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

1,062 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,062 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


IMPROVED TRIP (v3.5)

Benefit
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.

Normal
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.

EDIT:

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.

FIGHTER
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.

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


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 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.


1 person 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


3 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.

1 to 50 of 1,062 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.