|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
A Ladder from pretty much any game
In that same vein: A small shrubbery from any early RPG. Infinite HP, regeneration, immunity to all damage types, and you cannot climb over it or teleport past it. It can only be destroyed with a special weapon that can only be wielded by a 10th level character. Imagine the BBEG dropping a few of those outside his door to finish his plans while the party levels up.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Casters are built up as better than martials for their versatility, not because they always kill things better. Barbarians kill things (Especially puny wizards!) damn well.
I just ask myself, "What are orcs?" They're raiders. They don't spend a lot of time in quiet contemplation or study, and their gods are venerated by war and bloodshed - not burning incense and meditating on the universe.
Being simple works because they have the Strength to back it up.
As for Bulls Strength - A) It's limited to so many times per day, B) It's a short duration, C) It is wasted on a spellcaster with no good weapon proficiencies and half BAB and (most importantly) D) As a 2nd level spell, it is easily within the reach of an orc spell caster with 12 Wis to use on an orc Warrior for an even more ridiculous slash chop.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I have to say, I'm with you all the way on kobolds - but you've lost me here.
Orcs are not at all what I'd call 'hindered'. +4 STR, -2 all mental stats. So they're not bright, but they're tough as the hells and they have GREAT weaponry (A Falchion is hands-down one of the best weapons in the game.)
So they might not win any intellectual arguments, but with your average orc sporting a 19 STR and wielding a two-handed 18-20 crit weapon for 2d4+6 (Or +9 if they're Power Attacking and they're ALWAYS power attacking, and turning that into 4d4+18 at THREE TIMES the normal rate) damage means they won't need to win any debates after they've turned their opponent into paste. The lowly 1/3CR Orc can potentially one-shot a 3rd level Wizard with a lucky swing.
Edit: I actually just ran the numbers here, and you can up to a 5th level wizard (Average HP with a +2 Con and the favored class bonus = 35) The orc's crit caps at 34. So if Mr. Squishy had some unfortunate rolls on his way to fifth level he's still in danger from an orc who has decided his head looks better separated from his shoulders.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I typically handle it one of two ways:
1. Handwaving. It's a game, after all, and you have to make concessions to the game-y nature of it sometimes. Especially if it's not an ongoing campaign and we're just having fun, as long as I don't feel like the players are trying to abuse it, I'll handwave finding a "Safe Room" where they can rest for the night. (Though it is a dungeon so there's still watches and roll for encounters.)
2. Provide enough division that it's feasible the dungeon's more powerful denizens don't know the PC's are around yet. So for instance, the party infiltrates a tower through its dungeon and kill all of the mindless undead they've found there, but the lich at the very top is still blissfully unaware of their presence as he hasn't had cause to go down and worry about those poor sops in centuries. Besides, he has far more important work to do.
I often RP a character that is spunky, fresh, outgoing, and super social. Which is funny, seeing as I am a very down to earth, quiet little mouse in real life.
That. I try playing characters with low charisma and I just hate it. The game table is the one place I feel comfortable enough to try on that persona, in a safe space with friends, and I always end up feeling like if I wanted to play a quiet, shy person I can do that in real life easy enough.
I also almost always play religious, despite being an atheist in real life. Although truthfully I think it comes from the same place - the real world offers no real evidence of any higher power whatsoever (not trying to start an argument here, just how I see it) so it's an enormous waste to dedicate yourself to it. In a world where the gods are active and produce tangible effects every single day - I mean, even a Level 1 Cleric or Adept is performing what anyone would accurately define as a miracle - the evidence is overwhelmingly against atheism in that world. You would have be A) delusional and B) an idiot to not be some sort of religious. And with dozens of gods with different ideas and portfolios there's really no good reason you couldn't find SOMEONE whose philosophy is congruent with your own. (Really if you want to include distheists in your story, and not just as some crackpot tiny minority but as an entire city-state, it would make a LOT more sense with a dominant monotheistic or much smaller polytheistic religion that has rigid codes of belief and conduct for ALL followers. *coughRahadoumcough* Just sayin'.)
I always dump physical stats for mental. The best, most interesting heroes are not the strongest or fastest. They're the ones who overcome seemingly insurmountable odds by force of cleverness, insight, or guile.
I rarely play Neutral, and when I do they still have a strong center and code of conduct that might just be dark enough to tip them over the edge from good. I believe strongly a murderhobo that just does it for gold and drink is a good easy concept to make in ten minutes for a one-shot, but nothing else. I don't care about people like that and I find them incredibly dull in a world of grand villainous schemes and knights in shining armor and spellcasters who have made a pact with forces they don't fully understand and lunatic conspiracy theorists.
Actually the best deep cover agent would.
How foolish of me to forget that the absolute best thing about the rogue is how all of its damage is tied to sneak attack and it has no really good additional thematic damage dealing options.
So...besides of a couple trick weapons like the cane and whip....this is mostly just going to be 'I want more 18-20 weapons', isn't it?
Even if that was all it is about, the Rogue really should get that, though. Ninja getting the wakizashi proficiency makes it better than the rogue right out of the gate, even before you get into the better class features.
But honestly crit fishing fits the rogue's schtick way better than any other martial since it's supposed to be all about finding the weak points and hitting where it hurts.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I actually really want to make this now. What do you think - maybe a CR 8 or 9?
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
What was the name of Salazar's monster sidekick? Vesugo or something? THAT would have the makings of an awful PF monster without much adjustment made.
Fighting something with Power Attack, Hide in Plain Sight, a 40 ft/round climb speed, and maxed out stealth playing hit and run tactics with the party? That is the sort of thing that drives players to stage coups.
Oddly enough, this isn't the case at all. My table knows CN is my favorite alignment - I play it often, and not to brag, but I think I play it well. And I allow Evil alignments any time the story can justify it. If there's good money to be had or an apocalyptic, "Hey I live here too, better save this place" kind of thing going where I could see an otherwise evil character joining the group, I won't do much vetting at all. Ironically enough, I trust my table much more with evil anything than CG.
I played a CE character who absolutely loved his party. Of course, if it came down to them or him, he loved himself more than anybody. But he would absolutely be the guy trying to raise the dead in that party --- because he loved his companions like treasured toys, and nobody breaks his toys before he's finished playing with them.
I personally hate CE as dumb brute who just pushes others around. That's dull, stupid, and feels more NE than anything. CE is something grander; something that's not only unpleasant, but so insidious and beyond the bounds of decency that the revelation of their wrongdoing should stick with you for a long, long time. Someone who upsets the working order just by existing. But I'm getting off-topic.
So I know this isn't precisely new, BUT there is a certain alignment - and I'm sure you've all guessed what it is even though I haven't put it in the title. At my table (and many others I'm told) it's known, colloquially, as chaotic bull@#%% - or, chaotic stupid if you're squeamish.
Players who choose this forbidden alignment are almost always to a T confrontational. They seem to choose it just for the opportunity to make action happen by acting impulsively and without thought. If they're not taking the most ridiculous course of action possible, they're arguing with the level heads in the party about why they need to dispense with the diplomacy and stab the king in his stupid, kingly face.
And worse than that, they use the "chaotic" portion of their alignment to justify that most disgusting atrocities - deception, torture, thuggery and worse are all justifiable as long as you're only doing it to the enemies. It doesn't make them evil, after all, because they only do it to evil NPCs.
Man, I hate Chaotic Good characters.
For all of the complaints about Chaotic Neutral, my problem players have almost always steered clear of the dreaded 'no-no' alignment. It's a personal favorite and one I've seen attached to the more well thought out characters in games I've ran. But Chaotic Good? C/G on a character sheet makes me nervous.
Anyone else have a Scrappy alignment at their table that's not Chaotic Neutral?
Henshin, I'd peg Lawful based on the posts I've read. You recognize corruption, but ultimately still seem to have faith in institutions. Good is a lot harder to quantify - and personally, I'm of the opinion that maybe 1% of the world, if that, ever achieves it. I'll let someone else make the moral call.
I'd peg myself chaotic neutral. I believe, strongly, that power corrupts inevitably and absolutely. Anything done to those in institutions of power - whether that be government, the church, multinational corporations, world superpowers - is almost always justified. The only good that can actually be done is constantly tearing them down and replacing them with something slightly better. The only kind of authority I trust is scientific - specifically because its basis is skepticism and tearing down old knowledge for new. I'm confrontational about the status quo - here and my personal life. And it's oddly gotten much worse, not calmer, with age. If you are really desperate for an argument, please mention the words "thug" or "traditional marriage" in my general vicinity. Is it annoying? I'm sure it is. So are Chaotic Neutral characters. Perfect fit.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Obviously, I approve of this answer --- but if I were to pick my personal favorite villain, I'd probably have to go with Hans Landa. The scene in the beginning where he breaks a man with polite conversation over a glass of milk is chillingly powerful.
Who is the best all around villain, in terms of competence, success, evilness, and the corruption of all that is good?
Who is the monster that induces the most terror in you when you think of meeting him in a dark alley somewhere?
In an epic battle of villains, who would come out on top?
If it is some sort of veiled complaint about 5E's current direction (The first half sort of sounds like it's meant to be), I do have to point out the irony of complaining about a company dedicating itself to progressive social values on the message board of Paizo, whose philosophy and design since its inception made WotC (until their turn around late last year) seem about as enlightened as your typical frat bro.
As a corollary to both the Teachable Campaign and Mary Suetopia:
IT'S OKAY! THE BOOK SAYS THEY'RE EVIL
Do you not like "Always Chaotic Evil" as a trope? Do you actually like some nuance or, you know, character motivation in your stories? Do you understand why the walkers stopped being the primary antagonists on Walking Dead by season 2? This is not the place for you. Always Chaotic Evil means every mission will be, "Go Here. Kill Bad Guys. Collect Reward." Are you being sent on two-days' travel to kill a group of orcs or goblins that haven't actually done anything in the story? Does that make you feel a little icky? Get that SJW crap outta here! As long as the book says it's an EVIL race you can do anything from genocide to torture to skull-redacteding its children to death in front of it and it's a-okay! They're always chaotic evil, anyway - even if that explanation LITERALLY MAKES NO FREAKING SENSE. Now roll for encounters on your way back to collect your reward from the 'kindly and benevolent' Duke that hired you to kill sentient beings as a form of pest control.
You'd really better not want to play (insert race here, usually gnomes). The DM hates Gnomes and will it make clear how very much he hates gnomes and hates you for choosing a gnome. Prepare for every single NPC you encounter to revile you, refuse to sell to you, and generally treat you like crap. This doesn't really make sense storywise like it might with an Orc or Drow - but whatever. The populace is totally cool of a party traveling with a member of a race known for murder and deceit, but you dare include anything lighthearted in their grim fantasy world and they get really bent out of shape.
LOOK HOW MATURE MY GAME IS
This DM's world is dark. How dark you ask? Don't worry, they're going to make sure you know how dark by including something absolutely vomit inducing nearly every session. Gory mutilation will be described in nasty detail. Disease will ravage every corner of the land. Defecation and urination won't happen 'off screen', but as a recurring event - often times on or in other people for good measure. The "R" word will come up early, it will come up often, it will be a major part of nearly every female NPC's backstory, and it will probably happen to a PC at some point in the campaign.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Sorry, rereading what I wrote I "misspoke". It's not Rage that incurs penalties - it's a few of the rage abilities and class features. And if you go Path of the Berzerker, Rage does indeed incur a penalty. But anyway, the problem is without Rage you still kind of suck. And Rage is way, way limited. I understand they were reigning in the absurdity of rage cycling and the cheese that multiclassing let Barbarians do in 3.PF. But breaking down the things you mentioned:
Resistance: Only works when Raging. Low levels, you'll get to do this TWICE between long rests. Most battles you're just a crappy fighter. Hope you didn't waste it before the important battle - ESPECIALLY if you go Path of the Berzerker.
Reckless Attack: OK, makes you a tank? The Sentinel feat does it way, way better with no actual penalty. More on that below, too.
Unarmored Defense (Spoilered cause it gets a bit long):
When I first looked at this, I thought it was pretty cool, too. But then I really broke it down - the typical 5E point buy is 27 points. If you want to effectively do damage and have the AC that means you need high DEX, high CON, and high STR. Even with a Mountain Dwarf, the best choice, your highest are going to be 17STR 15DEX 17CON with a possible "10" in any of your mental stats. OK, so +5 total AC, +7 after your shield. Come 4th level you get to bump those values up by 1 (unless you want a feat, of course.) so +9
19 AC. Not bad, and that's assuming a best case scenario. Your Damage output will be pretty 'meh' until you rage (at least no better than any other high STR melee class), at which point it becomes respectable. But again, you don't get that all the time.
But then we make a fighter. You can dump Dex thanks to thrown weapons - which a Barbarian cannot because he needs it for his AC, so your mental stats will be much better. Or keep it for Dexterity saves - although Dex saves are still pretty useless, and even more so now that most Dex saves usually let you swap STR and the most common use from 3.PF - tripping - has been switched to a STR save. By 4th level, the fighter should have more than enough money for Plate which is an 18AC base and +2 with the shield for a 20 total. But he can also take the 'Defense' fighting style for an additional +1 to AC. And he'll have the option to eventually get magic armor which will make his AC even better. OR he could instead choose to do the "Dueling" fighting style which will give him a +2 to Damage constantly, or go Protection style and get your "Reckless Attack" feature sans the penalty.
Edit: Also, if your group is using feats, the Fighter will qualify for that heavy armor feat that will 1. Let him increase his STR to 18 to do even more damage AND 2. get DR all the time.
Dexterity/Initiative Advantage: The initiative advantage is pretty good I'll grant you, but like I explained in the spoilered content up there, Dexterity saves are honestly always the least of my concerns.
It's not like the Barbarian is useless --- I just think his schtick is done better by everyone else.
I will say if I were to choose to try a Barbarian, I'd definitely go Totem Warrior. It's still not my favorite choice, but it has enough in there to make it intriguing.
Casters: Concentration really reigns them in a fair amount. Can't stack buffs (and certain offense spells), damage can make you lose it anyway (especially for those that don't have Con proficiency and have to pay a feat tax to get it, if feats are even being used).
Casters do get some much-needed reigns, but there are other things that still keep them at the top of the list. They're still incredibly SAD, and now their spells add their casting modifier to Attacks/Damage instead of the typical DEX for ranged and so on. And also did you notice that casting spells in a threatened square no longer provokes AOO's? And high level spells are as powerful as they've ever been.
That is what I meant, although while they may not be the "best" trippers/grapplers, if you're using Feats they quickly become if not THE best, then one of the best choices.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
That doesn't surprise me at all. Most of the inappropriate things that have occurred in games I was in were instigated by women. For all of the sleaze I hear male gamers accused of, I have had some women at my table whose idea of appropriate would make your flesh crawl.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
People always point out when it's a female player being inappropriate as though this makes the occurrence strange, but my experience has always been the most inappropriate things have been instigated by women. My wife's first game she played a former courtesan with a bust they could politely be described as absurd. I posted before about the woman with the creepy loli-fetishism. And I had a female player play a transparently closeted gay man with a penchant for making his defeated foes undress .... slowly, and then ask for detailed descriptions of the action. (That same player also interrupted a description of an NPC to specifically ask about her cleavage - though I'm cleaning up the language here.)
There was one time it got that weird in an all male group and that's when our DM made the guy who dared make a stereotypical lesbian cross play PC role play the actual sex with another player to show him how uncomfortable it was. It did work, but in retrospect and after reading some of these forum posts about creepy players, I realize now it was a major gamble.
Personally I find it necessary. A big problem with Druids was that their wildshape basically let them take on every role in the party. You can wildshape into a combat beast and make the fighter look like an exhausted school-aged child, or wildshape into a small animal with flight and make the Rogue's stealth abilities look like a clamoring one-man band.
It neede to be reigned in on one or the other, and for my personal preference, I'm glad they focused it on combat.
Rolled stats are typically more allocated around the mean than point buy. You could roll 18 18 18 5 4 7, but more likely you're going to get something closer to 9 13 13 14 12 13, so no dumping your physical stats into the toilet to get stupid high mental stats. That's not to say it couldn't happen, of course, but a player can't just rely on it when planning their characters.
Pathfinder reigned this in by just making them flat bonuses to stats, but on the other hand 3.PF wild shape offered very little restriction beyond size categories. 5E cut out the fly speed before level 8, and shortened the time you're able to wild shape and made casting spells in that form a high level class feature. On the other hand, with Circle of the Moon you get multi attack nearly out of the gate.
Was it really necessary to be condescending about it? I said this is just how I pegged it so far and it would likely change with input. I based it on the experiences of players at my table and comparing similar class abilities. If you have a different opinion, I would be open to hearing it without calling it ridiculous.
So, now that 5E has been out for some time and we've all probably had a reasonable opportunity to test out the classes, it's time for our favorite TTRPG past-time:
OK, seriously though, I'm curious to get people's opinions on the individual classes and see how 5E's class list compares to the PF class list. Obviously, in PF, the generally agreed upon order (core) is something like:
Wizard >>>>>>>> Cleric/Druid > Sorcerer > Barbarian/Bard/Paladin/Ranger > Fighter/Monk/Rogue (Slashed out classes that are comparable in strength, although the lists might vary a bit. One person might says Barbarian above Bard and another not, for instance.)
So looking at 5E, here's how I've pegged it:
TIER 1 (Godlike):
Wizard: Duh. Some of the power has been reigned in by including the Concentration mechanic and save-every-round, but it's still far and away the show stopper. Throw in some of the most powerful school-dependent abilities in the current game, and you've got a class that's still king of the hill.
Druid: Wildshape is in some ways less ridiculous than Pathfinder, and in some ways way more. With rolled stats, they're damn good - with point buy, they're freaking unstoppable. In some ways even better than a Wizard since they get a lot more buff spells and less save-every-round options.
TIER 2 (Powerful):
Bard: Once again, the Bard is the queen of versatility. And still stepping on the poor rogue's toes a bit, but the rogue gets a little bit more to keep them from languishing like they did in 3.PF. But the Valor Bard is a capable combatant, and the Lore bard is a pretty awesome spellcaster. And as always, makes everyone around her better.
Cleric: This is a high Tier 2, approaching Tier 1 with the correct Domain choices. Not quite as breakable as Druids or Wizards, but always powerful, and occasionally ungodly so.
Sorcerer: I wasn't really sold on the Sorcerer at first, but upon further consideration, this gets a big boost from now being the only class that does metamagic. I would honestly probably put the Dragon Blooded here and the Wild Mage at Tier 3, but it'd be a high Tier 3, so it averages out. What keeps it from hitting Tier 1 is that the new spellcasting rules steps on its schtick a little and its list is more limited than the wizard's.
TIER 3 (Good):
Fighter: Fighters got a lot of love from WotC this version. With enchantments like "Keen" and feats like Improved Critical gone, only fighters can expand their range. Fighters are the undisputed masters of maneuvers and get more attacks than any class aside from monk - and thanks to the new movement/action rules, no more Full Attack issue. Eldritch Knight is now an archetype that ties into it, which gives it another boost. The big complaints about fighters have always been that they are only good for hitting things and that they're not even the best option to do so. Well, WotC improved the Fighter in that regard --- unfortunately, just not both things at the same time.
Monk: Never thought I'd see the day. But Monks are now a solid, viable class with Dex-based everything and some really cool, effective archetypes. No class benefited more from the new movement rules than the Monk, either.
Paladin: The Paladin has been changed greatly from 3.PF. It's lost some of its attack ability (which was approaching absurd in PF, anyway) but retained most of its defensive capability. Unfortunately, the replacements for Detect/Smite Evil are much weaker and far more situational in addition to being limited. However, allies will still be grateful to have you around when you're adding your Charisma bonus to their saves.
Rogue: Nope, that's not a typo. New critical, poison, and stealth rules finally make it a viable option. Honestly with the Bard still stepping on its toes a bit, it won't quite reach Tier 2, but for once it can actually do something the Bard can't - and that is damage, damage, damage. Assassin auto-crit with a Shortbow at Level 3 = 6d6 + Dex damage. Roll up a Lightfoot halfling and fell ECL-CR foes in one hit.
Warlock: Hands down the best blaster. You can blast to your hearts content from 300 feet away at Level 2. Unfortunately, the limited spell list holds it back a bit. It can be a low Tier-2 or mid Tier-3 depending on the Pact chosen, but it ultimately sits comfortably here.
TIER 4 (Mediocre or Pointless):
Barbarian: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. There are some good options here, but not enough to justify it at all. It just needs to be said --- Rage sucks. It doesn't last nearly long enough and the benefits aren't nearly good enough for the penalties you incur using it. A few minutes +proficiency bonus to damage and advantage on STR checks is nothing compared to the constant +2 damage a fighter can get or a Druid getting her advantage by transforming into a large creature for HOURS. (That's hours, not minutes.) It seems like it gets crappier versions of things other classes do, but with the added suckage of imposing a penalty to use it. (Reckless attack, unarmored defense.) Just a waste.
Ranger: For the first few levels, Beast Master is so weak it may as well be Tier 5 - but once it picks up, it's okay. The Hunter starts slightly stronger but doesn't get much better. The spell list is 'meh', the abilities are 'meh', it's just all around a giant meh. The Ranger gets NOTHING over the other martial classes fight wise, and nothing over the other spellcasting classes magic wise. I've been trying to find a reason to use it beyond flavor's sake, and I just can't. Favored Enemy has possibly the WORST revision I have ever seen --- it makes the Paladin's Smite Evil replacement look positively overpowered.
Obviously, there's a lot more 5E to play and the list might change over time. But I'm very curious for the others how your experience stacks up. How would you rate the classes in the PHB? Favorite/least favorite and so on?
Of course in that case, where some gold and honeyed words would suffice, it does make you question the necessity of wasting a 'dominate' spell in the first place.
The +2 has never been an issue for me, though. Will saves go neglected a lot with my players in favor of AC and damage. You think they would've caught on by now, but somehow I still always have ECL 10 games featuring a fighter whose Will save is a piddling +4.
8)Taking control of characters away from players.
I understand the frustration with this, but at the same time, I think a few rounds of 'losing control' is made out to be much worse than it is. GM's shouldn't get spam happy with it by any means, but honestly, this is treated like a mortal sin when it's barely a besetting sin. Don't do it too often or too zealously and it's okay.
One of my solutions is I still let the player play their PC, but within certain parameters. 'OK, you've succumbed to the vampire's dominate attack and you hear a voice instructing you to help her besiege the village. How would your character do that with his abilities?'
7) "Required items." (Silversheen, Alchemist's Fire, etc.)
In AP's, you have a point. In home games, I think this is a GM failing. Too many GM's fall into the trap of trying to use everything they can find in the Bestiaries. Find a 'type' with a common weakness and (mostly) stick with it. Make your game about Shifters, or Undead, or Trolls or Dragons (with kobolds and Dragonkin lackeys) or humanoid masterminds and use variations on that instead of the kitchen sink approach. That's a personal preference of course - but I feel like themed games create a more cohesive story.
If you are the kitchen sink sort, this is also the easiest fix. Just stop using those abilities on monsters.
6)The perception skill.
Perception is balanced by the fact that only one person in the party actually needs it. So yeah, Acrobatics isn't used nearly as often, but you'll have to all roll it individually. It might be a bit frustrating if the Ranger is making every perception check ever and your Cleric isn't, but A) Clerics are still more powerful and B) if you're not working against each other, you'll still reap the benefits.
5)Stuff you can't fix (at your level)
I agree that nothing at that level should have a permanent duration (Looking at you, Blindness/Deafness) but I think it can be balanced out as long as any of those effects can at least by cured with a night's rest.
4)Required magic items
Agree completely. This is the biggest problem with numbers bloat --- when 5E brought everything back down to reasonable AC, HP, and saves the best part was that it took away the required magic items list. I get tired of magical treasure becoming mundane because everybody is expected to have 300,000gp+ worth of gear.
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
Agree mostly. I pretty much houserule every SoD effect on an attack has a 24-hour immunity on a successful save. Ability and level damage, whatever, but the paralyzing thing is so irritating. Grapple/grab aren't really the worst conditions you can be stuck in and PC's can pretty much do the same thing if they feel like.
2)"Save or suck" & 1) Save or die
Combined since it's pretty much the same thing. But I do hate the All-or-Nothing approach and I would also support moving to a system with less pronounced successful effects in exchange for weaker partial effects if saves are made. 'Cloudkill' is pretty much how I'd like every current SoS spell to work . . . because honestly, at a certain level, you should be able to straight up kill low-level minions or (in the villain's case) peasantry and the town guard without any resistance or saves whatsoever.
Obviously this differentiates from group to group and character to character, but as a general rule:
1) What are your party (and its members if they differ) comfortable with killing?
Things that are either incapable of reason or evil by nature. So demons, devils, undead and so on, as well as destructive animals and magical beasts like bulettes. Constructs, of course.
2) What do they not like killing?
Anything sentient. I, and most of the other DM's, don't typically do 'Always Chaotic Evil' races like orcs, drow, and goblins. If it's something that can be reasoned with, they'll usually reason with it. The only exception are evil spellcasters - necromancers, in particular.
3) What does the DM (or you if you are the DM) really not like being killed, what will they come down upon?
I'm usually pretty loose, but I don't like when they kill lackeys who aren't an immediate threat. Town guards in a corrupt city and the like.
4) What makes a murderhobo for you?
Go here, kill that, rinse, repeat. Doesn't care about motivation or story; just provides XP and loot. That was actually something that really bothered me about a module I played recently where the PC's are tasked with clearing out some orcs about two days' travel from a town. The orcs haven't actually done anything, but it's expected the PC's just go and kill them. There's no major NPC's or interaction written into it. Just there's this many warriors, they have an ogre, kill them all and get money from the mayor.
5) Does ruthlessly killing the villains/bad folk without negotiating make one a murderhobo in your opinion?
Depends on the villains/bad folk and the circumstances. A demon trying to invade the material plane? There's nothing that could possibly be gained by a negotiation. A warlord trying to expand his conquest? Depends.
6) Do you think the violent escapism in pathfinder/dnd is a bad thing, i.e. finding almost any excuse to fight and kill, roll those attack and damage die and see your enemies driven before you?
The great thing about TTRPGs is they are what you make them. That is not necessarily what DnD/PF provides if that's not how you decide to play it. That being said, I don't think playing that way has a deleterious effect, but it may say something about the philosophy of the person playing if that's the only way they ever want to do it.
You have to remember YOU make the world.
The Bestiaries are stat blocks with some flavor to inspire. So, they present a minotaur to use and give you the basics. When you actually run the game, in the world you create, it can be THE minotaur --- a legendary beast at the heart of a labyrinth that an ashamed king has employed the players to destroy for him. If it's not challenging enough, throw on a few levels of Barbarian and make a mid-level party quake.
Succubi can be only THE succubus; a former courtesan who trucked with dark powers for eternal youth and was cursed to seduce victims to their doom to maintain its beauty.
Especially when it comes to big monsters --- "Titans" can become singular; a lone creation of the elemental chaos itself with power that rivals the gods.
They're called source books for a reason. They give you source material to adjust as you feel fit. And if that's not enough for you, the AP's and Revisited books provide plenty of unique, named monsters with full backstories to boot.
All of those, but especially #1. It is so, so much simpler when everyone has a maximum of 6 attacks (TWF Fighter) and just does it. No, Swift-Free-Move, Feat-to-Move-and-Flurry.
Really what I love about 5th ed is so much about what it took out, rather than what it added.
No more Full Attack/Standard Attack distinction. You have 2 attacks? You have 2 attacks.
Fewer skills to keep track of.
No skill points to assign every level.
Fewer feats, meaning fewer trap feats.
No more 1.5x Str multiplier for THF making every other fighting style obsolete.
Using common sense for which attribute to use (STR instead of DEX for thrown, DEX instead of STR for finesse) instead of tying them up with feat taxes.
Someone asked me who my previous post was directed at --- and this right here is a related, if not perfect, example.
Really, other people do this every day. The fact alone that we have a concept of 'emasculation' in our culture is a good indication about how often women are just expected to adjust their attitudes based on the subjective sensibilities of someone else. Yet we almost never argue about what is actually emasculating in that context - it's just generally assumed that they know because they've been taught from early childhood, as women, what sort of things are typically expected by and around men. Every woman I have ever met does this. This is the reality of their lives. And yet here we are again fretting about being asked to do the same thing for others we have grown completely accustomed to expecting from them.
And what's particularly telling is what exactly we are worried about. Like we won't be able to relax because what? Because somebody might unfairly dislike us? Wanna talk about what women have to fear if they step over the line?
It's not an argument worth having. We have some pretty strong guidelines about what should be expected. I think the line is typically a lot clearer than we want to believe because if it is our excuses dry up. But even if you do inadvertently step over it, you just apologize and try to do better. There are no REAL consequences for a slip up. What a freaking gift that is!
I sorta try to avoid this topics now as they get my rankles up... but I can't help it, because this always happens. Someone talks about how you can be more inclusive and the straight white guys inevitably bring up a ridiculous argument about how everyone needs to get over it and NOT being offensive would be its own form of discrimination by not treating people 'equally'. And I hate, hate, hate that argument with a passion.
Maybe there's a point, and maybe somebody gets to say that. But not you. Not me. Not us. Not the people whose entire lives have been defined by others going out of their way not to offend us.
Making a big budget Hollywood movie? Better not make it too black! Or only include women! Hell, you just better not even make it too 'girly' regardless of your male-to-female ratio.
Remember Magic Mike? How many of you actually saw it? Notice the actual ratio of male-to-female nudity in there? Even if you're targeting women in a provocative way you have to include something for their boyfriends in case they get 'dragged' along to see it. Ever see any such consideration given to women?
All this talk about sexy iconics and never once is it considered that it would actually be more than fair if Pathfinder never included a sexualized female character and only focused on the female gaze because it still wouldn't bring the industry close to parity. There was never a point at which heterosexual men were NOT considered as part of the target demographic. Can you say that about any other group?
Want to sell a predominately black musical genre to a white audience? It'd better have a white face stamped on it, even if they're despicable human beings. (Eminem springs to mind.)
Want to make feminism relevant to men? Better list the myriad ways that men are hurt by patriarchy, too - as if subjugating 51% of the population in the guise of tradition wasn't enough of a reason. And you'd better begin every single point by reminding men - mostly straight white men specifically, as the only group of people who predominately have so few actual problems that they have to go looking for them - that you don't hate them or aren't biased toward them.
Stop acting like being asked not to offend is hypersensitive or some great burden on you or like you're the "true" Egalitarian(TM) for not buying it. It's just people asking for the same basic courtesy we've taken for granted since we pretty much got control of the Western world 500 years ago. If we lived in a society that didn't do that, then you might have a case. But since you have ZERO idea what it's like to constantly be expected to just 'get over it' or being diminished, then no, you're not being fair when you're "equally" crude or belittling to everyone you meet. Especially when they're things that can only very specifically target someone for their gender - like rape, for instance - but ultimately no matter what the context.
I usually play Lawful Neutral has having a very strict code of honor, but not one that's particularly altruistic.
My last LN character, for instance, was in our 5E game - a Paladin of Vengeance who believed that everyone must pay for their sins (including himself). He would take a final confession but still execute the guilty as he was absolving their souls by giving them a chance to ask for redemption and doling out the penance they needed for the confession to be accepted.
I did a Half-Orc Fighter based on Charon from Fallout 3. Once he signed a contract, he was unbreakably loyal to the person he'd contract himself to. It never came up, but if his party did ever commit an unspeakable evil (like, raising the dead or selling children into slavery) he would complete his contract with them, but once it was over, all bets were off.
But ultimately, I feel like every alignment has its detractors:
LG - Stick in the mud.
Whole Evil spectrum - Don't want problematic jerks who are going to screw the party when it suits them.
I know too many DM's that see power only as a measure of HP and damage output. I easily play low-Will Save chars in their games because they think a 'challenge' is lots of natural attacks and big damage mods.
I personally hate low Will saves still, but if I really want to try out a certain class - like when the Slayer came out - I wait for those games confident my odds of being dominated are slim-to-nill.
A mounted, knight-type Fighter is the biggest gap. (Paladin would work, but I really can't think of a good Oath that wouldn't just be a rehash of the Oath of Protection.)
A Rogue that focuses on admixtures and splash weapons. (Good alchemist stand-in.)
And definitely more Sorcerer bloodlines. Draconic or Wild is pretty limited.
I don't even know where to begin with this. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
The atomic bomb concern was a small fraction of scientists worried about the possibility of a chain reaction. A better example would be the small fraction of people who thought the large hadron collider would open up a black hole. They were there, certainly, but a fringe group that were almost universally dismissed out of hand. It's hardly anywhere near the consensus we have on climate change.
I don't know enough about China's one-child-policy to say what lead to it, but if what you say is true, then again there's an enormous difference between clinging to policy in light of debunking evidence, and refusing to acknowledge legitimate findings.
Wow, arrogant much? I definitely trust those 'people in lab coats' - that is, people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying and understanding natural phenomena - when they overwhelmingly agree there going to be potentially catastrophic consequences, to the drivel of anti-intellectual knuckle-draggers who think their lack of education on the matter somehow makes their opinions more valid.
Kind of surprised this hasn't come up more. We are in a unique situation where the doomsday warning aren't coming from religions or prophets or mystics - but peer reviewed scientific research.
Again, probably won't wipe humans out (EDIT: completely), but it'll be apocalyptic in that the world on the other side is going to look very different.
OK, so I saw my last post was deleted. I'm not surprised. I was angry when I wrote it - I still am. I'm furious. I wrote that Fergurg, and people like him, are delusional.
I get why my post was deleted. I don't agree with it, but I expected it. However, a few posts beyond that, I find this:
And this is precisely what I'm talking about. Our slavish devotion to an abstract notion of 'civility' (toward other white males who have none for anyone else) has sincerely hampered our position. Unless you catch someone organizing a cross-burning, you can bet calling a racist racist is going to get stamped down hard.
Yet here is someone insinuating that the mayor, who has a black family - who has been touched directly by the brutality and racism of the NYPD - is responsible for the death of an innocent man over TAXES. Here is somebody who has done nothing but try to justify the murder of unarmed black citizens as legitimate police work, now using those same people he denigrated as pawns for some right-wing fantasy about Tax Collecting Death Squads.
What a vile, racist and ridiculous thing to say. What a vile, racist, and delusional position to hold. Fegurg is a very disturbed individual with disturbing views. Yet my post is the 'inflammatory' one for pointing that out?
My guess is this will probably be deleted, too. Something might happen to my account - a temporary suspension or something so I can "calm down" or whatever. But we whites who for too long placed the feelings of racists in our midst above the lives and justice for those who didn't look like us - we are just as responsible for these statistics as the "I Am Darren Wilson" crowd. Every time we legitimized these people, every time we refused to call them what they are, every time we got up on the proverbial stage and shook hands and acted like The Loyal Opposition with murderers we perpetuated that system. There is blood on all of our hands now.
I'm done treating people with respect whose entire existence is one dedicated to the oppression and murder of others. I'll save my respect for their victims.
I think they decided Charisma is almost specifically related to outsider/undead sorta stuff ---- banishment, possession, haunting, etc. The only exception I found was Nothics, who require a Charisma save in order not to reveal a secret about yourself to them.
I prefer balance to optimization. So my ideal would be:
Inquisitor (Cleric) - 6th level casting with heals and some fine skills to boot.
Bard (Thief) - Can face, scout, skill-monkey and pretty much everything better than a rogue.
Ranger (Fighter) - Can do the heavy hitting and back up the Bard as a fellow scout.
Sorcerer (Wizard) - I've said before that Sorcerers would be about the only Full Caster I would keep if we slimmed the class list down. Spontaneous casting keeps it at least somewhat balanced and Sorcerers are just way more interesting, anyway.
I know it's sarcasm, but that's about a perfect summation of FOX News' position.
Pardon the expression, but there are few issues on the scene right now that are as black and white as this one. (The only one that immediately springs to mind is torture.) You are on the side of victims, or you are on the side of the murderers. This is not left vs right, law and order vs civil liberties. This is as close to being on the side of objective good versus objective evil you will ever get.
Look at the photos from the 1950's and 60's, where the cops turned firehoses on civil-rights protesters and consider for a long while, if you'd been raised in that era, whose side you would be on.
^--- All of that. Also, semi-related, but you want to talk underpaid? More fast food workers are killed per capita than cops and their asking to be paid more than the minimum wage is met with derision and anger by the same people who defend criminal cops. I'll leave it there so as not to hijack, but it really gets my cackles up.
There's a definite problem with the police, especially when interacting with minority groups.
Truthfully, it can probably be traced back to our unique relationship with slavery and how this made America distinct from its European fellows in its development of white supremacy. The way-too-simplified explanation would probably be, whereas European white supremacy was outwardly focused and expansionist, America's looked inward. Rich European immigrants experienced uprising and revolts of both slaves and poor white immigrants - usually brought over as little more than slaves themselves - and learned quickly to divide and conquer. Keep institutionally powerless lower-class whites looking down, afraid of blacks rising to their very limited station, so they wouldn't look up and see whose boot was on the back of their neck. The very institution of the municipal police department is at its core racist, an extension of this meant to insulate white communities and cow minority ones into submission.
To put it succinctly, it working precisely how it is designed to work.