Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Diffan's page

1,076 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,076 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

A warlord class

If you can fit in the Combat Form feat from Player's Handbook 2, they're pretty fun. Combat Awareness, Combat Vigor, and Combat Strike are particularly awesome.

I like them. They provide a bit more tactical depth and the +1 is a nice touch. And this isn't "bloat". Bloat is when we have nearly identical options but one is better, usually created later to fox things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

{. . .}

22) The best hit die.
Wizards and rogues both got HD improvements in PF. Instead of making fighters better, they intro'd barbarians.
{. . .}

Speaking of different level progression by XP, this would be a nice idea except for one problem: Good luck trying to figure this out when multiclassing in D&D 3.x/PF style instead of the way 1st Edition did it.

That's a good point too. One option is to just nix multiclassing altogether. There are, quite frankly, MORE than enough base classes to cover anything multiclassing would accomplish and also remove things like level-dipping. You'd have to rate PrCs based on a number of factors to figure out where they would progress though

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

The low level impact would be too huge.

The dif xp advances didn't really have that much impact at the low levels. It was when you got into Name level, and wizards took almost twice the xp to advance as Rogues did, that you started to see level difference.

I think I ran the math once, and a Fighter/20, Rogue/22, and Wizard/17 ended up around the same xp totals.

Slow vs fast is probably too big a gap. But medium vs Fast? Probably well doable. The problem is that they are still supposed to be 'equal', so what's the standard for gold and gear?

Just ugh. The system is too invested in levels now for calculating balance in the party. Your only alternative is to mess with the classes to restore equilibrium.


Maybe Slow vs. Fast is too great a disparity. As for standard gold and gear, it would mess with the Wealth By Level but that's not exactly something everyone adheres to anyways. I mean, I only made some nods towards it when I DM 3.5/PF and I never really encountered problems with the early levels. Also, maybe gear and the like can be more geared towards the respectable characters?

But if the alternative is to mess with class features, I'm thinking the Fighter needs more ways to impose status effects. Some of the best wizard builds take creatures out of the fight or stop their actions, thus making them MUCH easier to handle than just churning through their Hit Points by attacking AC. A Fighter should be able to daze, stun, dazzle, nauseate, blind, etc. monsters with specific weapon attacks in addition to dealing damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We don't always see eye-to-eye but this was a VERY impressive list Aelryinth.

Aelryinth wrote:

Varying xp advance tables. Weak classes tended to advance faster.

Everyone advances the same in level, but not the same in power now.

This one made me think, you could introduce Pathfinder's own slow/normal/fast XP progression based on classes. Full-Casters (wizards, summoners, clerics, druids, etc.) would progress Slowly, Half-Casters (Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Magus, etc.) would progress normally, and non-Casters (Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Rogues) would advance on the fast pace. This might level the playing field a bit. But it would wreak havoc on the CR system because it would be harder to judge how difficult an encounter would be if you had a Level 8 Fighter, Level 8 Rogue, level 5 Cleric and Wizard.

I dunno, thoughts?

Grey Lensman wrote:

Also back in 1st and 2nd edition fighters had the second best saves at high levels (not so good at lower ones), beaten only by the paladin, who had....fighter saves with a plus 2 bonus. While each class had one save on the tree where they were king, a high level fighter was normally one point behind them, except they had those numbers for all their saves. Now, fighters have some of the weakest saves in the game.

And while the skills systems has certainly grown, back in 2E the skill disparity wasn't there either.

3rd edition, and by extension 3.5 and Pathfinder have not been kind to the class.

It's true, and very unfortunate. The Fighter should have no less than 4 + Int. modifier skill points and at least two good saves. Further I'd say 3rd/3.5/PF haven't really been kind to any weapon-based class compared to spellcasters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having 1 attack would be bad, terribly so, for weapon-based users. I mean they're already significantly nerfed as it is in Pathfinder and this would pretty much bury them altogether. Honestly I think the entire premise that you subtract from the attack roll on your iterative attacks is a pretty terrible one. Getting multiple attacks should be a good class feature, not overly penalized for....I don't really know why? Hell I'd be willing to sacrifice an entire 4th iterative attack if I could keep the same bonus over the course of a 20 level progression. A warrior-type (full BAB) could get a second attack at 6th and a final attack at 12th and be done, all with a total BAB = to level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Probably my favorite is the one I've been playing since we started Pathfinder with the v3.5 to PF conversion of Rise of the Rune Lords. At the time he was a Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 3/ Swordsage 4 but was re-made fully into Pathfinder with Rogue 6/Stalker 3/Shadow Dancer 1. Still adds Dex to damage via Path of War, has maneuvers and stances, can shadow-jump, and is a LOT of fun to play. Dealing 6 or 7d6 per attack (two-weapon fighting, of course) + Dex with two shortswords is a LOT of fun, especially if I can get 4 to 5 attacks per turn. Plus my DM has allowed 3.5 Skill Tricks, which getting me into position and deal SA a bit easier.

Snowlilly wrote:
Diffan wrote:
People are aware that this feat becomes worthless the moment you can afford an Animated Shield, correct?
Animated shields eat up an action and +2 enhancement bonus. of the two, the move action cost is equals a round not attacking. If combat lasts more than 4 rounds, the cost to action economy increases.

Hm, I never realized how terrible it was. So the feat is probably worth taking.

People are aware that this feat becomes worthless the moment you can afford an Animated Shield, correct?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

This feat is already known, and it already existed in 3.5 under Improved Buckler Defense. Every build designer alive realized it spelled the end of Sword and Board, and so nobody EVER used it, it was considered a broken feat as it was published. The exchange of AC for damage was real and sensible, and IBD totally destroyed it.

This feat does the exact same thing.

So, in other words: "Fighters can't have nice things."

Got it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:

I will just address a few issues.

Rogues need to fail forwards; that is to say, you can't penalize a rogue for a bad stealth roll. A group trying to sneak into a castle to assassinate a king, maybe, but not a rogue trying to gather intelligence.

Skill checks should not be obstacles, but rather opportunities. And that goes for just about any check in D&D. If you put a pit in a dungeon, and failure to cross that pit stops the game (through death, or even just time taken to retrieve the pit-bound companion), you have to ask yourself what the point of the pit is. Is it a puzzle? Is it meant to stimulate your players to think?

If your player wants to be a recon info gatherer, then encounters need to be geared towards that. Let them describe how they camoflauge and give them advantage to stealth checks. Let a failure put them into interesting situations ("Oh no, you had to duck into the kitchen of the enemy fortress. What do you do?").

All of this right here is great advice.

Lorathorn wrote:
As for the other issues magic users, I sense that this was a result of a misunderstanding of the rules. Wizards, for instance, have a plethora of spells, but must carefully select them daily so that they can predict the challenges ahead. Sorcerers, by contrast, have a limited spell selection but can call on it all and with more slots (by way of spell points). Your friend MIGHT have done better to be an Arcane Trickster, a Ranger, or a Warlock, since their spell repertoire is more geared towards being subtle and clever (especially the Warlock) rather than to have an arsenal of spells. Really, a wizard is anything but subtle.

True, still I find that the Wizard isn't nearly as penalized as he was in 3e/PF when looking at the spell selection aspect. A 5e wizard still has a lot of versatility even with spells selection, allowing them to use spell slots to cast Prepped spells instead of having a very specific number of prepped spells to go by.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is one of those things that's sort of been a "wishful thinking" on most players of both D&D and Magic: The Gathering. Though the problem usually entails attempting to emulate Mana and the different areas (swamps, mountains, islands, etc.) into the magic system of D&D and the two don't really mesh well in that regard.

But once you read some of the M:tG books it's really not that hard if you pretty much ignore the differences in magic systems. Most of the books don't really touch upon it, only in that the "casters" and characters of the books just feel and draw from their environments to cast their magic. If they're not close to their source, their magic is a bit more limited. Can this be used in a D&D/M:tG crossover? Sure. Does it have to be though? No, not really.

When Ravnica came out, I really wanted to use that as a D&D setting. The factions, the differences of races and their role in the society, and the possibilities were pretty awesome. I thought 4e's system lent it self to be better used with that setting as compared to 3.5 or Pathfinder. The 4e Power Sources, the plethora of classes and playable Races (Minotaurs, Shades / Shadar-Kai, Tree-like beings, and Vampires) are all integrated into the setting on some level. What I did was take each of the 10 guilds and split up the classes into those specific guilds along with a key-race that was emblematic of that guild. For example Minotuars are Red/White often enough with Ravnica, thus their race were of the Boros Guild. Vampires (the class) and Vyrloka (the race) were Black/Blue, making them apart of the Dimir Guild. Eladrin were Simic while Elves were Selesnya and so on.

It actually was a LOT of fun and I even used monsters and spells from M:tG as creatures, spells, and items in our 4e game. Good times!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Envall wrote:

I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.

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.

Envall wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Powerful compared to whom? Cleric, Druids, and Wizards?

Everyone else?

Typically best saves in the party, full BAB, good profs, nice spells, lot of nice abilities, whole lotta immunities. Lots of fun archetypes that are as powerful as baseline.

They very easily stand tall above most classes.

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.


You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.

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.

Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Cha 14 - I've been known to change some people's minds, even convinced a few people to enjoy 4th Edition!

CHA 20!

(I kid; I like 4th edition).


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
Dex 11 - I'm crap for balance but my reflexes are decent
Con 12 - I don't get too sick and it's not debilitating
Int 10 - Yep, IQ of about 100
Wis 13 - Life has taught me not to be as naive as I once was.
Cha 14 - I've been known to change some people's minds, even convinced a few people to enjoy 4th Edition!

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.

Snowlilly wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Diffan wrote:

RE: Rocket-tag

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.

Fighters do have that ability at high level.

Stunning Critical is the best example, but requires 17th level.

Lower level critical feats can still effectively end a fight: Blinding Critical and Staggering Critical both come to mind. Staggering Critical being more effective vs. melee and Blinding Critical depriving casters of the ability to target spells.

Critical hits are not something you control. You can maximize your chance of threatening & confirming, but they will always be a nice bonus that happens incidentally due to sheer luck. After all of that the target gets to make a saving throw. Sure, an enemy isn't guaranteed to pass his saving throw against spells either, but there you have complete control over when the effect is applied, and to which target, and you can try again if he saves the first time.

You asked for fighters to have a chance.

I gave you 30% on a standard action. Now you argue anything less than 100% does not count. Say what you mean: you want to shut down opponents at will, with a standard action and zero resource expenditure.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RE: Rocket-tag

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.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Air0r wrote:
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.

Claxon wrote:
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!

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Full-Attack Action is one of the biggest systemic problems almost every weapon-based character has to deal with.

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:

Str 12
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 17
Cha 11

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?

Warforged + Druid = Beastwars Transformer

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?

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

Yes i understand the point , but that isnt the real issue with caster/martial disparity , even casters cant be the best at everything they can do.

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:

They too need to select a path , they too wont have every feat for every school and every spell... nope.

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:

The issues lies directly on the fact spells are "cheap" compared to what martials get and eventually they simple can do a hell lot more , like in the teleport example.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
swoosh wrote:

Oh sure, house rules, third party and gentlemen's agreements are all well and good.

The better question is to ask WHY there's such a radical difference in design philosophy and expectations It's not just a matter of class design (which is obviously going to be unique for different types of characters) but a fundamental difference in expectations and character archetypes.

To provide differing playstyles and differing flavor to the world setting.

In my opinion, at least, it makes magic feel magical. It justifies the supernatural mechanically. Magic allows those who use it to go beyond what is normally thought to be possible.

It's simply how these games work.

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!!!

I like Dex to damage because it keeps my Rogue relevant in later stages of the game. When facing monsters without the ability to sneak attack, dealing 1d6+3 is pretty much going to amount to nothing if they have 200 HPs

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.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diffan wrote:
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.
This seems a bad strategy. Some Classes really are super tricky for a new person to play, or don't play the particular concept thy want well at all (while saying they do). Really, describing the world, having them describe a character back, and then figuring what class best reflects that character mechanically seems the way to go.

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.

Path of the Blood Knight

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
Level Feature
3 Blood Drinker
7 Night Stalker
10 Drain the Vein
15 Nocturne’s Call
18 Dark Vitality

Blood Drinker
As you slay your victims mercilessly, blood gushes forth from the wounds you've inflicted, cascading over you like an unholy baptism. You start to draw strength from this invigorating feeling.
When you drop a creature to 0 HP with a melee attack, you can gain temporary hit points equal to that creature’s total Hit Die. These go away at the end of a short or long rest and do not stack with any other form of temporary hit points.

Night Stalker
Your heightened senses and motion allow you to glide more easily across the grown, giving you an almost unnatural gait and softened footfalls.
You gain proficiency with Stealth checks. Additionally, you do not suffer disadvantage to Stealth checks while wearing any armor.

Drain the Vein
Gripping a creature in your hand, the overwhelming urge to sink your sharp fangs into their exposed throat and tear it out is too great. Restrained creatures flail haplessly as you slowly drain the vitality from their veins.
When you use your action to successfully restrain a creature you have grappled, that creature takes damage equal to 2d6 + your Strength or Dexterity modifier. Further, you do not suffer disadvantage on attacks while restraining a creature. If a creature is reduced to 0 HP using this ability, you gain actual hit points from your Blood Drinker ability rather than temporary hit points.

Nocturne’s Call
The connection to other creatures of the night resonate strongly within your soul. The sound is so strong that you gain the ability to turn into one of their kind.
As an action you can transform into a bat or dire wolf. This transformation works just like the druid’s wild shape class feature and lasts for a number of hours equal to ½ your Fighter level. You regain the use of this ability after a long rest.

Dark Vitality
The pinnacle of your warrior’s training and blood lust leaves you with uncounted strength and endurance.
You gain the Champion’s Survivor feature.

Thanks! Yeah I'm bidding right now for a complete set for under $75, hopefully it doesn't get sniped. I saw a kickstarter for HeroQuest 25th anniversary in Europe, going for €110.00 but I think that's just too much.

BackHandOfFate wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Hopefully it will continue to evolve so that eventually OP can play a Neutral Paladin, because seriously, why the hell not?
OP can already try to play a TN Paladin if he wants to. That doesn't mean everyone has to get on the Neutraladin Hype Train. And it certainly doesn't mean I want to see Paizo bend the Paladin to be more relaxed with regards to alignment requirements.

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.

BackHandOfFate wrote:

The concept of a strict code of conduct does not fit non lawful alignments.

Untrue, this is why there is an Antipaladin (CE, complete with a code).

BackHandOfFate wrote:
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.

BackHandOfFate wrote:
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.

BackHandOfFate wrote:
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.

BackHandOfFate wrote:
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.

It's unfortunate that some people see equality in something supposedly based on fun and imagination as bad or wrong.


knightnday wrote:

Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.

Gygax's views on women's strength aside, if the bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments exists, why does the paladin need to exist? I mean, if the others are so great and the paladin is so crappy, why bother having it?

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...

knightnday wrote:

Something else that interests me is the idea of keeping the class as is for tradition reasons, but not returning it to its roots. High stat requirements, heavy limitations on who you can deal with and how much gear and money you can have and so on. No one interested in that for tradition's sake?

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BackHandOfFate wrote:

Paladins are a classic reminder that you should roleplay a character as if the character wasn't just a fantasy version of you. People don't want to be challenged to take the high road anymore because it's too difficult for them to reconcile their own 'my way' attitudes with the ideals a Paladin is supposed to represent.

The solution? Remove the lawful good alignment and code requirement from the Paladin and just let anyone play it any way they want to. Can they do it? Sure! It's your game, after all. Does it take away from the flavor and challenge of the class? It absolutely does! It's damned difficult to play the straight man in real life. It should be equally challenging in a fantasy game. That's what's so fun about it. 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.

Aelryinth wrote:

Paizo has already provided a bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments be they druids, clerics, warpriests, etc. All of these classes are awesome. So, why all this fuss over the Paladin? Because people want that sweet sweet full BAB? lol Please..

Yea thats why


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Your pretentiousness aside, tectorman, what you just asked is "what are the mechanical justifications for an alignment restriction?"

Which is basically trying to argue away alignment because you can't put a number on it.

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.

Aelryinth wrote:

To your demand for BLANK, I've got a few counter demands.

What are the mechanical benefits for me being unable to lie?

Relatively small

Aelryinth wrote:
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....

Aelryinth wrote:
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.

Aelryinth wrote:

Of not being able to make a bad moral decision and just shrug it off?

Of being pious? Humble? Charitable? Friendly? Generous? Merciful? Tolerant? Faithful? Honorable? Courageous?
Noble in the truest sense?
To uphold the letter and spirit of the law?
To be a paragon of virtue?

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??

Aelryinth wrote:

Break down the modifiers from the rules for me, since you seem to want to boil it all down to numbers.

And then let me say that the answer to your question is that you qualify to be a paladin if you want to be.

That's the benefit.

Being able to lie and use poison are rather "blah", mechanically speaking, in the overall scheme of the game. Talk about pretentious...

Aelryinth wrote:
It's not about mechanics. It's about reality and expectations.

Aaaaaaand this is where you lose me. Reality? C'mon, man.

Aelryinth wrote:

It's about the classic trope of being rewarded for goodness, be it a holy saint, a pious knight, an enlightened monk, or a pony with the power of friendship. It's the trope that in a magical world, not being an amoral bastard has benefits all its own.

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...

Aelryinth wrote:
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.

Aelryinth wrote:

If you go back to the original classes, whine all you like about paladins were better then fighters, but do you remember they had to tithe away half their earnings, and could only one ten magic items at a time? And that monks could own even less?

Sure, if DMs forced this upon you. And those mechanics are now gone. I wonder why, hhmmmm....

Aelryinth wrote:
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.....

Aelryinth wrote:
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.

Aelryinth wrote:

If all a paladin was, was about the numbers, nobody would care. Pretty every other class is just about numbers.
The paladin is your reward for playing a true blue traditional hero, of the toughest kind to play.

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?

Aelryinth wrote:
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.

Aelryinth wrote:

And the &^/#&%=#%_# reason women had lower str scores was to reflect reality. I'm pretty sure you do NOT want to travel down this road..

Aelryinth wrote:
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]

Aelryinth wrote:
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....

Tectorman wrote:

Regardless, I'd still love to hear from someone what this BLANK is (giving the benefit of the doubt that there even is a BLANK).

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!

RDM42 wrote:

IM atherosclerosis retains that if ou hadn't a democratically decided setting, whee you just went with the most popular choice for each setting design would probably end up ironically a unpopular feckless mush of a system.

Democracy may be a superiors form of government but that doesn't necessarily make it a superiour method of game design.

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.
• polled every class on how it worked, did it differentiate from other classes, and how thematic was it to the core ideal of that class.
• how fast combat was, how engaging was it, and whether or not Theater of the Mind was more commonly used than not.
• individual class features
• individual races

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.

E6 for v3.5 D&D or E7 for PF

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
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?

There are a number of reasons why we "keep on" and basically it is to provide a counter-point.

Its the same reason you dissenters keep posting about the things you post about.

Its the same reason we had to have a thread about all of the caster martial threads. Its the same reason that you say yes every time we say no.

Also there is a very legitimate reason for us to keep on defending what we see as the proper way to do things.

That legitimate reason is to make it clear to the Powers-that-Be™ that there is a counter-point. When the dissenters run unopposed this creates a false perception that this is a universally agreed on thing. This happens all the time.

Here is a perfect example:

In early editions of AD&D it was ruled that non-human PCs had class limits based on races that were explained in the lore of the game world. This added flavor to the game world. It added a stark contrast.

Also early on non-humans could Multiclass, humans could not, but humans could dual class whereas non-humans could not. Again, this created specific mechanics that were woven into the lore.

This created lore flavor.

Then, because there were a lot of dissenters, who complained about those limits and because the traditionalists didn't really rise up, this got nixed. Flavor lost because people wanted mechanical homogenization.

So... We have to oppose. If we don't, we risk losing what we care about.

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.

1 to 50 of 1,076 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.