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

Diffan's page

1,037 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,037 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.

smh....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

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.

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

[/sarcasm]


1 person 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.

Wow.....um 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.
yadda-yadda....

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


2 people 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 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


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


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.
Without the feature? Absolutely. Without the feat? No. That is why we have feats though to choose them.

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.

HWalsh wrote:
Quote:
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.
Versatility is a MASSIVE advantage and if you can't see that then you've never played with a GM who actually made players follow the Paladin rules and the codes.

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?

HWalsh wrote:


They can target:
Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good.

Paladins can target:
Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil

Yeah, just one additional option compared to the default. Big whoop...

HWalsh wrote:

Most of the time DR isn't even an issue in this game, then many of them have DR 5 or less. This isn't as much of a flaw as you think. The real advantage of the Paladin's Smite Evil isn't the damage, or even the DR (most of the time), most of the time it is the to-hit and AC buffs.

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??


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your paladin of balance is strictly inferior to the paladin of lawful good. It'd be nice if the respective champions could actually be balanced against each other. I don't see why, for instance, divine grace, is unique to paladins of LG.

It is strictly inferior... Sort of.

It doesn't have a code of conduct though aside from, "Don't alignment shift."

So it has a LOT of options an LG Paladin doesn't.

It can lie. It can use poison. It can be dishonorable. Etc. Those things give it a nebulous advantage that Paladins don't have.

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 .

It doesn't need them.

It has the possibility,

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.

HWalsh wrote:
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.

HWalsh wrote:
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.

HWalsh wrote:
It can channel positive AND negative.

And you didn't second-penalize it, so there is that!

HWalsh wrote:
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.

HWalsh wrote:
That more than makes up for its loss.

So just to recap this variant instantly loses:

• Aura of Good
• Divine Grace
• Aura of Courage
• Mercy
• Aura of Justice
• Aura of Righteousness

In exchange this variant receives:
• Smite (diminished damage, AC, and only overcomes DR/5)
• Detect Evil/Good
• Conduit of Balance/LoH (diminished power based on level, can harm living beings)
• Channel Positive/Negative Energy (no secondary penalty or diminished effect, yay!)
• Spellcasting (more variety in spells, lose access to alignment-based ones)
• Aura of Resolve (instantly nerfed, only protected from certain alignments compared to the default paladin who's protected from everyone).
• Champion of Balance (lesser DR protection, no other benefits).

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.


I've never considered Necromancy evil, though most practioners use it as such. Even in 3.PF, I remove the alignment tags because I don't need some rules governing how I decide morality in my games


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your paladin of balance is strictly inferior to the paladin of lawful good. It'd be nice if the respective champions could actually be balanced against each other. I don't see why, for instance, divine grace, is unique to paladins of LG.

It is strictly inferior... Sort of.

It doesn't have a code of conduct though aside from, "Don't alignment shift."

So it has a LOT of options an LG Paladin doesn't.

It can lie. It can use poison. It can be dishonorable. Etc. Those things give it a nebulous advantage that Paladins don't have.

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.


Shifty wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."

Pretty much sums it up.

All the perks, none of the costs.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Diffan wrote:


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 existence of other alignments...
Because third party and auxiliary material designated as "optional" rules do not have the same level of authority as core rules.

Since you dug this conversation back up, you are wrong about no non-LG core paladins. 5e has no alignment restrictions to paladins, and an Oath of Vengeance works for evil or good easily - just like an Order or Ancients works well for neutral.

Then the "anti-paladin" or fallen paladin is called an Oathbreaker and has separate class features.

And 4e has unaligned paladins so it looks like 4E and 5E are fine with non-good paladins.

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


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Diffan wrote:
HWalsh I sincerely hope these special snowflake Paladins you enjoy also have to be human, AND they have ability score requirements too otherwise it IS just another class. Years of multiple D&D editions have said there are PALADINS of other alignments and using them or being told to call them something else is a pretty disrespectful thing to say
Up through 3.5, Paladins of other than Lawful Good were not part of core rules but optional extras, or magazine articles such as the Jacobs article mentioned before, but all but disowned by it's author.

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:


4th Edition and WOW D20 broadened it from "Must be Lawful Good" to "Any Good required, but both were very different classes as all of the 4th edition classes were from their 3.X namesakes. From what I've seen of 5th, it retained the "Must Be Good" qualifier.

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?


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


Although I probably wouldn't penalize a paladin for staking the sleeping vampire. One of the mandates of many paladin orders is to vanquish the undead. Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I'd be saying in-character "I'm not sure about this" and letting someone else do the actual staking, while being on hand if things go south.

Preaching to the choir.

Though the Vampire's fine. It's not alive. You can't kill that which does not live.

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

You literally can't kill the Undead. They aren't alive. The best you can do is stop them from moving.

Kill....destroy

Semantics are real important here....

[/sarcasm ]


HWalsh wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:


Although I probably wouldn't penalize a paladin for staking the sleeping vampire. One of the mandates of many paladin orders is to vanquish the undead. Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I'd be saying in-character "I'm not sure about this" and letting someone else do the actual staking, while being on hand if things go south.

Preaching to the choir.

Though the Vampire's fine. It's not alive. You can't kill that which does not live.

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


Not Honorable =/= Evil and in a situation where killing or attacking a sleeping enemy is beneficial to thousands the the Paladin wouldn't fall IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ratpick wrote:
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.

Ratpick wrote:
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.

Ratpick wrote:
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.

Ratpick wrote:

Quark Blast mentioned GM fiat as the difference between theater of the mind and grid-based play, and I think that's what this entire discussion boils down to: (referring to the original discussion posted by Bookrat) the people who say that 5e has no tactical options are referring to the fact that by the book the game doesn't explicitly reward certain micro-level tactics (including flanking, creating bottlenecks [I mean I know you can sort of do it but it'd be easier to visualize if the game wasn't so coy about the grid] and so on), and this is seen as a lack of options. These people would rather the game show them what they can do reliably.

And I can actually sympathize with that: whether a tactic is actually viable in 5e largely boils down to GM fiat. In 3.PF and 4e (and the aforementioned Strike!) players can expect that if they make the right maneuvers in combat they'll be rewarded with explicitly stated bonuses, and thus on a micro level the game rewards certain tactics.

And the truth is that when we're talking about macro level tactics, none of these games are actually all that different: you can engage your enemies in smaller groups in 3.PF, 4e and 5e by using the non-combat rules to maneuver for position. 3.PF and 4e do codify the rules for out-of-combat activities more so than 5e, but not to the extent that it shuts down the use of tactics the moment the characters are off the grid.

Like, the point is that while the focus in 3.PF and 4e's combat systems is more on pushing mans on a grid, the result of this is that they have a lot more tactical depth on the micro level. 5e is supposedly unique in how it allows for the use of tactics on the macro level, but thinking about it I don't think that's the case: the same types of tactical thinking that's being talked about here can be applied to 3.PF and 4e.

I do think there is a difference though, but it's a difference in playstyle really: 3.PF and 4e have really fun grid-based combat systems with lots of moving parts, so people want to engage with those rules! Throw-away combats (like picking off the enemies one by one) are generally avoided, because they detract from the fun part of the game, i.e. getting to push mans on a grid and kill dudes. That doesn't mean that 3.PF and 4e don't have the necessary rules to model those kinds of tactics as well.

Or I don't know, that's what I think.

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.


HWalsh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
*snip*

First:

Your first action would be a trip. For this, you have to be at least within 1 square. If you are:

Within 2 squares as I'd be using a pole-arm (most likely a Fauchard)

HWalsh wrote:


Ie:
You:
Move (move)
Trip (standard)

Secondary attack (benefit of Greater Trip): Disarm

HWalsh wrote:


Me:
Grace (swift)
Stand (move) (boots so no provoke)
5ft step (since I didn't move)
Attack (standard)

You'd have to pick up your weapon, so your Standard Action would be to pick up that (which, isn't a move action and thus provokes an Attack of Opportunity which I'd use to trip). Also, what are these boots called? I looked through the Feet items and I didnt come across boots that allowed free movement actions (I did just quickly browse so it's quite possible I just didn't see it).

Me:
Power Attack (free)
Full-Attack (with Power Attack and Furious Focus and including another Disarm is possible)
5' step (free)

Rise and Repeat. Now you will eventually go through your spells OR I'll miss my trip + Disarm. It's possible I miss on all my attacks and it's possible that you roll a nat 20 and go first in the encounter.

There are a LOT of "if's" in this scenario. If we're talking 20th level with all assumed wealth-by-level then tripping is rather "meh" since we'd probably both be flying (you with Angelic Aspect and me with Winged Boots) and we'd both be hastened with either potions or items and what not.

The point, however fun this exercise was (and I think it was :) ) is that a Paladin used to be flat-out better in almost every regard Class-wise prior to 3rd Edition to the Fighter. So then their alignment requirements, along with stat-requirements and racial requirements ALL went into making it more balanced. There were HUGE pitfalls for falling and it wasn't very easy to gain atonement (usually a perilous quest many levels above yourself) which gave people the idea that Paladins were rare.

Strictly from a character-building perspective they WERE rare because it was hard to hit the Stats of Wisdom and Charisma when you were rolling in order OR had DMs not allow you to reallocate your scores after they were rolled OR your stats were semi-OK but the MAD nature of Paladins made your character overall weaker and Pallys often died early on.

As 3rd edition rolled around (and later v3.5) Fighters, getting feats and Skills, along with the easy nature of Multiclassing (especially with classes like Barbarian and Cleric) it made playing a Paladin a rather "meh" affair. You had a guy who was a Barbarian 1/ Fighter 2/ Cleric 17 who got 9th level spells, Raged, bonus Fighter feats, Smite (if Destruction domain), Turn Undead, and could use divine wands compared to a Paladin who's horse was never very appropriate for every encounter AND they needed to invest resources (feats) to make their 1 feature better. their other feature (Smite) is only good against evil creatures so DMs, at least the ones I had, loved using Constructs and Animals to defend enemies, thus rendering one of my main attacks irrelevant.

Then 4th hit and Paladins were relieved of their Alignment duties. Sure the connotations therein pushed the "Just and Holy Warrior" aspect and there were consequences for abuse of your powers but they weren't black-and-white LOSS of powers for sneezing in front of the Bishop or Swearing when you lose at Cards (hyperbolic, I know). And 5th edition continued the trend of no hard Alignment requirements for Paladins based completely on feedback and surveys. When the Paladin playtest came out and it was required that you had to be Lawful (not even Good, but any Lawful) people lost their minds on the messageboards and feed-back surveys. Same thing with the Monk.

So if someone wants to make a Paladin of Neutrality and come up with a list of Dos and Don'ts for this alternate version, I'm all for it. I'm all for calling that a Paladin too. If it can detect specific enemies, smite, channel healing, wear armor and fight with swords and is generally considered the right-hand of their religion/deity/ideal then that's a Paladin. Alignment need-not apply


HWalsh wrote:

So, lets assume you have init.

You come in to trip, you succeed (this is round 1 so you only get one attack), I cast grace, my movements no longer provoke, and I use my move action to stand up. (This is *if* you can get the trip to stick, which is bad as I learned early on how bad it messed me up so the boots are specifically there to stop it.) Depending on how the GM rules it you may be able to AoO me for standing. Then I close on you by making a 5ft step. I am now in melee range. You do not get an attack of op to me closing. I make an attack.

So you take a double move and attack (stand up + an extra 5-ft step + attack)? How's that work?

HWalsh wrote:


Your action, you 5ft step back so you can use the pole, step up kicks in and I step forward onto you. Now you are in trouble. You might be able to use one of the things from WM Handbook to use the weapon in close range, but that gives me the advantage as your attack bonus goes down, and given my standard cycle's AC there is a good chance that your iterative will miss.

Sure but Step Up works once and if I have Lunge chances are I'm going to keep you out of range. But I wouldn't make a normal attack, I'd try to trip again (touch trips are easy to pull off with certain weapons). Rinse and repeat until you can't cast Grace and start provoking AoOs unless you have boots that allow double move + attach, which I don't know about.

HWalsh wrote:


The advantage is now mine, and you have made a tactical error that you can't really recover from as a Fighter. Your best option is to withdraw on your next action, but you are also about to suffer through a full attack cycle from me. You're going to be severely injured with no way to recover quickly enough and you are forced to either fight at a...

Or use Lunge and ways to keep you constantly moving to keep nullifying full-attacks.


HWalsh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I've seen both at high level, both in 3.5 and PF and unless the target is evil the Fighter pulls ahead overall. The sheer amount of feats available plus things like weapon training and advanced weapon training and critical feats they have more access to AND it wrks against every and all targets.
Okay. You build yours, I'll build mine, we can meet in Roll 20 and duel it out if you want to see. How are you overcoming the Hero's Defiance and the LoH HP advantage?

I never used rolld20

Heroes Defiance is a nice spell, but you over come it by slugging it out and hope for poor LoH rolls OR that they only prepare the spell a few times instead of in every slot. However simply using a polearm, trip+ attack 3 more times and move 5-ft rise + repeat has work easily in the past. Also getting initiative 1st and not letting off any spells is also a good option too. Nt to mention this gs like Power Attack + Vital Strike and Weapon enhancements.

Still, the idea here is that the Paladin isn't hands down better than the fighter as it was in pre-3e days and the alignment restrictions don't make them more in-line aND balanced with other classes now


I've seen both at high level, both in 3.5 and PF and unless the target is evil the Fighter pulls ahead overall. The sheer amount of feats available plus things like weapon training and advanced weapon training and critical feats they have more access to AND it wrks against every and all targets.


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


Mechanically speaking, not even close...

Mechanically speaking, they very much are.

Paladins are BALANCED around those weaknesses.

You take those weaknesses away and Paladins are getting something for literally nothing,

Unfortunately they're not, especially with how other classes are built and how well they work. A well-built Fighter, with all their feat options, can work exceptionally well compared to a Paladin. Again, a Paladin isn't straight up better mechanically speaking than other classes of similar caliber (full bab, weapon-based classes) which render further punitive elements unnecessary


Ed Reppert wrote:

I'll give you two takes on what a paladin is: Paksenarrion Dorthansdotter and Bahzell Bahnakson.

See The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon, and David Weber's "The War God" series: Oath of Swords, The War God's Own, Wind Rider's Oath. I figure both of these are LG.

Then there's "Paladin", Richard Boone's character in "Have Gun, Will Travel". Mercenary, gun for hire. Definitely not your classic paladin. Probably NG.

You want to have other than LG "paladins" in your campaign world, have at it. That's a non-starter for me. <shrug>

Cool, doubt we'd ever game together in the first place so I don't see a problem here...


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

I'll also kindly point out that James Jacobs doesn't use off-alignment paladins, and turned in that article basically because he had a job to do. He didn't like writing it and doesn't treat it seriously.

"Everything a paladin can do, with none of the alignment restrictions' is right up there with "Our archer can shoot 3 arrows a round at first level!"

Pure cheese.

I don't think you know what cheese is, but it certainly isn't linked to the Paladin class, not even Pathfinders better version.

Paladins aren't cheesy.

Paladins without the restrictions of Paladins are pure cheese.

Mechanically speaking, not even close...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

I'll also kindly point out that James Jacobs doesn't use off-alignment paladins, and turned in that article basically because he had a job to do. He didn't like writing it and doesn't treat it seriously.

"Everything a paladin can do, with none of the alignment restrictions' is right up there with "Our archer can shoot 3 arrows a round at first level!"

Pure cheese.

I don't think you know what cheese is, but it certainly isn't linked to the Paladin class, not even Pathfinders better version.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ermak_umk3 wrote:
Don't forget Unearthed Arcana also had variant Paladins for 3.0 :)

It was updated to 3.5 and there are 3 variants. Further there were specific paladin types written for Dragon (issue #106 Plethora of Paladins) and then there is the Antipaladin which is a Paladin in all their mechanics too. Then there's 4th and 5th editions where alignment isn't required either.

The notion of ONLY LG Paladins is a dying one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

HWalsh I sincerely hope these special snowflake Paladins you enjoy also have to be human, AND they have ability score requirements too otherwise it IS just another class. Years of multiple D&D editions have said there are PALADINS of other alignments and using them or being told to call them something else is a pretty disrespectful thing to say


Quark Blast wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


4E is pretty much all "tactics", there is no other way to play. To play it anywhere close to RAW you need a Battle Grid.

And don't read this as edition-war-y. What little 4E I played I enjoyed a lot, just ran out of groups that played it. 3.PF has been less enjoyable on average but mostly it's been the GMs or perhaps my reaction to their style (hard to say which 'cause all the campaigns have folded/imploded by now - once during my participation and the rest shortly after I was no longer part of the group).

While I don't think this part came off as Edition War-y, it's far from my experience with the system as far as I've been playing it for the past 7-1/2 years. I find that the grid is required as much as it was in v3.5/PF in terms of combat.

As for all tactical (compared to other editions), I guess I just don't see it. What examples do other versions have that 4E outright disregards as far as non-tactical elements go?

We might be talking past each other here but one can play 4E, by the rules, as a strictly table top tactical game on the Battle Grid.

Sure, so could pretty much any other edition too. Though the tactics in each edition do change. 4e really promotes party synergy more than other editions do in terms of things like weapon properties, specific attacks, and positioning. For example, in Pathfinder a melee-based character who wields a positive energy weapon isn't getting any additional bonus from his allies spells while in 4e if you have 2 or 3 characters wielding Radiant weapon, a Cleric who makes a monster vulnerable 5 radiant just made those two characters better in combat.

Quark Blast wrote:
In fact to play 4E at all you need a Battle Grid.

Untrue

Quark Blast wrote:
But you don't need to roleplay - except in the very loosest non-immersive narrative sort of way.

No edition forces role-play and you can play any other edition without it as well. I'm just not sure why one edition gets singled out for it.

Quark Blast wrote:
You can go all Theater of the Mind in 4E but then you would have to ignore combat. Combat requires the Grid to arbitrate a large part of the rules.

Like what? Despite powers being square based (which is just 5' increments or basically the reverse of what EVERYONE who's been using a grid has had to do before 4e) it's a very very simple thing to look at an ability and say "Oh, 5 squres? that's 25-ft." it's not very difficult at all. Positioning is important, just as it was in v3.5 and Pathfinder, especially when you consider pretty significant rules like Opportunity Attacks and Flanking and the mechanical importance they have ingrained within those systems.

Quark Blast wrote:
Theater of the Mind is not edition specific but the editions that encourage more GM fiat and thus more impromptu elements (5E for sure and from what the Grognards have told me 1E was much like this), are also the ones that allow for more creative tactics in game. Creative as opposed to "accounting tactics", where success is achieved on the back of bonus stacking and other rules minutia.

Theater of the Mind, as long as I've been familiar with the phrase, generally is used just to describe non-grid play. DM fiat and impromptu elements are apart of every D&D version. In 4e if the groups wizard has a at-will spell with the Fire keyword I would certainly allow that character to do fire-stuff with that spell other than attacking people with it. Want to melt snow? Use that spell. Want to catch curtains or a wooden door on fire? Use that spell. If a 4e Fighter has Cleave I'd allow him to cleave things other than enemies. Need to cut through wooden supports that hold up a balcony? Use cleave. Want to cut through multiple panes of glass or ice? Use cleave. Or maybe I'm just different when I DM compared to others..

Quark Blast wrote:
Even in the more balanced published adventures, like PF APs, story Experience Points rewards are far less than the kill-it-and-take-its-treasure Experience Points rewards.

Here I will certainly agree with you on and it's not just Pathfinders APs either.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I just don't get this crusade to force the actual Paladin class as this one specific LG-Only thing when multiple editions have already clearly labeled it as possibly being many other alignment things. The ideals of a Paladin have changed, shifted, and are different that they were 20 years ago. Paladins have come from different alignments AND ARE STILL CALLED PALADINS despite people labeling them differently.

Yes, at one point a Paladin HAD to be Lawful Good. Then that changed. Then came variants (AD&D 1st & 2nd ed.) Then came different versions that still used the class-name Paladin (v3.5 Paladin of Freedom, Paladin of Tyranny, Paladin of Slaughter. Then OFF came Alignment restrictions (D&D 4th and 5th edition). The ideal belief of LG-only is LONG gone because it no longer serves an actual purpose, at least as it originally had long ago. A Paladin is no longer a Fighter "Plus", thus the need for a alignment restriction no longer has any significance other than to make certain people happy when they pit them in Catch-22 scenarios with every intent to make them fall in mind.

But whatever, people can and do whatever they want in their own games. However the class isn't Mr(s). Snowflake any longer.


Quark Blast wrote:


4E is pretty much all "tactics", there is no other way to play. To play it anywhere close to RAW you need a Battle Grid.

And don't read this as edition-war-y. What little 4E I played I enjoyed a lot, just ran out of groups that played it. 3.PF has been less enjoyable on average but mostly it's been the GMs or perhaps my reaction to their style (hard to say which 'cause all the campaigns have folded/imploded by now - once during my participation and the rest shortly after I was no longer part of the group).

While I don't think this part came off as Edition War-y, it's far from my experience with the system as far as I've been playing it for the past 7-1/2 years. I find that the grid is required as much as it was in v3.5/PF in terms of combat.

As for all tactical (compared to other editions), I guess I just don't see it. What examples do other versions have that 4E outright disregards as far as non-tactical elements go?


Sure, alignment is mostly a joke and many deities should have a branch of their devotion as warriors to their cause. A Grayguard is a perfect name of a TN Paladin (not to be confused with the Grayguard v3.5 PrC from complete scoundrel).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
spectrevk wrote:

Daggers doing only 1d4 is probably the first example that comes to mind. Someone holding a knife to your throat is hardly something to worry about; even if they get a coup de grace, you're likely to survive as a moderately tough character.

Meanwhile, in real life, having your throat slit is a serious problem, no matter how big you are...

Oh man SOOO much this ^^^

This is where I'd just consider the narrative to be better than the game-mechanics. If a character makes the necessary checks to grab someone and hold a dagger to their throat, chances are I'm not factoring in HP at all at this stage, I don't care if said target has 450 HP, a dagger plunged into your neck will most certainly take you out of the fight (and I fully discount that one guy in the Kingdom of Heaven movie who still fought a few seconds with a bolt sticking through his neck[/i]).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much all of them. Falling, combat, skills, feats, levels, experience, the weapons ALL are very poor representations of anything like reality. And honestly, thank goodness. D&D is very terrible at real-world simulation and attempt at emulating it just results in poor mechanics. D&D is not, nor has it EVER been, Real World + Magic.


Fighter
Hit Die: d10
Proficiencies: The Fighter is proficient with all simple, martial, non-racial exotic weapons, and all armor and shields (including tower shields).
Skills: Climb, Craft (all skills taken individually), Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (engineering), Perception, Profession, Ride, Survival, and Swim
Skills per Level: 4 + Int. modifier

BAB Full Progression
Saves Good Fort, Good Ref, Poor Will

[u]CLASS FEATURES[/u]
Below are the descriptions of class features the Unchained Fighter receives.

Healthy: Starting at 1st level when the fighter receives any sort of healing, add the Fighter’s level to the hit points healed.

Larger Than Life (Ex): At 1st level when making Strength-based checks (not attacks), or any other roll where size matters such as when initiating a combat maneuver, you may treat the Fighter as if he were the indicated size. Medium at 1st, Large at 6th, Huge at 10th, Colossal at 14th, and Gargantuan at 18th.

Bonus Feats: Starting at 2nd level, Fighters get an assortment of bonus feats. Some of these are combat-focused. The fighter gains any Combat feat even if he does not meet the ability prerequisites of that feat. These feats may be changed with a Standard Action. As these feats can change, they do not act as prerequisites for Prestige Classes and other character feats. When the Fighter reaches 6th level, he gains Any feat. These function like Combat feat except that the fighter gains any possible feat even if he doesn’t meet the ability prerequisites of that feat. These feats may also be changed with a Standard Action.

Deflect Damage (Ex): At 2nd level, if an adjacent ally or the Fighter is injured in combat, the Fighter may make an opposed attack check (adding any shield bonus and enhancement bonus to his attack) as an Immediate Action. If successful, the opponent’s attack does minimum damage and any additional effects do not apply.

Tricky (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, when a Fighter uses a combat maneuver (such as Disarm or Trip) he may do so as a swift action that does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity. If the maneuvers fails, the Fighter receives no penalties and triggers no retaliation.

Sentinel (Ex): The Fighter gains innate enhancement bonuses to armor he wears and shield’s he wields, becoming an even more formidable warrior. Starting at 3rd level and every 3 levels after (6th, 9th, etc) they gain a cumulative +1 bonus to their armor and shield. These bonuses do not stack with existing magical item [enhancement] bonuses.

Enhanced Warfare (Ex): By tapping into his inner strength, his attacks lend more might than your average warrior. Starting at 4th level and every 3 levels after (7th, 10th, etc) they gain a cumulative +1 bonus to their weapon attack and damage rolls. These enhancement bonuses do not stack with any existing magical item [enhancement] bonuses.

Warrior’s Path: The path of the Fighter lies in specific styles and approaches to combat. Some adopt a varied path, taking feats and weapons that accommodate a multitude of situations. Some like to become more focused, putting added emphasis on a specific path. Below select a path that best describes the style you most commonly apply. You can change your style with a full day of physical training.

Dervish: Warriors choosing dual-attack style like the versatility that comes with wielding two weapons, often using a matched pair or two separate ones for utility.
• Double Slice: You gain the double slice feat as a bonus feat so long as you meet the prerequisites. If you already have double slice you may choose another combat feat you already meet the prerequisites for.
• Whirling Blades: Your ambidexterity and aptitude for the dual-style allows you unparalleled precision. From now on you may wield any combination of light or one-handed weapons in each hand and reduce the penalties for fighting with two-weapons by 1.

Great-Weapon: Warriors choosing the great, two-handed weapons emphasize power and might over defense and ranged attacks.
• Focused Frenzy: You gain the focused frenzy feat as a bonus feat so long as you meet the prerequisites. If you already possess focused frenzy you may choose another combat feat you already meet the prerequisites for.
• Reaping Strike: Whenever you miss with a melee attack while using a two-handed weapon, you still deal damage equal to your Strength modifier so long as you can reach the target. Your weapon’s enhancement bonus to damage does not apply nor to any added effects due to making a successful attack.

Shield Warden: Warrior’s choosing the shield know that the best offense is a good defense and can use their shield as both.
• Shield Bash: You gain the shield bash feat as a bonus feat. If you already possess shield bash you may choose another combat feat you already meet the prerequisites for.
• Shield Attack: You add your innate enhancement bonus from shields to attack and damage rolls when you initiate a shield bash or fight with it using Two-Weapon Fighting.

Surging Resistance: You gain an almost supernatural defense against magic, as it persists in being one of your biggest threats. At 5th level whenever you roll a saving throw you can roll two d20s and take the higher result. You must refocus your control to do this again, which takes approximately 5 min of interrupted concentration. This benefit can be used twice per encounter at 11th level, and a third time per encounter at 17th.

Wade In (Ex): Beginning at 6th level the Fighter may make a Full Attack as a Standard Action so long as he is able to make at least one attack in a round.

Hustle (Ex): At 7th level if the Fighter moves as a full round action, he ignores all movement penalties due to armor and shield.

Weapon Mastery (Ex): At 9th level any feat which applies to any single weapon now applies to all weapons.

Dominate Weapon (Ex): Starting at 11th level when picking up any magical weapon, the Fighter is considered to meet all the prerequisites for wielding that magical weapon except for any racial requirements.

Death Stroke (Ex): The Fighter has nearly reached the pinnacle of his training, giving him supreme advantages in the field of war and combat. They know just the right way to twist a sword or adjust a shot to make the very best of a critical moment. Starting at 19th level, when you succeed on a critical hit the creature must make Fort save or die (DC = 10 + damage done). The creature must be at least under half their full Hit points for this to take place. Like other death effects creatures without discernable anatomies’, most undead, and constructs are immune to this feature. Specific undead creatures, like Vampires, can be slain but the critical hit must come a source that is consistent with the manner in which these creatures can be slain.


I'll leave this nugget here...

https://sites.google.com/site/endhavenproject/gaming/d-d-3-5-fighter-analys is


knightnday wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Being willing to bend and adapt certainly applies to DMs too.

Which I'm more than willing to do. That said, if you read the house rules document and what is/isn't allowed and persist to try to wrangle me into letting you do something, the only adaptation I'm going to make is to adapt to a different number of players.

I wouldn't go to a PFS game and insist that the rules bend for me. I know they have banned or ruled against certain things, and arguing it is pointless. I extend the same courtesy for any other table and hope that either I find a way to play something else fun, or I find something else to do. Arguing is the antithesis of fun for me.

Certainly. I don't encourage people who don't like a specific ban to complain about it in order to change the ban but I still don't agree with the reasoning behind some of the bans that are set forth. I had a DM that said he doesn't allow anything that he doesn't own. I said he could borrow any one of my books to read over for a week or two to become familiar with them. He then said that I could BUY it for him and then he'd allow it. Certainly a lazy one if I ever saw one. So I could buy him a book, he could not read it at all, and instantly allow me anything out of it just because he now owns it.

The thing is I find DMs who ban things for what I'd say not Good reasons running games that I would probably not really enjoy in the first place. For me, it gives me a sense of the sort of person they are prior to even going to the game. That same DM above also told me the v3.5 Warlock was SO overpowered and broken and that was banned and any sort of meaningful discussion about the class often just led up to a "agree to disagree" standpoint. That also tells me that he's probably not the best person to run games and I gracefully bowed out.


thejeff wrote:
Diffan wrote:
knightnday wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So, all the rules are optional and don't need to be used, so bloat can't be a problem, but you'd better have a good rational reason for not using any particular option or source a player wants to use.

I love how the argument goes in circles.

My question about this is "What is a "good" reason?" A reason that makes sense to the GM? One that doesn't make the player angry? One that makes sense when one of the parties comes on the forums to tattle?

Usually I categorize "good" reasons as something that is based on the campaign. If the DM is looking for a game where everyone is a magic-user then classes like the Fighter and Monk isn't going to fly. If the DM is running a game that has little to no magic, obviously classes like the Wizard and Sorcerer won't fly. Same goes for campaigns where divine magic is rare or in a setting that's Eastern Themed.

Additionally, I'm perfectly fine with bans on things that are questionably broken OR create mechanical issues with the DM or the group.

But not, I take it, with blanket bans based on too many books or any of the things associated with bloat?

Well that depends. If by blanket bans you mean X, Y, or Z product in its entirety then yes. If you mean a DM wants to run [Core] only and not worry about everything outside that one book, then I'm ok with that. The difference being that the first one suggests that a DM does allow certain material outside of the basic books but not all of it because laziness.


knightnday wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So, all the rules are optional and don't need to be used, so bloat can't be a problem, but you'd better have a good rational reason for not using any particular option or source a player wants to use.

I love how the argument goes in circles.

My question about this is "What is a "good" reason?" A reason that makes sense to the GM? One that doesn't make the player angry? One that makes sense when one of the parties comes on the forums to tattle?

Usually I categorize "good" reasons as something that is based on the campaign. If the DM is looking for a game where everyone is a magic-user then classes like the Fighter and Monk isn't going to fly. If the DM is running a game that has little to no magic, obviously classes like the Wizard and Sorcerer won't fly. Same goes for campaigns where divine magic is rare or in a setting that's Eastern Themed.

Additionally, I'm perfectly fine with bans on things that are questionably broken OR create mechanical issues with the DM or the group.

knightnday wrote:
As for being "fun police" .. that just makes me laugh, honestly. I don't believe in the notion that a character idea is sacrosanct and that by denying someone access to a rule, item, or whatever that I've done some severe psychological damage to them. If someone wants to pout because they don't like the reason that I've removed something from the game, they are welcome to GM (put that money where that mouth is) or sit out of this one if their convictions are such that they just cannot play without it.

Which is why communication is pretty paramount prior to campaigns.

knightnday wrote:

Conversation on the topic is great. But there comes a point where I'll just go find something else to do rather than engage in hours of "Explain to my why you won't use this rule that you removed!" I explained it. You didn't like it. If that makes me the fun police, I'm willing to be that.

The more rules and items that come out, the more chance you run that the table you go to may not use them. Might not have the book, might not want X in their games, may think Y is broken. Expect table variance and be willing to bend and adapt.

/end soapbox

Being willing to bend and adapt certainly applies to DMs too.


Rhedyn wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I'd assume that any restrictions to a campaign, regardless of the source, would have a reason. As for the Fun Police, I'd feel that way FAR more if a supplement was restricted "Just Cuz". Some of the restrictions I've seen over the years were for REALLY dumb reasons: mostly due to DM ignorance and prejudice as opposed to actual reasons for story and campaign.
I don't blanket ban sources. But I do tell my players that "X will be treated as homebrew". I look it over and then decide if I allow it. Sometimes I nerf or buff the material. But I hardcore no-life these kind of games, I'm so full of myself that I believe that I know better than people who design these games for a living.

I wouldn't say you're full of yourself. I think you know the sort of game you want to run and certain options run counter to that. I don't have problems with people who ban things but I'd prefer a legitimate reason other than "Because I say so" or "I don't have the time to even bother to look at it.." because a Player DID take the time to look at it and weight it against other options. And, like always, a DM can dictate how/what options do at any time, not just at the very beginning. Sure it's a tad more jarring but I'd prefer THAT happen at the table for everyone to see vs. just some compliance-order without any further discussion. In these situations I usually pull the player aside or when there's down time or even via text or e-mail and say "Look, XYZ sort of made the game a bit unbalanced or whatever, can we change this a certain way or have you pick a different option? If this completely invalidates you're concept then we can work with something else."

Rhedyn wrote:
Many GMs don't have this luxury. So the they blanket ban if they run into problems. If the core rules are busted then they just switch games.

Looking over a class or a few feats doesn't take long. Measure the class with other similar classes and quickly weigh the differences. If you have a class that has a full BAB, 3 good saves, d12 HD, 6 + Int. modifier skills, 20 class skills, bonus feats and spells then something is WAAY off. But if it looks reasonable or at least appears like most of the other classes, play it out and adjust on the fly.

Rhedyn wrote:
PF core rules are not busted. They have problems. That's not the same thing as being dysfunctional.

Busted is a subjective term. I think they're busted at the systemic level: The majority of feats are bad, the action economy does a huge disservice to weapon-based classes, descending attack bonuses on iterative attacks make you're last attacks "wish-for-Crits", and rolling to confirm crits for nat 20's is moronic. There's quite a few others that irritate me but those are the big ones from my perspective.


Rhedyn wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:

I don't buy it nor do I comprehend the issue. This is a bit of a rant so I apologize ahead of time.

I've been hearing this argument far too often when the issue of Pathfinder vs 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I keep hearing the argument that Pathfinder is slowly being eaten alive by the sheer amount of books and bloat and that it is difficult for new people because of the amount. Then what is said about 5th edition is that it is so easy because of it's level of slow release. I find this argument wrong because technically you only need two books to play Pathfinder forever while you need three for D&D. You could also do just fine with the starter set for both games. Anything outside of the core books are optional. If you are a gamer then you know there are core books that you start with and if you are new to gaming then just ask someone where do you start. I don't buy this whole "I'm overwhelmed with the sheer amount of product and options."

The bolded part is a fairly common misconception among the TTRPG community, especially with games like D&D and Pathfinder. Every option in ALL the books are optional. That's from the PHB or Core book to the supplemental Psionics and Gunslingers. No one book with options hold a greater weight than another, even if said options are fairly more common. Players who enter a game should all be open-minded to the options or restrictions that the DM decides to put forth (or communicated prior to the game) that assumptions are kept to a minimum.

With that aside, I do agree with the initial post that just because more options come out, they're all instantly bad or cheese or somehow make the game worse. Like you said, no one is forcing these options on people and if they or the group doesn't like something just don't use it, but don't try to claim they shouldn't be created at all.

If you ban base book stuff without a good reason two things can happen.

1. You appear to be the fun police.

2. People will ask: Why are we even playing this game then?

I'd assume that any restrictions to a campaign, regardless of the source, would have a reason. As for the Fun Police, I'd feel that way FAR more if a supplement was restricted "Just Cuz". Some of the restrictions I've seen over the years were for REALLY dumb reasons: mostly due to DM ignorance and prejudice as opposed to actual reasons for story and campaign.


Forever Slayer wrote:

I don't buy it nor do I comprehend the issue. This is a bit of a rant so I apologize ahead of time.

I've been hearing this argument far too often when the issue of Pathfinder vs 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I keep hearing the argument that Pathfinder is slowly being eaten alive by the sheer amount of books and bloat and that it is difficult for new people because of the amount. Then what is said about 5th edition is that it is so easy because of it's level of slow release. I find this argument wrong because technically you only need two books to play Pathfinder forever while you need three for D&D. You could also do just fine with the starter set for both games. Anything outside of the core books are optional. If you are a gamer then you know there are core books that you start with and if you are new to gaming then just ask someone where do you start. I don't buy this whole "I'm overwhelmed with the sheer amount of product and options."

The bolded part is a fairly common misconception among the TTRPG community, especially with games like D&D and Pathfinder. Every option in ALL the books are optional. That's from the PHB or Core book to the supplemental Psionics and Gunslingers. No one book with options hold a greater weight than another, even if said options are fairly more common. Players who enter a game should all be open-minded to the options or restrictions that the DM decides to put forth (or communicated prior to the game) that assumptions are kept to a minimum.

With that aside, I do agree with the initial post that just because more options come out, they're all instantly bad or cheese or somehow make the game worse. Like you said, no one is forcing these options on people and if they or the group doesn't like something just don't use it, but don't try to claim they shouldn't be created at all.


I'm honestly not happy with the idea. Looking at Pathfinder, based off of v3.5, they clung to a lot of poor mechanical decisions like descending iterative attack bonuses, poor feats, class-ineptitude, and Full-Actions. It was like Pathfinder grabbed some band-aids to fix open-heart surgery.

Now I admit that 5e is a lot more mechanically sounds and takes greater care to make the options viable so maybe 3pp content will build off that and make good products compared to the dearth we received in 3rd edition.

I guess my biggest problem is the potential for yet another edition war should WotC want to do something new or different with the D&D IP. As if ALL the previous content instantly becomes null and void.

1 to 50 of 1,037 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.