DrDeth's page

In the D&D World, I'd play Kane, a Fighter/monk who works for Kelanen, the Lord of Swords. I also built him as a warblade/monk.

IRL, I would play Sir Eddy, CBE, the second son of Lord Carnarvon in a Pulp Cthulhu game. Big game hunter and amateur Egyptologist.

To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".

All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.

You're built wrong if you want to be the most fearsome character in the game. Your first mistake is you played a martial, and not an Arcane Full Spellcaster, in a game that's designed with magic being the meta, and not mundanes. So expecting to go against the meta and complain about your bad experiences is just exacerbating the problem.
.... Weapon damage is largely irrelevant in the higher levels of gameplay, where you will be struggling the most, and it won't shore up your absolute weaknesses.

The second mistake is optimizing a silly weapon. Melee in this game are really bad and really clunky unless they have stupid amounts of reach and battlefield control to go with them. A basic beatstick is largely ineffective by 6th level, where iteratives and flight become commonplace. .....
...

This is just your opinion, trust me, in my current game and in RotRL, the Fighter was far and away the most dangerous character. Of course, we played D&D as a Team.

It is true that with Armor & Weapon mastery handbooks, any archetype that trades away weapon and armor class abilities will be sub-optimal.

And weapon damage is anything but irrelevant. My Fighter is downing demons the spellcasters can barely touch.

Melee works really well, in fact. With no reach at all. And, again, my fighter is 13th level.

I am unimpressed by how the game, and seemingly all those who choose to manage the game, deliberately nerf any attempt to stay relevant as a melee fighter.

Still can't fly or turn invisible or heal or buff the party, but can do some damage sometimes.

Still can't fly. Can't help it's team with healing or buffs. Relies on the charge for maximum effect. Can't turn invisible or see those who have.

Why is it impossible to be a relevant melee fighter?

My fighter has, by means of feats, the ability to fly, dimension door, and has Scent, Blindsense and Blindsight (so yeah, he can see Invisible- and more). And, he is just a Human. Try the Weapon Master's Handbook, Armor masters, and etc.

He also is the parties primary method of killing foes. Despite the other two members being optimized casters,nd us being 13th level.

And of course fighters can fly, turn invisible, etc with the use of magic items, too. Or a willing spellcaster.

I see absolutely no reason Paladin cannot *EVOLVE* to being multiple alignments. It's silly to hold onto the "LG ONLY!" notion

Why is it "silly"? Look, no one has a big issue with Monks being Lawful, right?

There are plenty of ways to make a non-LG holy warrior- The Inquisitor comes to mind, as well as several others.

Leave the LG Paladin alone- why CAN'T it be just LG?

1.

I dont like this "update" at all.

Dead is dead?

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really? I mean when Black leaf died, sure but in real games?

And one of the devs is on record that 5000 gps of diamonds is worth exactly that and exactly that hard to get. It's not the diamond so much, it's the 5000gps of sacrifice.

DrDeth wrote:

The Shaman wrote:

Ehhh, tankiness is hard to quantify in Pathfinder as there aren´t very solid "taunt" or other control mechanics outside of spells, and you usually don´t want to be casting those on the "frontline".

The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.

‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.

People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.

Nope, we were using Tank back in 1st Ad days, in fact one Fighter Dwarf was named "Sherman" as he was such a great tank. Tank was common nomenclature out here.

You should check my profile, I come in very very early in D&D history.

Our Cleric is trying to use Lesser Restoration to make it so she does not need to sleep ever. Just meditate for an hour to redo spells. She's using this to stay up an go on murder sprees while the rest of the party is asleep.

1. No Evils.

2. No splitting the party. YOU are the DM, just tell them you dont want this anymore, and when the cleric goes out "you encounter nothing".

3. Looking at another post, I see there is a possible PvP issue, stop that right now.

Not so far, as I am rather adept at making things up on the fly.

However, I have been taken aback by things like :

Me "The room is suffused by a Golden Glow."
Player: "How many Hit dice is a Golden Glow?"

Room, with gong, with sign "Ring Gong for Demon": they always do, to their regret.

Yes, I like the Investigator myself. And the oracle is fun if I need a divine caster.

Merry Christmas, Cool Yule, Happy Hanukah, Sunny Solstice to all my friends.

Not enough positive threads about classes, spells, wizards and fighters, etc. In short, everything Pathfinder and Paizo. I get really, really tired of the same tired topics being recycled all the time.

Grievance over.

Just for you, my freind. Happy Holidays!

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2usih?Most-fun-class#1

Obviously this is subjective and obviously what is fun for you may not be fun for others, but what class is just plain fun?

I dont care about balance or power and please , no negativity!

For me, it is the Rogue. Lots of chances to roll dice, do crazy exploits, try fun things. And when you get that perfect Sneak Attack- glorious!

I can't stand pirates. I think most pirate movies are terrible, didn't care for Treasure Island when I read it in school, and the whole pirate accent thing just sounds ridiculous to me. Swashbuckling is just not my cup of tea, and my group knows this. That said, I would LOVE to run a nautical/underwater adventure with the players exploring underwater dungeons, ruins, and sunken ships. However, every time I mention an ocean based campaign to my players, they instantly think I'm talking about pirates and focus almost entirely on that. If the sea or a ship gets involved, my pack of murderhobos drops whatever they're doing and cooks up some scheme to become pirates. I know I shouldn't expect too much from the same group that ate a kid in a previous campaign, but I've told them more than once I don't want to do pirates.

You could of course just say "No evils'.

On calling your players muderhobos, I not too long ago actually played with some (5th ed0 guys that could be called that: When meeting a "old man at a crossroads who gestures towards the party" they said "We kill him and take his stuff." They did, too. When a merchant refused to give a discount they did the same. I quit that game.

Very very few D&D players actually run their PCs are "murderhobos".

And, also try this "Guys, D&D is a game and the object of a game is to have fun- but that includes me, the DM. I would like for you guys to try and run a heroic campaign, OK?"

As a player, I would have just coup de graced his character the next time they went to sleep at that point. What point do the other character have to keep such a nuisance around that just threatened the lives of everyone? No need for that sort of behavior from a player or a character, even in an evil campaign.

You can't solve a OOC issue with IC actions.

He just brings in a new CE who kills yoour PC in their sleep.

Matthew Downie wrote:

The Core Fighter is also a bad archetype.

With Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training options, it really isn't anymore. It was a massive stealth buff to pretty much every fighter class feature.

Between Versatile Training and Armed Bravery, the Fighter's biggest shortcomings (skills and saves, respectively) get patched up, and the rest is just gravy.

My Fighter can now fly and do Dimension door, due to those books. Not to mention knocking ranged weapons out of the air.

Tea Ceremony isn't terrible. Situations where you know you're about to enter a dangerous dungeon or similar and have some time to prepare are pretty common in my experience.

Except that it takes 4 uses of bardic per person.

Probably the totem warrior barbarian. It does literally nothing.

Failing that, the Cardinal Cleric is probably the worst archetype i can think of.

lose medium armor, shields, a domain, 1/4 of your BAB, and spontaneous casting for bluff, intimidate, knowledge(geography), Knowledge(local) as class skills, and 4 more skill points.

Wow, Paizo must think skills are HWAAAAAAY better than they really are.

I would just take away the amor and the BAB, and call it about even.

90,000gp for a Ring of Regeneration. It heals just one hit point per round, and allows you to regrow body parts that you never lose if you're playing by the Core rules. And prevents bleed damage, which is nice, but not worth the price.

Yep. Unless you are playing with a sadistic DM that uses crit or fumble rules where various limbs keep getting hack off.

[

Sustaining Spoon:

Sounds like a nifty bargain, only 5400 gp! Never. Go. Hungry. AGAIN!

...until one realizes that there are a lot of folks out there that have this as a orison/cantrip and could do it for *free* endlessly on a daily basis... Seen in loot piles, never with a PC

.

There's a cantrip or 0 level spell that gives you food?

Most of the PRD is years out of date. Here's the current jingasa:

Ultimate Equipment Errata wrote:

This conical iron jingasa, or war hat, grants the wearer a +1 deflection bonus to AC. When struck by a critical hit or sneak attack, the wearer can spend an immediate action to negate the critical hit or sneak attack (similar to the fortification armor special ability, but without requiring a roll). The damage is instead rolled normally. This ability functions only once, though the jingasa continues to grant its deflection bonus even after the other ability is expended.

Yes, but the PRD is also official.

DrDeth wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

I am aware of the usefulness the Jingasa once had, which is why I nominate it now. It's just around to fluff word count now. :(

"This conical iron jingasa, or war hat, grants the wearer a +1 luck bonus to AC. Once per day when struck by a critical hit or sneak attack, the wearer can spend an immediate action to negate the critical hit or sneak attack (similar to the fortification armor special ability, but without requiring a roll). The damage is instead rolled normally."

+1 Luck bonus and it does negate a crit.

This was the original, though. Unfortunately, it was nerfed, hard, unless it was unnerfed, later.

That is the wording right there in the PRD, so that's the item, offcially. I see no nerf.

Have the DM come here and explain, and we can offer advice.

My nominee are the Rings of Elemental command. Very cool, yep.

But 200000!!!!

Nope.

I am aware of the usefulness the Jingasa once had, which is why I nominate it now. It's just around to fluff word count now. :(

"This conical iron jingasa, or war hat, grants the wearer a +1 luck bonus to AC. Once per day when struck by a critical hit or sneak attack, the wearer can spend an immediate action to negate the critical hit or sneak attack (similar to the fortification armor special ability, but without requiring a roll). The damage is instead rolled normally."

+1 Luck bonus and it does negate a crit.

So, Due to diferences in opinion my Cavalier will probably leave the party after our current quest is done and I'm trying to think of what to play next. The classes I'm the most intrested in trying is Oracle (Buffer and healer with some combat capability) Witch (Debuffer with heals, And some buffs?) And Summoner (Probably a self proclaimed coward with a guardian angel eidolon, Or maybe a ratfolk with a four armed rat ogre..)

The rest of the party is a Oracle (Blaster, Who we sometimes manage to beg into healing us) Investigator (Brains of the party and potion maker) Magus (Big damage in melee) 2 Rogues (One melee, One ranged) And a Ranger (Melee natural attacker, Currently a GM PC after a GM change so he took more of a back role)

Life Oracle or Oradin. Focus on buffing and healing.

depends... it's not really lawful (no due process), but not necessary evil if the cultist was evil himself... characters are often stuck into positions where they have to be judge jury and executioner, not a motive to make a paladin fall, particularly if dragging the cultist to proper authorities for formal trial is not practical (far away from civilisation, time is of the essence, etc).

Knights often had the right of High, Middle and Low Justice , especially when "beyond the pale"- so in a lawless area, it could even be Lawful.

taks wrote:

You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.

They were important in D&D, but are a small part of Pathfinder. It's rare I spend more than five minutes in a session dealing with traps. It's usually either:

Roll Perception. Roll Disable Device. You disarmed the trap.
Or:
Roll Perception. Not enough. You walk into a trap. You take some damage. You heal yourself.

Half the time they're only there to help rogues feel useful.

Which is why the Rogue is weak.

AD&D was full of devious and deadly Gygaxian traps. They weren't even all deadly- You could be teleported naked one place, and your gear another. Or you could be blocked off or sent into the next level.

They take imagination and skill to set up.

Sure, most traps are of the poison needle in the lock r the pit trap in the corridor genre, which are not hard to bypass.

But just like not all combats should be a bog-standard monster, some traps should be devious.

That is part of why the Thief class was invented.

"Combat Expertise (Combat)

You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.

Prerequisite: Int 13.(snip)"

That's why I picked 14 Int.

Catfolk racial is: +1/2 to Feint checks in combat and Sleight of Hand checks at all times.

Climber gives my a natural 20 feet climbing speed and the +8 to climbing checks. Canopy Prowler adds +1 to Climb and +1 to Stealth checks while climbing.

Graceful Athlete makes Climb and Swim be Dexterity based instead of Strength.

Rogue Finesse for Rapier is self explanatory.

Further development ideas/thoughts/we will see how things go...

Feats:
1. Dodge >> Mobility >> Spring Attack
2. Agile Manouvers >> Improved Dirty Trick >> Greater Dirty Trick
3. Critical Focus >> Blinding Critical >> Improved Critical

I guess it will vastly depend how our GM develops the campaign.

I found combat expertise to be not very useful.

Spring attack is very good with the Scout Archetype.

I have a secret rule against character death. None of my players ever die (except pathfinder society).

I just don't see the point of killing off interesting characters because of a bad dice roll. I don't tell my players so that way players still have the fear of death without the actual death.

1st lvl PCs can die. It is part of the learning process.

But -Once they reach third level I give them part of the Mythic ability:"Hard to Kill (Ex): Whenever you're below 0 hit points, you automatically stabilize without needing to attempt a Constitution check. If you have an ability that allows you to act while below 0 hit points, you still lose hit points for taking actions, as specified by that ability. Bleed damage still causes you to lose hit points when below 0 hit points. In addition, you don't die until your total number of negative hit points is equal to or greater than double your Constitution score."

DrDeth wrote:

Wultram wrote:

Paladins as is, are an issue because they close up large swathes of tactics from the party to utilize. Now if everyone is up for playing saturday morning cartoon heroes that is perfectly fine. If you like some depth while maintaining verisimilitude that is not going to work.(Granted rewriting the code to be less insane would take care of lot of issues.)

.

What tactics? torture? Being murderhoboes and killing innocent NPCs as you go?

Paladins add depth and verisimilitude.

What tactics? Any tactic more complicated than breaking down a door and going head to head with the bad guy can be considered "dishonorable". Scout ahead to see where the bad guys are? Dishonorable! Disguise yourself and infiltrate the bad guy organization? Dishonest! Slit the big bad's throat in his sleep? Murderous! Mindscrew the bad guys into oblivion with save or suck arcane magic? Cowardly!

It goes beyond invalidating literally any forward thinking strategy, Paladins also make it impossible to play any class with any kind of moral gray area: Rogue, Inquisitor, Slayer, Alchemist, the list just goes on and on. No player should have that kind of power over other players, so f--k Paladins.

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Nothing about not scouting ahead. Nothing about " disguises or infiltrating. Nothing about a coup de grac.

I have played and DMed paladins for 40 years and they happily adventure with every class but Anti-paladin and Assassin.

You are just making stuff up (or your DM was) that do not occur in a Paladins code.

This week's FAQ Tuesday is another No FAQ Required:

PDT wrote:

No FAQ Required: This is not a rules FAQ for any Pathfinder RPG product, but rather a question about our publishing practices on pick-ups. When a new book comes out in the RPG line, chances are at this point that there have been Player Companions, Campaign Settings, or other products on a related topic at some time in the past, but these products have smaller print runs than RPG line products. At product launch meetings, staff members including the developers of these previous products suggest other books to reference for pick-ups. A pick-up essentially means that a rules element begs for a broader audience, rather than asking a freelancer to produce something new but almost identical without regard to the essential foundation built from the design and development work on the previous lines. That said, a pick-up is not a reprint: those pick-ups receive multiple additional development passes just like the new material for the book, refining them beyond their original version. Sometimes these development passes won’t yield any change, and sometimes they lead to substantial changes.

The fully refined version will be Paizo's default version for adventures, NPC compilations, and the like moving forward, since it benefited from two development cycles and is available on the PRD, but as always feel free to use the version that your group prefers, or make your own variant. In Pathfinder Society, always check the Additional Resources page to see what versions are legal and the Campaign Clarifications page for the Pathfinder Society team’s updates on how to use those options in the Pathfinder Society campaign.

where was this question posed?

Paladins as is, are an issue because they close up large swathes of tactics from the party to utilize. Now if everyone is up for playing saturday morning cartoon heroes that is perfectly fine. If you like some depth while maintaining verisimilitude that is not going to work.(Granted rewriting the code to be less insane would take care of lot of issues.)

.

What tactics? torture? Being murderhoboes and killing innocent NPCs as you go?

Paladins add depth and verisimilitude.

I am sure this is not new ground so am happy to be linked elsewhere on this but :

I can't get my head around why (other than for 3.5 legacy reasons) the Paladin is a core class.

The Code of Conduct makes things a real challenge for the player, the GM and the rest of the group. Things can so easily devolve into arguments and debates over whether they should or shouldn't do things

You can get players annoyed because the Paladin won't let them do certain things or sticking up for the Paladin when he appears to break his code ("just because he is Lawful Good it doesn't mean he is stupid").

The reverse can happen where the Paladin can be annoyed with the group constantly testing his limits.

Also there can be GMs interpreting the Paladin's actions in a negative light causing everyone to disagree

It all seems like a bit of a nightmare that requires a really mature group to deal with.

Indeed the player shoudl sit down with the party and the DM and briefly discuss the choice. But in no game I have ever run in the last 40 years has the paladin been a problem. "CN" PCs are the most common problem, not Paladins.

"Wont let them do certain things"? Generally i want mostly Good aligned partys are that is the most heroic game. Why do the other players want to do evil things?

Give every Paladin a free slotless Phylactery of Faithfulness and you will never have a issue of a Paladin doing wrong things or failing.

Do not set Paladin traps, of course.

Mainer wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

It is an exceedingly frustrating concept. Nor can I call it justified. Take someone who buys a, say, car. Do they expect the car to have value forever? A chainsaw? A pair of shoes? A newspaper? A roll of toilet paper? A computer? Should they?

The chainsaw stood out to me, both in a "one of these things is not like the other" sense, but also because my dad inherited my great-grandfather's chainsaw, which he still uses. Works pretty good.

Maybe, but did they get a chance to sell another chainsaw to the 2 generations who followed after your great-grandfather bought it? If the product is too durable, you may run out of market to sell to...

This fellow is looking to buy a saw to cut down some trees in his back yard. He goes to a chainsaw shop and asks about various chainsaws. The dealer tells him, "Look, I have a lot of models, but why don't you save yourself a lot of time and aggravation and get the top-of-the-line model. This chainsaw will cut a hundred cords of wood for you in one day."

So, the man takes the chainsaw home and begins working on the trees. After cutting for several hours and only cutting two cords, he decides to quit. He thinks there is something wrong with the chainsaw. "How can I cut for hours and only cut two cords?" the man asks himself. "I will begin first thing in the morning and cut all day," the man tells himself. So, the next morning the man gets up at 4 am in the morning and cuts and cuts, and cuts till nightfall, and still he only manages to cut five cords.

The man is convinced this is a bad saw. "The dealer told me it would cut one hundred cords of wood in a day, no problem. I will take this saw back to the dealer," the man says to himself.

The very next day the man brings the saw back to the dealer and explains the problem. The dealer, baffled by the man's claim, removes the chainsaw from the case. The dealer says, "Hmm, it looks fine."

Then the dealer starts the chainsaw, to which the man responds, "What's that noise?

NaeNae wrote:

I'm playing the Core Rogue. GM didn't want to kearn the changes for Unchained.

Walk into melee combat.

Die

reroll character as anything else. Try bard.

This is really bad advice and counter to everything we're trying to do here and counter to what the Op has very nicely requested.

I agree with them about Mobility. Mobility is a useless feat for a rogue, especially a Dexterity based one

Spring Attack is great if you are a Str rogue, like maybe a half-orc weilding a big nasty falchion and using the Scout archetype. In fact that combo is pretty good.

For what it's worth I really like the new lore warden. I don't like dips and it's an improvement on the first for the long haul. I'm glad it was changed.

Gives up armor training and armor mastery,medium armor, heavy armor, and shields, and bravery. and a bonus feat. For two more SkP? And a few sword secrets?

-Armored Masters Handbook
-Weapon Masters Handbook
-

That's not even mentioning that the best fighter fix, the lore warden archetype, got nerfed. Apparently, being good at more than 1 combat maneuver is overpowered or something.

Actually that archetype is now obsolete, even before "nerfing". It gives up armor training and armor mastery, and with the Armored Masters Handbook and Weapon Masters Handbook

That archetype also gave up medium armor, heavy armor, and shields, and bravery (which got a lot better now, it now can be a standard will save with Armed Bravery).

Adaptable Training makes up for skills.

Armored Juggernaut give DR like a Barbarian.

and more.

Those two books "unchain" the fighter and more.

Paladin good? Sure, but their code of conduct is literally unplayable.

Not in any game I have been in. And if the DM did make my paladin unplayable, I would look for a different DM.

wasting feats for something that might not come up is a big deal for most classes

Well, for a Fighter it's great:

Scent, Blindsense and then Blindsight. Mirror Image, Invisibility? Ect- all are for naugt.

Third question- what exactly, does a bottle of alchemist fire do to a swarm of Diminutive creatures?

Say I roll a "six" for damage: Does the direct hit do nothing, do 6, do 9, or something else? The splash damage does only 1 pt, right?

D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!

FAQs wrote:

Haste: Haste says a hasted creature can make an additional attack during a full attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, but what about other sorts of attacks like unarmed strikes?

Unarmed strikes and other attacks that work via full attacks (such as mystic bolts, kinetic blade, and flame blade) all allow an extra attack with haste. However, single attacks such as incorporeal touch attacks or melee touch spells delivered round by round after holding the charge do not.

Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

Despite two this week, we still might be able to have one next week, but definitely not the week after.

How long can you "hold the charge' on a touch attack?

Mark, you were one of the authors on Familiar Folio. Here's a thread discussing the Familiar Adept:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ug5g&page=3?So-whatre-the-leastoptimal-opt ions-these-days

Dasrak bring up these points, and I have seen similar points. "Familiar Adept Wizard
One of those archetypes that is incomprehensibly punitive for meager benefits. The archetype literally has one benefit: once per day your familiar can use your 1st level school power. This is the kind of ability you forget you have, but it's even worse than that since you're saddled with witch familiar rules so using your familiar in combat is a big no-no. And to be clear, witch familiar rules are very flavorful but mechanically are purely a downgrade from wizard spellbook rules due to the higher cost to learn spells, inability to keep backup familiars, and much worse replacement rules. If that were all the downsides maybe we could let this archetype off the hook, but you also lose 3 bonus feats and take an additional opposition school. But what really adds insult to injury is that the archetype actually has the gall to nerf your familiar. It's not a particularly onerous downside compared to the other ridiculous ones I've already listed, but on an archetype called the Familiar Adept it's a slap in the face."

I love that book, and looked at this archetype myself and came away with a big "Huhwat???" . I cant figure out why all the nerfs with such (to me) tiny benefits.

Back in ye'olden times when AD&D first came out. It was generally understood and agreed by most players/DM's that a paladin was 'supposed' to be played as lawful stupid. The GM was also 'supposed' to try and set up situations that could cause the moral dilemmas that might cause a fall (or even better, a fall then redemption). Many of the published modules had around a 30% fatality rate. Homebrew was usually much deadlier. A fall wasn't that big a deal since you were probably switching characters in a few adventures anyway. Not everyone played that way, but most of the gamers that I met back then did. Some think it should still be that way.

I am sure that this was the way it happened in your experience. But in this old Grognards experience, not so much. To play a Paladin as Lawful Stupid was considered a cheap immature joke. A stupid barbarian- crafty but without any education- sure. But not a paladin.

And, sure low level characters did die pretty often. But once you got to middle level, the death rate was likely the same as PF. I remember playing a short campaign where the DM wanted us to bring in a dead character of 7-9th level, and despite having portfolios of dozens of characters, several of us had to make one up. Raise Dead was a thing, even then.

I find it helps to bring some moral clarity to most alignment questions, and many might be best solved by a version of the Golden Rule.

Most alignment questions seem to boil down to this:

"This Player of mine is proposing to commit [X Action] against [Particular Character] to achieve [Supposed Good Result]. Is [X Action] an evil act under the circumstances?"

Just replace [Particular Character] with someone you love and care for deeply. Perhaps your spouse or life partner; perhaps your child; perhaps a sibling or dearest friend.

Now, if [X Action] were committed against your loved one in a real life situation, would you consider it a heinous act? Would it shatter your life, traumatize your and perhaps permanently ruin your psyche knowing such an act were committed against someone you loved and treasured so much? If the answer to any of these questions is yes...it is probably an evil action.

So, This Player of mine is proposing to kill a rat and eat its heart in order to not turn into a horrible monster that will eat all my friends. Is [X Action] an evil act under the circumstances?"= NO!

Interparty conflict is only an issue if players aren't enjoying it.

again, this is a "newbie guide". Perhaps some experienced players like PvP (I hate it, myself) but it's not for new players.

If everybody at the table enjoys intraparty conflict up to a point, then it is all well and good.

"What would you tell a NEW player..."

1. Dont play a jerk.

2. Dont split the party

3. Dont PvP or steal from the party, i.e. see #1

4. Dont hog the spotlight. (see #2)

5. Have a quirk. It can be a battle cry or a saying "By Grothhars Hammer!"

6. Have fun, but remember every one needs to have fun, including the DM. See #1,2,3, 4.

7. Have back up healing.

8. Perception is a key skill.

9. Never try to solve a OOC problem IC.