|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
Not necessarily. In PF, a certain amount of magical equipment is assumed by each level. Less magical equipment would mean my martials would be functionally useless in a PF game.
Thia is something old school I'd like to see make a comeback. Far fewer magic items, but the ones that exist have epic names and stories behind them, rather than just +X whatever.
My 5E game has 5th level characters and they've yet to find a magic weapon, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them at all. (In fairness, the party has a Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric; but the Paladin and Fighter are still effective.)
Actually, the only magical equipment they've found thus far is a quest item with a minor effect. But it felt a lot more special than buying enchantments when they're in town.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
My peeve is getting interested in joining a new campaign but being told for the 497th time in a row "Core only." Since 2nd edition I've been buying just about every sourcebook I could get my hands on from TSR, then WotC, then Paizo. And I read up and find some new race/class/feat/build that makes me want to play it. Only I'll give my idea to the GM and he'll say "Oh, I'm not allowing that." I don't think I ever got to play in a 2e game with the training wheels off, and I can only think of 1 3e game I got to play a later core class (Warblade from Book of 9 Swords - thank you SlyFlourish!). To be fair, I did get approved to try a duskblade in another game, but the game folded before I got to write it up.
Core Only is one of my major pet peeves, too. I often limit my games around a certain theme or I might say no to particular class/race combinations, but if I'm going to the DM, I do the heavy lifting of making sure it's balanced and appropriate. My biggest complaint about DM's is cutting things arbitrarily. I got banned from playing an alchemist by a DM because he hadn't bothered to read the class and didn't want to.
You know what I hate? Ninjas. You know what class I read all about anyway? Ninjas. You know what class I let my players choose if they're so inclined? Ninjas.
Also going to chime in with the chorus of people who can't stand Chaotic Evil Chaotic Neutral players. I love Chaotic Neutral. It's one of my favorite alignments since it is so freeing. But I know any DM that sees "CN" on my character sheet is going to groan and roll her eyes because too many players have used it as a license to kill, brutalize, rape and pillage indiscriminately.
I think yes and no here. On the one hand, 5E character abilities are scaled to be much more balanced with one another. They function on a level that offers a more blurry delineation than the PF divide between classes. On the other, 5E actively encourages building the character as more than an arbitrary set of numbers by tying several skills, languages, and proficiencies to their background. I love character building - in between games, I often come up with characters for fun.
Currently, I'd still say I prefer the 5E rules. Although when I want to build something silly, I go straight for PF. Mechanics-wise, it's the difference between Lord of the Rings and Conan the Barbarian to me ---- both have their place, but PF is better for romps and campiness than serious character building.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Off-topic (sorta), and not to make it too political, but whether I prefer PF or 5E, I hope no matter what Paizo continues to thrive. Even though it's looking like my group will be converting to 5E (for the forseeable future, anyway), I will continue to buy material from Paizo - not just because I enjoy the art, iconic characters, fiction, and AP's - but because I like the company. I like what they stand for. Too many companies undervalue what their corporate philosophy means to their customers. And I like that it seems their influence is pushing WotC in a more inclusive direction. (RPGPundit and Zak Smith controversy aside.)
David Bowles wrote:
I'd say Rogue, personally. Since skill points don't exist any longer, being able to double your proficiency in two skills is a lot tastier. And you don't get to double any of those static bonuses you get as a fighter when you critical hit any longer, but you do get to double your sneak attack dice.
As to which class is most powerful, I STILL say Diviner Wizard (You get to choose two rolls a day that you succeed or the bad guy fails. Either way, you basically get to make it work to your advantage twice. And I promise spells aren't as bad as you think.) but Rogues definitely take the cake for most buffed.
The 3.PF rogue is beyond fixing, to me. It was built in a system that doesn't support it. You can't 'fix' it without changing the underlying mechanics of the either the class or the game.
I still find Sorcerers lackluster, though. I hated them in 3.5, loved them in PF, and just feel sorry for them in 5E. WotC seems to have a grudge against the poor Sorcerer for reasons I'll never understand.
Somewhat back on topic, one of the things I appreciate most about 5E is the dismantling of "Save or Die" spells. There are a still a few high level "I Win" buttons, but saves and DCs never reach the absurd heights they do in 3.PF. So no more, it's a complete waste of time to cast "Hold Monster" on a caster-type enemy, but no more Charm the Heavy-Hitting mook and combat is over, either.
As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people… Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. --- Also Paul the Apostle. There's good and bad in all holy books, but the bad is REALLY bad. Morality isn't a zero sum game.
I'll also have to retract my earlier statement about New Zealand in light of the additional information. Guess there's none. Wait . . . maybe Iceland?
Nobody ruin Iceland for me.
I feel like channel isn't that great. Sure, you could roll high, but typically - like sneak attack - you never roll high enough for the level you're at that it'll matter. The spontaneous cure spells are marginally better since you add your CL, but eh, in combat healing is never that spectacular.
Control is largely dependent on domains. But you've never been impressed with the cleric's ability to do damage? Really? Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, and so on and so on . . .
David Bowles wrote:
Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.
Blech. I'll watch all of my friends die painfully before I play a healbot. In 5E especially, support-style clerics have so many buffs/debuffs that if you're healing in combat, you've already failed at your job.
But in fairness, that was my philosophy in PF, too. My Cleric is either all about control or doing damage. And then, if you really need it, when we're done I'll throw down some channels.
Usual Suspect wrote:
As examples; the Catholic Church (and the Vatican) is clearly not lawful good but does have a lawful and just society as a goal that we would call lawful good. But as any large institution is inevitably prone to corruption the Catholic Church has problems with abuse of power and position as well as institutional attempts to whitewash current and past events that put the church in a bad light. Any political institution (which means any country and any large religious organization) can ascribe to lofty goals like being a just society.
I wouldn't call any city-state whose utopian ideals include the subjugation of women and non-believers "good".
Hence the problem with every Abrahamic religious organization. It's not that they're bad when they're corrupt; it's that they're bad when they're following their teachings to the letter.
David Bowles wrote:
You're still increasing the CR in those instances. Point is CR 1 is still a joke for an actual Lv 1 party.
David Bowles wrote:
I know nothing of the 5th ed CR system. Any dev bad at math can incorrectly assign any monster a CR in any system, however.
True. Just pointing out the difference, for me at least, was that in 3.PF it seemed like it was almost always a gross underestimation, as opposed to a gross overestimation like it is in 5E. If something was "CR 1" when we started a game, I usually needed 2-3 of them to provide an appropriate challenge with slight exception. (Ghouls, for instance - although even those were a joke if you had a mostly-to-all elf party.)
I'd say probably the closest is New Zealand. No lawful state on earth will ever be good, since the entire history of the world is one of oppressors' victory over the oppressed, (Human beings are just terrible. Every revolution pretty much begets another wave of abuse.) but they were the first to give women the vote, they have recognized seats in their government for the indigenous, and they have some of the lowest rates of crime, very little political corruption, and one of the best track records on universal human rights in the world.
And for being so good and inoffensive, we typically forget to include them on our maps.
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not...
Unrelated to the caster thing, but I have to say that it's interesting that in such a stripped down system, 5E demands players be more tactically astute than the rules-heavy 3.PF model.
The Monster Manual pretty much hands out advantage to GM's like candy. Even the staple of low-level counters - 1/4 CR wolves - become deadly if you throw more than one of them in there. (Automatic advantage when in a pack, and DC 13 trip attempts on every attack.)
A Level 1 Fighter in 3.PF could probably kill a dozen rats without breaking a sweat. I almost killed our party fighter with 4 of them, due to the new finesse attack/damage rules.
In PF I always had to throw harder CR's at my players to make the encounters challenging. In 5E I'm wondering what drunk hobo thought "1/8" was an appropriate challenge rating for something that can knock out your fighter in two hits.
Well, our level 1 sorcerer did single-handedly end an encounter with 5 goblins last session.... so I can say with certainty it's not unheard of for a caster to hold up by themselves. (Like I said - Sleep is still a great equalizer. Probably moreso now that that there's no save.)
David Bowles wrote:
Not necessarily. You're screwed in the healing department, you're all (pretty much) facing the same bad saves, and since proficiency replaced BAB you're not really getting a lot more out of being a martial class attack wise until the mid-levels, when spells take a jump in power.
I think it's quite possible to go all caster or all martial in 5E. I will say that in modules, considering their emphasis on straight P v E combat over ingenuity or role-playing, martials will have a much easier time of it. But a caster party isn't without merit. (A well-timed sleep spell still ends nearly every encounter faster and cleaner than Greatsword swinging fighter.)
You can still disengage (certain tank builds notwithstanding). And that again is where I say it encourages party support. And it makes Sentinel feats and the Defense fighting style viable.
David Bowles wrote:
I disagree with your last statement. I think there is a VERY real chance of getting crushed by a martial, because once they are adjacent, you can't get away. And cranking down spell slots seems to me to be cranking down choice. Maybe I'm just looking at it very differently.
I actually like that quite a bit. Essentially, D&D is a party based system, meaning that no class should be a one man show. You need every member of a party to effectively do different things.
So casters really shouldn't be able to get away from martials. In a party, the martials should be killing opposing casters or trying to prevent the other beat sticks from killing their caster.
The caster, depending on the type, should either be killing scores of smaller enemies, buffing their allies and debuffing opponents, or shaping the battlefield so it is more advantageous toward their group.
Casters should cast and martials should . . . uh, martial. I could see a two-adventurer party with a Battle Master Fighter and Diviner Wizard being more dangerous than the standard group of 4.
David Bowles wrote:
That is helpful in recommendations, at least.
If you think martials got shafted in 3.5/Pathfinder, you'll probably see 5E as a godsend.
If you think PF is balanced already, you'll probably find 5E completely unfair.
David Bowles wrote:
I have seen them. And casters are eviscerated in 5th. No channel. No summons.
You can still summon as a Caster. (Conjure X spells exist) And they do have channel?
Summoning is powerful, but I wouldn't even say it's the most powerful thing you can do as a conjurer. (Black Tentacles, Pit spells, Glitterdust, and so on.)
I guess it is a pointless argument - different strokes, and all that - but I've found casters to still be incredibly powerful.
David Bowles wrote:
Dude, have you seen the cantrips in this edition? Unlimited Xd6-Xd12/day at range with several feats and class features that allow you to add your casting stat to it?
I'm playing a Cleric with the War domain right now who currently has more attacks than our fighter and does more damage per swing. (Though that'll change around 5th level, as it should.) Plus spells get stupid powerful in the higher levels.
The only real difference I can see is it lets martial characters actually do their schtick instead of forcing everyone go into archery so they can get their full attack routine reliably.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. I feel like a big part of the reason that it works in 5E is because they ditched touch AC and tied a save to every single stat instead of the Big 3.
Dex-to-Damage could work in PF, but there needs to be some balancing against str. And something still needs to be done about archery.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Sorry, if someone has already done this (there's 150 posts between this and mine) but I wanted to respond.
I actually was one of those people who decried Dex-to-Damage in 5th Ed. But with a little digging you see reasons why it actually isn't too overpowered:
At first blush, it seems like dex-to-damage is overpowered . . . and truthfully, archery still is, but it is in Pathfinder, too . . . but it works out.
This mirrors my experience perfectly. In my group, the other GM's nerfed rogues hard due to some misunderstandings about how a lot of things work. One broken rogue played completely ignoring rules for moving through threatened squares, concealment/cover, and sneak attack not multiplying on a critical hit and they were convinced this was the most powerful class ever.
The funny thing is, all of those broken rules just let him stay on par with the Two-Handed Fighter damage wise - and it required a critical hit to do so.
Beast Rider Archer Cavalier.
You lose out on Heavy Armor (pfft - who needs it?) for an AWESOME mount. Go with an archer build - I like the halfling sling staff, but since you're probably dumping STR, a bow works just as well.
Choose a T-rex mount and you're playing a prehistoric pigmy. If that doesn't go against the typical Halfling, I don't know what does.
You know i have no problem with Str to AC, actually it makes much more sense than charisma to ac
I actually get that. I sort of equated it with being supernaturally lucky.
Wisdom - You listen to the secrets of the aether and understand them.
Charisma - The aether listens to your whims and understands you.
Wisdom to AC - You "hear" what everything is telling you and see the blow incoming in time to dodge out of the way.
Cha to AC - Suddenly everything is just slightly out of place to the aggressor; the target isn't where he thought it was, or something shifted his balance ever so slightly, knocking his trajectory off course.
-Stopped prepping so much. I used to have enormous stories that I wanted to tell; grand-sweeping sagas that put the fate of the universe in the players' hands. I had booklets filled with information, world building, special rules --- and campaigns that fell apart after a few sessions. Now I've learned to go with the flow and let the story occur naturally. Start with a very simple setup and see what they want to do with it.
-Not letting people split the party and hog the spotlight. Party splits are inevitable, but when it happens I spend no more than 10 minutes with each and find excuses to get them back together ASAP.
Still needs improvement:
-Coddling players. I let too many things slide. I finally put the kibosh on god-stats and epic rolling. (2d6+6) But I'm still hesitant to let characters die. I think it's important to find the balance between feeling empowered and being challenged at alternate times in a campaign, but I've yet to find that balance.
(Am glad to say that in my last 5E session, the boss did take two characters to 0 HP and it was only a judicious use of Inspiration that saved them. Very proud moment for me as a GM.)
-Not describing things as well as I think I am. Obviously I have a very clear picture of what things look like, but communication is a tricky thing.
-Flip side of that going with the flow is I too often try to let players dictate what happens next. My other great fear as a GM is railroading, so I try to leave things open ended enough that they always have choices. Unfortunately, those threads aren't always as visible as I think they are, and I end up having to push one way or the other.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Stealing horses because you'd rather not pay even though you could: CE.
I think you could still argue the last one is CN, depending on the circumstances. In the circumstances he described, yes, I'd say so. But what if the person you're stealing from is an enormous jerk? Stealing because someone mistreated you seems more along the L/C axis than G/E to me. And what if it was someone who could afford it? I probably wouldn't cause anyone to rewrite "E" on their sheet because they stole a bunch of horses from a stuffy nobleman. It's not good per se, but it creates an inconvenience rather than doing lasting harm. I might make a Paladin answer for it, but the CN Rogue would be safe.
The Human Diversion wrote:
I get that. I just don't get how that's a counter to my argument that nothing really separates them conceptually?
EDIT: OK, I think that's a response to when I said "aside from being better at everything" about the Slayer.
While Rogues do get a better SA progression, that's balanced by losing out on full-BAB and the Slayer also gets the Studied Target for +x to hit and damage. I'd say the ST + SA is still overall better than a full SA progression.
So let's look at the facts:
1) You're in a 10-point buy. Every MAD class is out.
2) Your GM is always looking to destroy companions.
Synthesist Summoner. Dump everything but CHA (keep CON at 10 for level up) and make your GM cry. 2nd level go Lore Oracle so you can add CHA to AC and eventually qualify for that feat that lets Divine casters add their CHA to all saves.
Pretty much everything but your to-hit/damage is going to be covered by CHA, and that won't be too shabby thanks to your merged form. The GM can focus on attacking the "companion" still, but that means having to go toe-to-toe with you, and you can buff yourself out the wazoo and litter the battlefield with critters at the same time.
Sadly, this will suck for the other party members, but if it comes down to that or dying every other session, I say this might make him reconsider 10-point buy. All it does is lock players into boxes without actually making things more challenging.
I'm confused about what you're saying is untrue here?
Additional thoughts after playing a few more 5E sessions. Some of these are just observations, rather than a judgment on whether it's superior to PF:
Wow, do they suck. After years of getting used to Fighters being such a disappointment that I'd just play a Ranger, I'm finding the reverse to be true. There's nothing a Ranger gets that a Fighter won't do better. And the new Favored Enemy bonuses are so situational that they'll almost never be used at most tables. The Beast Master archetype is the lamest thing I've ever seen. You sacrifice your attack to make your companion take a (much weaker) attack. Perhaps someone here sees something I don't, since I'm still new to it obviously, but I can't find much redeemable about them. Seems like Rangers are the Rogue/Monk of 5E. Speaking of which -
Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are kind of spectacular
Part of that, of course, is the new feat system. But also considering the bonded accuracy and the Monks Dex-to-Attack/Damage option being built into the class, you have a pretty amazing build from Level 1. A TWF Fighter is probably the best damage option at early levels, with a Dueling fighter coming in close behind. Rogues are at the top of the skills again, providing something very different from Bards. (Excellent mods in a couple of important skills for the Rogue versus good mods in all of them for the Bard.) And with the way crits work now, more damage dice is actually better than a flat modifier.
Magic is broken, still
I think I see where they were going with this. The idea is that, even with bonded accuracy, a Fighter will put more points into Dex/Str than a Wizard, and have more weapon options, so he'll come out ahead. Which he does, kinda --- but really, a Sorc/Wiz will probably use a finesse weapon and pump Dex, so it's all the same. Spells (especially Cantrips) should've been weakened or their accuracy dropped.
Magic is improved, kinda
A lot of 1st-Level spells are actually weaker now, but they also work in a better way. QED, I'm playing a Cleric with the War Domain in a friend's game. One of my 1st level spells is Divine Favor, which lets me add 1d4 Radiant(Holy) damage to each of my attacks for 1-minute. Not really that much, but it also lets me cast as a bonus action - so I get to cast and attack. I love this. It's not system-breakingly powerful, but it lets me buff at the beginning of combat and do damage in a way that highlights how my battle cleric is different from a strict martial.
The difference is very GM/Player dependent
I know, that seems obvious. But the two biggest mechanics in the game - Advantage and Inspiration - require the GM to remember and use them. They aren't built into stat blocks or attacks the way most PF bonuses are. Last game we played our GM didn't remember either and it played very similar to a Pathfinder session, but with smaller total numbers. I forgot during an encounter with some Worgs and found my players stomping over it like they often do with PF characters. (Those pack tactics probably would've ripped the group to shreds, in retrospect.) When I remembered to use Inspiration, I saw a profound change in the behavior of my players. You will always have the different gaming types, but my combat-lovers were thinking through ways to fight *in-character*, rather than just trying to find the "best" options. 5E is a lot easier to learn to play than PF, but I think it requires much more advanced GMing --- you need to be at a level where you're comfortable taking a lot of initiative yourself. Even a module will require you to think on your feet and be on the lookout for opportunities to foster role-play or play up smart tactics so your baddies can have Advantage/negate Disadvantage to provide a real challenge.
I think you misunderstood what modularity means. It doesn't mean that you will be able to make 5E look like 4E, 3E, or 2E (that would be impossible).
Do not try to bend the finished editions--- that would be impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There are no finished editions.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I feel like even THAT has to be handled with tact, shouldn't be introduced until you've properly gotten to know the vibe at the table, and still should be used very, very sparingly. (Aside from any other offense it may cause, rape to establish that this is a 'dark' campaign is cliche.)
But what Tequila Sunrise described is just sick. Even if they were evil characters, even if the DM enforced that and made them rewrite all of their character sheets --- some things are just so beyond the pale of human decency I couldn't imagine how anyone would want to play it out in a board game in the first place.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I kind of see the point there . . . but typically "god's" wants line up very nicely with the rest of the community's. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse - but typically the iconoclasts of theocracies often still see themselves as on god's side; they just have a different interpretation of the rules than the leaders and most worshipers do.
There's no fixing the Rogue.
Well, let me clarify - it's been fixed. Any fixes now will just make it more like a Slayer. (Best combat rogue) or more like an Investigator (Best skill monkey rogue) Now, yes, I understand people are like, "But that's a Slayer now! We need to fix the Rogue!"
Why bother? It's a waste of intellectual time and, if it were implemented, a waste of print space. You have two very good classes that fill your Rogue role. Three if you count the Bard, but for flavor's sake, the Slayer and Investigator ARE closer. Besides the name and being better at everything, what REALLY differentiates a Slayer from a Rogue? A few things technically. Nothing conceptually.
And really, other fixes are just going to make it do (more) things other classes do better, anyway.
Combat feats? That's a fighter.
There are a lot of sacred cows that need to be slaughtered for every new iteration of the 3.PF rules, and the Rogue is chief among them. Rip every wasted paragraph that deals with the Rogue out. Or rip out the Slayer and put that statblock over the old Rogue. Or take Arcane Trickster out of PrC, make it a 1-20 base class, and boom - new "rogue".
I like that, but I'd say it would probably require less pejorative names. Maybe Communal and Independent? Social and Libertarian? (Capitalized for alignments, but in the small 'l' Dictionary definition sense of the word.) Societal and Individual?
The Lion Cleric wrote:
This actually is the one thing that really bothers me in 5E. Dex is a god stat, for certain. The only real way STR has an advantage is from the Great Weapon Master feat, and that's STILL pathetic compared to the ranged-equivalent Sharpshooter feat.
I'll probably still go STR when I feel it fits the character concept, but I don't like feeling gimped for it.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
I like to play good looking, human height, non humans. I find that sooo many GMs are rigid and conservative, so I often wind up playing elves and half-elves. But I'd love to explore Aasmimar, Tieflings, Dhampir, Catfolk, but again, many GMs have a stick up their @$$ with this stuff.
In fairness, after a lot of the Aasimars/Tieflings (ESPECIALLY Tieflings) I've seen played, I understand GM's not wanting them around. Too much of the same wangsty, special snowflake BS over and over and over. And anthros? Well, I could share some links about what turns people off to anthros, but I'd be banned from the forums.
I ditch "Lawful" and "Chaos" referring to anything except the law of the land. It's stupid - everyone has a personal code. Even 'Do what feels good' is a code. An experienced mercenary is no less 'disciplined' than a Monk. (If she weren't disciplined, she'd be dead!) Personality like that is too nuanced to capture with a single descriptor.
So, the difference as I see it, using Civil War era America to compare (using modern day would just invite way too many flame wars, and spoilered to avoid Wall 'o Text):
LG - Obey the just the laws, and work to overturn the unjust ones. Say you're living in a slave state. You do not ferret slaves away in the night, but you work within the system to change the law so that holding to the letter also means doing the right thing. You try to influence without forcing. Harriet Beecher Stowe is the LG.
NG - You might try to change the laws like LG, but you'll also break them easily for the Greater Good. Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth (really, anyone involved with the Underground Railroad) are the NG actors during the Civil War.
CG - Upheaval is the name of the game. The system is broken and has to be eradicated rather than changed from within. The attitude of revolutionaries, one can easily swing from Lawful to Chaotic depending on how broken they think the system is. John Brown is the obvious example.
LN - I don't like the "letter of the law" interpretation. That's LE to me. LN probably doesn't like everything about the law, but they think the sacrifices to change it won't be worth the overall gains. So they try to maintain the status quo. Abraham Lincoln, who did everything he could to preserve the Union, while largely ignoring the issue of slavery until he couldn't any longer, is the LN.
TN - Most everybody in the world, then and now. TN officially comes in two varieties: The "balance in all things", over-the-top pre-3.5 D&D Druids, but that type doesn't really exist (not often enough to consider) - and the people who are just more concerned with their own goings-on to consider larger implications. We're all this to some degree. Admit it or not, without a sincere effort, we all participate in a global economy whose foundation exploits the most vulnerable to keep us comfortable. (Sound familiar?) Most of us either don't know or don't care enough about the status quo that we preserve it by just existing, though we're not really trying the way a LN person would.
CN - Upsets things for the sake of upsetting things. Doesn't care whether the system is broken or not; they just want to see it go. They don't like order or boredom. Like TN but with a more universal motivation. (Alternatively: Too broken and/or mad to understand their own motivations, but not really malicious.)
LE - If LG wants to redefine what the law is to be more in line with good, LE wants to redefine what "good" is to more in line with the law. LE says keeping slaves is okay, so slavery is now good - and good is worth fighting for. Obviously, the Secessionists fill this role.
NE - Like TN with a sadistic streak. They're not the ones trying to change the laws, but they'll probably root for the LE side. That's where they'll thrive, obviously. But even if the LE side loses, NE will find other ways to engage its sadism. They try to push the Law in line with what they want, but they'll break the hell out of it in the interim. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest is the NE.
CE - Upset the system by dint of their existence. Unlike other Lawful/Chaotic alignments, may not even know or care one way or the other about the system, because whatever society's rules or expectations are, they will violate them in the most flagrantly inhuman way possible. The violation is the message. Not necessarily Civil War specific, but Marie Delphine LaLaurie is a great example.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
This - and also, it's no fun for the DM. I have run alternately for a party of only Fighters and only Monks. I very quickly made things appropriate. (Not even necessarily reducing CR - but the Fighter party found themselves facing a lot of bruisers and fewer mind-affecting creatures, while the Monks were just the opposite.)
But when I have to run for a Conjurer, a Barbarian, an Elemental Sorcerer, and a hardily unoptimized Rogue (Rapier and Crossbow. Just, really?) - well, things goes to hell real quickly. You're left with either A) Unchallenged players, B) A player sitting on the sidelines, or C) The rest of the party having to spend most of their turns reviving the rogue. It added a new level of difficulty for everybody for all of the wrong reasons.
really? I thought that episode did an excellent job of tying together and balancing all the themes from this season. Clara as doctor, Is the Doctor a good man? Clara and Danny's relationship, The doctor having soldiers that do his dirty work for him, etc.
It did try to tie a lot of things together, but here's why I still say it fell flat: (spoilered for brevity)
I feel like the Dr's reconciliation with whether he was a good man was anticlimactic. I mean, we've already done this bit. The "Am I good man?", darkest hour motif was done to death for the past 2 seasons, and reached its conclusion. (Seems like even the writers knew it - there's a joke where he nonchalantly mentions it in passing.) If Season 1-4 were the Doctor coming to terms with what he did to Gallifrey, then season 5-7 are about the Doctor coming to terms with whether he is moral enough for the power he wields. (Sometimes asked by him, sometimes by other people.) By the end of S7, the question is answered definitively.
But my problem with the tying together of the soldier theme was that it made no sense in the first place. You realize he developed this particular character quirk of the Doctor in the incarnation for whom it makes the least sense specifically to make it happen. It doesn't emotionally resonate because he broke a cardinal sin of writing by starting with the end and making everything fit into that.
(Also, the bit about the Dr using others so he doesn't get his hands dirty was also explored much better in S4. But that was a while ago, so I won't knock points off for it.)
For the Clara and Danny Pink relationship, I almost buy the "love is a promise" thing (It's hokey to me - but whatever. Obviously if I hated hokey things, I would never have watched Doctor Who.) but Danny Pink very clearly continues to show emotion right after that scene. Why do emotionless Cyberman need an inspiring speech? They don't. Why would he feel the need to give it? He wouldn't. Sure, okay, we'll stay on board with love keeping him loyal to Clara over The Master (Mistress my @#%. There's no reason to change the name.) but the rest of it is mind-bogglingly stupid. It's a microcosm of why Clara has been such a terrible companion - there's no "why" to anything she does. She just does whatever the writer (usually Moffat) thinks would be cool for her to do.
It doesn't really make sense for emotionless Danny Pink to do what he did. But Moffat wanted a big rousing speech --- so there it is.
But the WORST, WORST part was the resolution between him and The Master, for two reasons:
1. Here are two characters that are supposed to have a complex love-hate relationship, unsure of what to do without the other. The last time the Doctor met the master, he begged him to give it up and come with him. He cried in agony when he watched him die. This time? Meh. Complete indifference.
2. The Doctor doesn't kill. Discounting the old series here - look at Who since the revival in 2005. For nearly a decade, we've been sold on a character who will choose mercy over justice every single time. Who understands there will always be more justifications and more justifications. Yet all of that goes out the window, and no more is said of it. The Doctor gets to keep his 'pacifist' cred on a technicality because the former director of Unit killed The Master first. The end of the episode sets up the next big conflict being the fact he and Clara lied to one another when they promised not to.
Oh, and I forgot to say, I really don't like adventure paths and I was disappointed that Tyranny of Dragons was one, instead of a more sandboxy campaign.
I actually love the AP style. I mean, has enough really changed that we need new Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, and/or Greyhawk source books? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to translate the previous edition's sourcebooks to make it fit, either way.
I can do sandbox-y just fine. But sometimes trying to make a coherent story come together over a period of weeks can be a little difficult if I'm on a downswing. The AP's provide a nice break from hardcore DMing to let me play on "Easy" mode for a while.
EDIT: And oh yeah, lorenlord, I'm quite pleased to see how this is going, too! Was a little worried it might devolve into a flame war, but this has been really interesting so far.