveys were released and the majority concensus was to remove them (at least as they were in pre-4e days). To me, that's democracy at its finest. And, as it stands, you don't have to agree or even comply! How's that for ya, everyone can get what they want? But here's the thing and it's a topic that was rehashed hundreds of times, people want their preferences validated in the big book. To me, if a DM wants to ban/restrict classes then be an actal DM and DO that. Todays DMs are far stronger in their convictions than older DMs mainly because they don't hide behind rules for their preferences.
The original poster, Phasics, wanted to know if it could exist and, if so, how? OR can another class fall in line with the TN-Keep the Balance brigade? The question is vague because it lacks context. Is this for a Pathfinder setting? If so, is the DM ok with the idea?
Generally speaking you can make a TN Paladin adhering to Balance strictly via mechanics, if HWalsh's underperformed versionis any indication. Alternatively you can roll up a Warpriest that fits the bill as well. I guess you could even use the cleric as a chassis too. The paladin, however, is probably the easiest of the three to play and has some interesting role-playing aspect that should be considered for the role.
To those who just say "No, LG-Only." Your voice is noted but I don't understand the need to keep repeating it? Isn't the Core Rulebooks, "extraordinarily famed" James Jacobs word, and tradition enough to for you to keep on keepin'-on? Why not let us "dissenters" enjoy the theorizing and house-rules we're obviously creating?
I'm unaware of a feat that allows free poison use. But you're missing the point here, it's the fact that anyone can attempt to do this however it never happens because Game. Making it a fake option.
Sure they did, however default Paladins rarely, if ever, dealt violently with those of a mostly Good alignment. In most cases, using skills like Diplomacy and Sense Motive will get you a non-violent outcome (if your DM is actually any good at same-alignment conflitcs). Thus there is often no need for that "vaunted" versatility. I just don't see why it's nerfed in addition to the other things they loose?
Yeah, just one additional option compared to the default. Big whoop...
Of which the Balance Paladin is still getting shafted on. And again, why? Wasn't the instant loss of 3 auras, a nerf to the 4th, & nerf to Divine Spirit enough or worth....what Lying??
You really believe that? In my 16 years experiences with 3.PF I've come to learn that players NEVER use "options" that have significant drawbacks. Ever seen characters successfully dual-wield, use poison, trip, grapple, or sunder on any consistent basis WITHOUT the corresponding specialized feat or feature? I sure haven't. The risk of losing your weapon, having the effect turned on you, and the significant penalties are rarely worth your use of a Standard Action.
it has more flexibility in what it can Smite,
You gave it 3 more opposing alignment (excluding NG and NE for some reason?) but halved the damage and limited the amount of DR it ignores. So the versatility it gained lost it some class features AND a lesser smite. Two penalties for versatility =/= balanced. Especially when Paladins get ANOTHER bonus to specific creatures (undead, demons, etc). I think you put TOO strong an emphasis on how great versatility is.
Personally I'd have kept it exactly the same as the default Paladin save they can smite only the extremists (LG, CG, LE, CE), thus adding only 1 more to the pool of potential targets.
it has more flexibility in what it's "LoH" can do.
You can damage people, sure, but at every 4 paladin levels compared to the default paladins' 2 levels. Again, 2 penalties for this so-called vaunted versatility.
It can channel positive AND negative.
And you didn't second-penalize it, so there is that!
It has a larger spell selection.
I did't comb through all the spells that were both Good and Evil and compared how many they got vs. how many a default Paladin or Antipaladin.
That more than makes up for its loss.
So just to recap this variant instantly loses:• Aura of Good
• Divine Grace
• Aura of Courage
• Aura of Justice
• Aura of Righteousness
In exchange this variant receives:
And you think this really is balanced because they don't have to act a certain way?
I've run both d20 Star Wars and the slightly different Star Wars Saga version and both, I've felt, played fine. I admit though that my group and I have long experiences with d20 (3.PF, 4e, and now 5e) not to mention dozens upon dozens of hours playing games like KotOR (a Star Wars game based on d20).
Honestly where I think the "problem" lies (and I used quotes because I don't really see it as a problem per-se) is that they're using D&D-based rules for a genre that isn't necessarily like D&D. Maybe it's the mechanics and it feels too D&D like, thus creating the idea that the system isn't suited for a game that isn't D&D.
I've only played with a tiniest bits of other systems but the one that sticks out, to me, for a great Star Wars game is GURPS and from that point, you can mold pretty much whatever class/magic/force stuff you want. It would take time to set up and fix any bugs but if you want a system to completely mold into a specific Star Wars-style game, that would be the one I'd choose.
Then give it Poison Use. Give it the Bluff skill. Give it alternatives to the features lost instead of just blatant glaring holes where features once stood .
I've been playing my Rogue as TN and to me, he's the epitome of self-serving. He doesn't go out of his way to break the law or sow Chaos but he's not threatened by breaking laws at all to get what he wants. He helps his friends and those he cares about, so adventures are common considering the amount of situations they put themselves in.
If he's in a town (like Sandpoint in our ongoing RotRL campaign) and the town is attacked, he defends it. Not out of some altruistic notion of protection and service but usually for fame, renown, money, leverage, and practice. If things gets bad, he casually will leave. He has no reservations about using torture, extortion, poison, thievery, and kidnapping to get what he wants BUT doesn't specifically enjoy it.
Basically TN is the one motivated to do things because they directly affect them and those they care about.
Right, Pathfinder striving for mechanical balance is why the paladin has so many moronic costs.
At this point I'd just roll up a Cleric with a level or 2 of Fighter and smoke pretty much all Paladin builds and just call yourself a Paladin in the narrative.
Shhh....don't you know those fly in the face officially with the LG-Only agenda???
Also, the idea of one source having more "authority" over another is ridiculous. The only authority ANY option has is when the DM deems it so. Period
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I'm going to be frank, I don't really care what Jacobs has to say on the subject. His opinion literally means nothing to me on this subject, no offense intended. Not only that but I wholly reject this moronic idea of "core". Saying it's not core has zero value when it comes to character options. To me, ALL character options are on the table to be used or banned, core doesn't get some special pass in this regard.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
4e Paladins have no restrictions on Alignment other than it has to match their paton deity, which they must choose. That's it. Further there's no Instant Fall clause either.
As for their "namesakes" let's just say that I 100% disagree with that notion.
In 5e it depends on their Oath selection and the particulars are embedded with that aspect. There's also the Oath-breaker Paladin and the "green" Paladin which isnt necessarily good.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
There has never been any core material for non-good Paladins. Some in supplementary rules or third party publications like the Jacobs article, but not as core rules.
I'm not sure why that has any relevance to the fact that there are Paladins of other alignments?
Semantics are real important here....
A vampire is a self-realized creature who has sentience. And killing that while sleeping is ok cuz....undead? But dragons arent.
God I'm glad I generally stick with 4th edition
Diffan, I don't think the claim that 4e requires a grid for its combat is particularly controversial. I mean, yeah, you can play it without the grid, but if you're playing it RAW the grid is an immense help. The same goes for 3.PF though: playing the game by the RAW means that everything exists in 5-foot-squares, so having a grid really helps with adjudicating position and such.
I agree that having a grid makes things easier, but that was also the case when we were using battle mats and pewter minis in AD&D too. One wouldn't say a grid was required using AD&D but it sure made the game a LOT easier to follow when a Wizard's fireball finally went off. I just see this idea of "Must Have Grids" only leveled at 4e when it's just as needed and convenient with other editions of the game too.
And there's nothing wrong with a game using a grid to model combat. Hell, I'm currently running a game called Strike! which 100% uses the grid for its tactical combat, and it's probably the most fun I've had running an RPG for a while (mostly because it's got a quick combat system that is simple yet deep, and also because it's really easy to create encounters and custom encounters for it).
Sounds like a lot of fun. I'll have to give it a look. And I agree that using a grid isn't wrong of bad, however it's been one of those negative things used to bash other version of the game or make it less like an "RPG" and more like a "video game" or "minis combat scenario" when in fact it is a Role-PlayingGame. Like in the post I was discussing, it was leveled at 4e that it could be played almost entirely role-play free, but what edition couldn't be? This isn't new for the genre or D&D/PF specifically.
But bringing this back to 5e, 5e is weird in the sense that everything in the rules is measured in 5-foot increments but at the same time it's supposed to be more abstract (I can sort of see this: the standard rules don't account for stuff like flanking) so it's actually kind of weird. The game would much better support the theater of the mind playstyle if you went with abstract distances, zones in the style of Fate and others, and range bands in the style of the FFG Star Wars RPGs.
I think the biggest difference is that there just aren't a lot of fiddly bits (as one designer put it). You don't get a lot of conditional bonuses or penalties for using rule-savvy maneuvering and tactical jargon or using a strange combination of spells and effects and terrain to make your character mechanically better. So in this regard, not needing a grid or being more "TotM" has more merit than other editions. That's not to say other versions can't just gloss over these qualitative measures, but most player's won't and instead actually pay attention to the minutia of these sorts of details, almost losing themselves in the maths of the game instead of the thematic element right in front of them.
That's actually a pretty astute observation here. Pushing guys around the board in 5e doesn't have the same weight (and fun?) as 3.PF or 4e does because the systems are different enough that it's time mostly wasted. Optional rules in the DMG like Flanking and Opportunity Attacks sure are nice (as it Marking) but these aren't default measures that I'm assuming most groups utilize.
And thanks for illuminating the situation for me, I think that's what Quirk Blast was attempting to get across but it didn't really click.