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.


1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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....


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?


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 .


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 ]


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 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


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


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.


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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So.....a song that continues the edition war? What intrigues me more is that people still fire salvos now 3 years after the fact. Here's a better song

Let it go...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I once asked a DM if I could play a Paladin of Freedom in 3.5 (UA) that was about chaos and freedom and he said no. So, I built a Fighter/Cleric and in-character called myself a Paladin. I even followed the Paladin of Freedom Code.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Quote:
The problem comes with people being unable to reconcile that the classes are not now, nor are they intended to be, balanced 1:1. Most RPGs aren't balanced 1:1. In fact the only one I have ever seen was not popular enough to last for 1/4 of the time that one that is REALLY unbalanced did

Has never ever been true ever.

NEVER EVER HAS BEEN TRUE

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over people who are against making the game more fair say this

zero people ever have asked for this. Actually zero.

Fair does not mean 1:1 exactly balanced. if you want an asymmetric game, it is impossible to have 1:1 balance. Pathfinder and most tabletop players want heavily asymmetric games. Fair means like, 1.2 : .8 or 1.3:.7

Pretty much this. Also, contrary to popular belief 4e was far from balanced in actual gameplay


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of things actually...

• Using Hit Die for healing. Basically spend one of your HD to regain 1dX + Con modifier hit points. Regain 1/2 your HD on a long rest (6 to 8 hrs).

• Scale cantrip damage/effects and base it off character level instead of class level. Thus a elf wizard 1/ fighter 8 would do can trip damage of a 9th level wizard.

• Legendary Monster rules. Basically giving big monsters multiple options per turn instead of full-attack OR cast spell. Also lair rules help too.

• Weapon groups. Really, focusing on ONE weapon via a Feat sucks and should've died in a fire a long time ago. For example, Weapon Focus (heavy blade) vs. great sword.

• Move-attack-move without annoying feat chains.

• OoA can immobilize target instead of doing damage (not 5e, but a good feat in 3e which should've also been standard)

• Concentration when multiple spells are in effect. No need to have flying, invisible, stoneskin wizards pew-pewing people with death rays, enervation, and scorching rays.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
My Self wrote:
What classes from 3.5 were overpowered and broken, and are still broken?

The big three are: Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. Still broken? All 3. They tried to tame some of the stuff down with the Druid and there's no Divine Metamagic in Pathfinder (that I'm aware of) but still, full armor and d8 HD and 9th level spells and two good saves and the spell list make both the Cleric and Druid FAR FAR better than most Martials*.

My Self wrote:
What broken classes have been appropriately nerfed?

Well the Druid has been toned down slightly but their companion is still good and they still get Natural Spell. Clerics are still amazing and good but they can't convert their turns into meta-magic effects, so there's a significant nerf. Wizards, honestly, weren't hit at all with Pathfinder but instead build up more with x/day combat effects and at-will Cantrips.

My Self wrote:
What classes from 3.5 were terrible?

Oh boy. Well if we're talking "Base Classes"...lets see:

• Everything from Complete Warrior
• Everything from Complete Adventurer
• Warmage and Wujen from Complete Arcane
• Favored Soul (honestly, why not just play a cleric?), Shugenja from Complete Divine
• Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue from the PHB. Barbarian comes close but there's Rage/Pounce that helps it out.
• Dragon Shaman and Knight from PHB2
• Most classes from Dragon mag.

I have never used the Psionics stuff (lack of interest from the party) so I can't comment there. We also didn't use too many supplemental stuff like Incarnum so I can't comment there. Tome of Battle was good, considering what it replaced and I had a friend who liked the Dragon Fire Adept, which is a Dragon-themed Warlock.

Quote:
Which ones of those have been fixed?

Fixed? Well nothing that doesn't use spells won't compare at later levels to full spellcasters. Period. But if you mean Fixed as-in "I can play this class until at least 10th level and still remain relevant" then I'd say the Monk (unchained version), Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue (unchained version) received some much needed help. Fighter still only good for dips though. To my knowledge they didn't really do a good job converting and up-grading anything else. Their Swashbuckler isn't very good and I haven't seen a Shugejna or Favored Soul stylized class yet.

Quote:
Which ones are still terrible?

Non-spellcasting classes and even low spellcasting classes still won't hold a candle to anything that's casting 9th level spell with a bit of optimization. So all of them compared to that specific example. I wouldn't play a Pathfinder Swashbuckler or Unchained Rogue/Monk/Barbarian for example.

Quote:
Which classes received buffs or nerf that they didn't need?

From my perspective, the Wizard received too much in terms of keeping most of his spell-list intact AND giving them spell-like abilities AND at-will cantrips PLUS bonus feats on top.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically it comes down to communication between the DM and the Player. I've had DMs be very lenient when it comes to the Paladin code, relying far more on what a Paladin would know in any questionable situation vs. what the Player knows. And I've had DMs just arbitrarily have Paladins fall because they didn't conform to what the DM felt/thought was within the Lawful Good code OR just to see what the Paladin does in catch-22s they were put in.

We're obsessed because it's really the ONLY class that has this particularly severe clause in it. And, frankly, not one that holds much merit when it comes to the abilities the class has access to. Lets see: Maxed out at 4th level spells, minor self-heals, some combat-effective features which cater to a very specific type, and immunity to diseases (natural or otherwise). Out of the entire list of stuff they get, really only the bonus from Charisma to all Saves and the Immunity to Diseases are the real keepers here. Everything else is just outshone by pretty much most Fighter/Cleric builds.

And that's generally the problem I have with these severe restrictions. You can have a far better, mechanically speaking, character using Cleric and Fighter multiclass AND retain the idea of a holy knight without bending your will to some code that is far too prone to being tampered with from so many different sources. I love the Paladin in 4e and 5e, but I'll not be roped into falling for the traps again and just play a strictly better Ftr/Clr or Warlord (PoW from Dreamscarred Press).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:


memorax wrote:
It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo.

At 20th level, it's STILL less useful than the class feature a Paladin got at level 3. :(

Diffan: I like the abilities your modiFighter gets, but it still doesn't fix the basic problem: while the fighter's hitting things with a stick really well, the wizard is flying, predicting the future, controlling minds, and summoning demons.

Right, a Fighter probably won't (or shouldn't?) have those sorts of capabilities because they're not a spellcaster. But where a wizard can summon a Demon the fighter can jump onto the demon and decapitate it with ease of they can drop its HP over half in a round or two.

I don't think the disparity will ever be bridged without significant overhaul of the magic system OR giving the Fighter near superhuman/spell-like abilities. Unfortunately that sort of kills the flavor of the Fighter IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

Again if one class can play just fine without a specific build, magic items, specific feats such as a Wizard. Then tell me that their nothing wrong with the Fighter except needing to take a specific build, magic items, specific feats. Is highlighting the strength of wizards while doing the same for the flaws of the Fighter class. It's not a positive selling point imo. The no disparity side of the argument either or ignore or don't want to accept that imo.

It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo. Armor and weapon training while useful just don't scream interesting to me.

The "unchained Fighter" I created does a WHOLE bunch of fun stuff without resorting to things like Path of War (which, honestly, I think is one of the best supplements for Pathfinder out there). The class I created (with the help of some online research) allows the Fighter to remain competitive without relying heavily on magical items to keep up.

Spoiler:

Healthy: When the fighter receives any sort of healing, add the Fighter’s level to the hit points healed.

Larger Than Life (Ex): Starting 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 (see chart).

Bonus Feats: At the indicated levels, 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 as 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 as a standard action.

Deflect Damage (Ex): If an adjacent ally or the Fighter is injured in combat, the Fighter may make an opposed attack check (adding and shield bonus and enhancement bonus to his attack). If successful, the opponent’s attack does minimum damage (treat any die rolls as 1’s) and any additional effects do not apply.

Tricky (Ex): When a Fighter uses a combat maneuver, such as Disarm, he may do so as a swift action that does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity. If the maneuver 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. 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. These enhancement bonuses apply to attack and damage rolls but 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 1 week 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 you gain the ability to roll 2d20 when making a saving throw and take the better of the two rolls. This can be done once per encounter (or every 10 minutes outside of combat). You gain an additional use per encounter at 11th level, and a 3rd usage at 17th level.

Wade In (Ex): Starting 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): If the Fighter moves as a full round action, he ignores all movement penalties due to armor and shield.

Weapon Mastery (Ex): Any feat which applies to any single weapon now applies to all weapons.

Dominate Weapon (Ex): When picking up any magical weapon, the Fighter is considered to meet all the prerequisites for wielding that magical weapon.

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. From now on, 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

'Easy' being two feats, skill investment, and whatever Hurtful is.

As opposed to just having that be something all martial character do.

That's pretty much the crux of the situation, a Fighter/Martial character needs to delve into system mastery to do something that, frankly, should be fine with the system already. Has anyone tried just eliminating Full-Attack action altogether? Seems like an easy thing to do and one of the "fixes" I did for our E6 games. Works great IMO.

This is actually crippling to the game balance.

You are aware that any martial who gets a full attack off with any amount of decent optimization at ant level above 10 will, I don't mean might, but will, obliterate any opponent of even relative CR?

Nyet. Non. No.

It is not, at all, crippling to game balance. I know because I've been allowing characters (to include monsters) to mix attack and move actions however they choose for years (ie. move, attack, move, attack, move...and so on, up to their full movement and full iterative attacks).

As a DM, you do need to adjust your CRs upwards a bit to account for the greater effectiveness of the martial classes, but it cripples nothing, and it adds tactical options that weren't there before. When adjusting the CR upwards, it's important not to simply pick bigger boss monsters with even MOAR AWESOME SLAs!, but rather to add more depth to encounters, with additional lieutenants (not mooks, but not bosses), environmental hazards, maybe adding mobility to the mooks, etc.

It does take some experimentation and experience as a DM to "unchain" martials in this way, but the game is still perfectly playable (and, in fact, more fun) once one gets the balance worked out.

This runs similar to my experiences with E6 and removing the stipulation of move or full-attack. Warriors and monsters with multiple attacks are more credible threats but it doesn't really mess with "balance".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

'Easy' being two feats, skill investment, and whatever Hurtful is.

As opposed to just having that be something all martial character do.

That's pretty much the crux of the situation, a Fighter/Martial character needs to delve into system mastery to do something that, frankly, should be fine with the system already. Has anyone tried just eliminating Full-Attack action altogether? Seems like an easy thing to do and one of the "fixes" I did for our E6 games. Works great IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Combat

I hate the full-attack action. With a blinding hot passion. I find it unfathomable that a highly trained warrior that can survive dragon fire, liches spells, takes on giants and trolls, and can be an overall awesome warrior cannot move and swing his weapon 2, 3, 4 times. Completely ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

Hi all just wondering what you think the name old school gaming means to you ?

Is it just a reference to how long someone's been gaming or do you think it describes a style of play.
Your thoughts please

I feel "Old School" is all in how you approach a game, adhering to specific tenants and ideals instead of a particular system. For a more in-depth analysis...

• Char-gen:
- Stats rolled in order
- Limited number of options, usually fitting a Tolkien-esque style campaign.
- Tight reign on options like spells, feats, and other character-based choices.

• Resource Management:
- Making resource replenishment more difficult, costly to the group/campaign to take.
- Using existing resources in uncommon/out of the box ways.

• Obtaining Features:
- Getting new spells, maneuvers, options, etc. takes in-game time, research, and planning. Ex. A Fighter doesn't automatically gain/learn a new combat feat just because....game. He needs to learn from a warrior. A wizard doesn't automatically get new spells willy nilly, they need to research for them.
- Higher HP, saves, attack bonus, AC upgrades need to be applies during downtime in a safe area, not in the middle of a monster a infested dungeon.

• Healing/Hit Points
- Restrict healing on a daily basis
- Make afflictions more difficult to remove. 
- Slower hit point recovery

• Adventuring/Exploration:
- No "standardization" on encounters
- No guarantee that encounters will be level appropriate or can be overcome through combat.
- Bigger emphasis on hex-crawling than planned or plotted games.

• Scope/Goals
- Rulings not rules, adjudication is far more important than a rules-lawyer.
- Game isn't designed to be "beaten" but rather experienced. You don't play to level up, leveling up is a by-product of your play. 

These are some of the things that always jump out at me when I discussions on old school. Luckily every version of D&D can do this so its not tied to a specific version. At least, the way I see it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one particular reason why I've come to love E6 (E7 PF) as a whole game. 4th level Spells seems to be the start where magic takes a far stronger sense in the game but Martials (in this instance, any class with a full-BAB is considered so) still do significantly well because they're the only ones that have 2 attacks compared to the spellcasters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
I'll just note that 4E was basically Tome of Battle as the entire combat system, and enough of the player base outright rejected it to make Pathfinder possible. =P

That's such a misleading comment that I don't know where to begin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:

I thought the core of 3.x is quite good its the added bits (colasses and spells) that is the main problem. Houserule the core d20 mechanics into AD&D and you will have a lot less problems than 3.x. Level 18 wizard might be god mode,but good luck getting there and no CoDzilla.

I've felt the CORE system mechanics were so terribly bad for weapon-based users that it pushes the game towards playing spellcasters. Look at the diminishing attack progression. Look at the Full-Attack Action. Look at ALL the examples where you have to have a feat or take extreme penalties or get attacks with AoO. It's exclusionary-design means that if you don't have X to perform Y, then you're going to pay for it significantly OR it'll be very difficult to perform. To me, that's poor design.

Further the Fighter, in particular, really has nothing distinctive about it. It's focus on [Fighter] Feats in v3.5 and [Combat] Feats in Pathfinder still give it nothing concrete that says THIS is a Fighter. Not more attacks like in 5e, not distinctive abilities and powers like in 4e and not even weapon specialization like they had in AD&D 2e (if I remember correctly?). To distinguish the strength of the Fighter in d20 (3e/PF) they needed to give him ways around the systemic issues that applies to everyone using a weapon like ignores the Full-Attack + move restriction, makes a full 5th attack at their full BAB, increase ALL BAB by +1 or +2 at specific levels, automatic proficiency with all non-racial Exotic Weapons, bonus to saves against ALL magic / SLA's.

Looking at these, I'd actually want to play a Fighter besides for the usual 1 or 2 level dip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?

Yes and No.

Yes because it's practically free and it's close enough to v3.5 that the majority of my System Mastery has remained in tact. Further, their Adventure Paths are pretty good and I have a Rogue 7/ Stalker 3 that is just fun as HELL to play.

No because the model it's based from, 3e/v3.5, sucks at it's core concept. Its system is actively punitive to anyone wielding a weapon, pushes for specific builds to be "the best", has traps ALL over the place that requires system-mastery to dodge, and is in general a mess due to the extreme amount of material to draw from. Not only that but it practically says "play spellcasters past X-level to be relevant" and it's HIGHLY dependent on magical items to even come close to making it "fair". The vast disparity all over makes it a game I can play in small doses at low- to mid-levels. When my Rogue hits 12th to 14th level in a group with a Wizard and Summoner, I can play second fiddle to the Wizard's extreme ease to create/use magical items that make me irrelevant OR the Summoner's Eidolon which will be able to make more attacks at equal or higher value, heal others, self-heal, teleport, grow in size, gain DR, by-pass DR, gain breath weapons, fly, etc.

It's a matter of time before my Rogue retires to a nice spot to grow old before I create a Cleric or Druid that will be able to complement the team for the remainder of the Rise of the Runelord's AP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All 18's across the board?!! Wow, that's sorta crazy. No wonder they feel weak, since they're pretty much superheroes (stat-wise) early on. Well if they're feeling too weak, you could throw easier enemies at them but make their significance to the story higher. And throw lots at them that make combats that much more grand. I mean a 3d4 burning hands spell looks a lot better when it wipes out 5-7 goblins compared to 1 orc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading Sacred Geometry makes me want to kick puppies.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So with all the Martial / Caster discrepancy threads coming in I figured that I delve into probably is one of the most systemic problems facing Martials with v3.5 and Pathfinder. The two being a Full-Attack action and descending attack bonuses. Now this isn't just a problem for Martials as all classes are affected by this to some degree however I feel Martial classes are affected, by far, more than spellcasters since they are the ones that use that particular system the most.

The first problem is Full-Attack. One of the problems this creates is rooting a weapon-based user in place. It doesn't matter if they wield a sword or bow, they only ever benefit from one of their biggest class features when they're standing completely still or have only moved 5-ft. Now imagine if a spellcaster, to cast higher level spells (5th level +), was under the same limitation. I think the entire game would shift in a different way in the way it's played. This also creates a divide in melee-weapon choices, thus making reach weapons FAR more preferable to one-handed/light weapons IF you want to make sure enemies don't slip by you and conversely, weapons like the Spiked Chain become #1 overall.

I'm not entirely sure why the rule of Full-Attack is in place? I don't really understand what it's exactly trying to emulate within the narrative of the game world? Why can't a warrior move 30-ft. and swing a weapon in 6-seconds? Is the time constraint of a round that pivotal to maintain that ALL classes are reduced to move + 1 attack or don't move + ALL attacks? Why is it there?

The second problem are descending attack modifiers. As the AC is static, the modifier is static too and the die roll represents chance / luck / fate / etc. But then why make it further complicated by making iterative attacks worse? What exactly changed between attack #1 and #2 or #3 or #4? What is this specific rule attempting to simulate? I don't think it's endurance or fatigue because it's the same with the opposed hand (a hand that is often 'weaker' by comparison). Does the monster somehow react exceptionally fast after the first swing is created? Even if you take a more narrative view of multi-attacking (each attack isn't 1 swing but the whole round is a commotion of parries and thrusts) then descending attacks don't necessarily make much sense. In sword fighting it's often the 1st attack that is a decoy or ruse that will open up you opponent to secondary and iterative attacks. Except in D&D/PF-Land where the first attack is always swung hardest and all other attacks sort of become weaker and slower and less useful.

So what this boils down to is a Warrior/Martial character who has to stand-still (barring a 5-ft. step) to get his full benefit BUT even then that benefit is hampered as those last attacks become just hopefull-critial threats anyways.

Now imagine if both those rules were removed! Yep, what would happen if the Martial / Warrior didn't have to stand in a 5-ft. area to be a Weapons-Master? What would happen if ALL of their attacks were accurate (and deadly)?

Now one serious downside to removing these restrictions is that you have to remove them from everyone. That means creatuers like Dragons and Hydras and the like can make all their attacks, fly, and be destructive forces of nature in their own right. Well, honestly, I'm OK with that. Dragons are scary dangerous and walking into it's DEN to throw down should be a sure-fire way to get eaten. If a Hydra has come upon you in surprise, best to scatter and used Ranged options until it's close to death. It would change the way the game is played but I think that change is ultimately for the better.

Thoughts?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irranshalee wrote:

So there have been several people telling me that 5th edition is so much smoother than Pathfinder and the game play is worth buying 5th edition. I made a decision...

I bought a Player's Handbook.

I have been paging through it over the last couple days and I have to say that there appears to be no significant changes that would warrant a shift away from Pathfinder for me. Maybe I am missing something?

Possibly, it really depends on what you're looking for in an RPG. Saying the system more smooth is sort of hard to determine because if you're already geared towards the micromanaging nature of Pathfinder then you only notice a lack of it in 5e as there are FAR less fiddly bits in that system. For some, those fiddly bits are what drives the fun of the game where as for others it's more of a burden.

Irranshalee wrote:
If you have a better understanding of the two systems, would you either point me to a link that describes the differences or would you take a few moment to quickly point out the finer points of 5th edition?

Magic is more limited in the later stages, gaining only a few spells from 6th through 9th level. Magic is also limited because of the Concentration mechanic. Because of this, magic-users aren't slapping multiple stacking spells to own encounters so quickly.

There is more emphasis on encounters and short rests compared to an all-day or X/day limit. Even spellcasters get benefits with short rests.

Healing doesn't require a spellcaster OR days of rest to regain due to full HP regain and Hit Die healing.

Many unnecessary restrictions were removed from hindering weapon-based classes. Example: Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require feats or stat requirements; you can move-attack-move without a feat; no more god-awful Full-attack action, no more lengthy feat chains to get one good benefit.

Magic items take a back seat to character power, no longer required to possess 15 magical items just to keep up with the maths. Also, maths hacked down to normal levels so we don't have monsters with AC 45, +57 to attack & dealing 235 points of damage a turn.

Death is slightly harder to come by but much more permanent.

There aren't ridiculously obvious trap choices to get fooled by.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
Big corporations are the bane of RPG's and Hasbro is no exception.

Why? By all accounts 5E is doing exceedingly well. 4E did exceedingly well at first go, and many believe 3E sold extremely well too. So if by "Bane" you mean making lots of profit, then......sure?

Forever Slayer wrote:
I believe D&D would be better off in the hands of a smaller company who does not see D&D as a mega money maker but as a table top game that may not earn you billions, will earn you a nice profit while giving gamers the game they want.

They did, back in 2000. It's called the OGL. Your welcome.

Forever Slayer wrote:

I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would break that antique piggy bank in order to get to the money inside. I could see them getting frustrated because D&D didn't meet their crazy goals and shelving it.

What get's me is a company like Hasbro and WoTC can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would continue to work on a brand to make it larger than it has. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to make it more interesting to people who might not ever have gamed before. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to do more with the brand other than basically sit on it for coppers a day. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to branch into other spheres of the entertainment industry so that we can enjoy D&D-ish things in addition to just the TTRPG side of it.

To me those are all great things to strive for. They've hit some set backs, yes but I think they're learning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houser2112 wrote:
MAJT69 wrote:
I've been playing D&D since 1979, finding something good in every system. And 5th edition has finally done what even 4E couldn't manage, and driven me away from my very first RPG.
I'm scratching my head at this statement. You stayed for 4E, but not for 5E? Nothing can match the perfection that is 3.PF, but at least 5E feels like D&D. When I was thumbing through 4E's PH, I actually closed the book to make sure I was actually reading a D&D book, it was so alien to me.

Perfection........? Now THAT is the real head scratcher


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?

I suppose there is a really strong desire for "Gritty" style combat and, I'm assuming, to make entering combat a really tough choice regardless of level? With rules regarding losing limbs even a 10th level Fighter with 75 HP is still wary of Kobolds and Goblins if they score a critical hit and chop off their arm.

Personally, I don't think D&D is the genre or game overall to mimic this particular style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few additional "Favorite things"

• Self Healing via Hit Die. Not as potent as Healing Surges but I'll take it where I can get it.

• Cantrips. YAY, no more Wizards with crossbows and can't be magic-users for 1/2 the day.

• Non-Magical Healing. Personally I would have loved to have a Warlord sub-class but some of the maneuvers and a feat or two can shore up this area quickly enough. At least I can hold out for future supplements.

• PRof. Bonus is universal. Long gone are the days of various attack progressions and multi-attacks decreasing with each swing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?

The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.

Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After doing a few sessions with the non-Playtest rules and having access now to the PHB (instead of just the Core material) there are a lot of good things that I like:

• Bounded Accuracy
• Fluid combat
• Simplicity
• Spell design (like Sleep is a lot of fun and still useful after 1st level)
• Bonus actions and how things interact with them
• Less focus on action-during turn (like "Oh wait, did I already use my Intermediate Interrupt and can I use this ability to trigger another effect that uses my Immediate Reaction, etc.) In 4E it sort of bogged the game down a bit IMO.
• Quicker Combats, though I'm assuming that will increase as we gain levels
• Complete removal of Alignment-based restrictions

Things that I'm not a fan of:
• Critical hits are *yawn*.....boring....
• Not enough substances at 1st level
• Multiclassing Rules as I really didn't like v3.5 style and much more preferred 4E's feats and/or Hybrid class rules.
• Monsters use spells, which have to be referenced in another book, very annoying because it breaks up the flow of the game when the DM has to look up the mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."

An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).

Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry.

So an active mechanic that requires interaction is boring compared to v3.5/PF's Lightning Reflexes of +2 to Reflex saves.....? Color me confused.

David Bowles wrote:
The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.

Level and CR are still interchangeable here. If you want a higher level Orc, then use a higher value for the damage expression. -5 to attack, +10 or +20 or +30 to damage depending on what strength you want the Orc to be. Why is that difficult?

David Bowles wrote:
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!

See, here's where we totally disagree. As a DM for my group I've always felt constrained by the v3.5 system for creating monsters. Making them bend to the requirements of PCs is just too limiting. Want that Orc to wield two battle-axes, well he's gotta have Dexterity value of X and Two-Weapon Fighting feat AND Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat and that means he'll need to be Y level and blah-blah-blah. No thanks. I'll just write down "2-battle axe attack" on his character sheet and not bother with the minutia of rules-jargon for a monster that will most likely die in the 2-3 rounds of combat he's featured in.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."

An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.

Kind of does but AoEs and the PC power level and copious amounts of healing negates it. I have used 40 Kobolds on PCs at elvel 8 and 40 hobgoblins at level 12. They can get a few hits in but are mostly bait for level 3 spells.

Depleting PC spells and then hitting them with stuff that matters kind of works.

That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. 40 Kobolds and other mediocre monsters need to be in larger numbers to be a significant threat otherwise we get 3E's and 4E's syndrome of being able to sit down on the ground and let the monsters attacking you, only hitting 5% of the time, which is moronic and stupid yet works RAW.

Just look back at Lord of the Rings where they enter the Mines of Moria: Do you think a group of nine 10th level v3.5, Pathfinder, or 4E D&D characters would've even blinked an eye at the goblins running down the walls towards them in that scene? Nope, they would've laughed as the Fighter greater cleaved / Encounter-Daily powered to his hearts content, the Wizard would've been dropping 20' areas of goblins on whim with fireball, scorching burst, or a myriad of other AoE spells, and everyone else would be killing 2-3 goblins per turn all the while the Goblins would've all had approx. 5% chance to hit them. At least with 5th Edition such a scene is particular fearsome to adventuring parties of most levels barring heroes ramped up with magical gear (something not inherent with the system math).

1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.