|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Now imagine the 1st level wand of Grow Tree.
This creates full sized, permanent trees. If the trees lasted 1 hr/lvl, maybe it would be good as a first level spell. It would also need some language about not being able to rend structures, in order to not be used as a first level siege engine/door destroyer.
For permanent trees that can do damage (thorn bushes or the aforementioned utility uses) I would say level three with a minor component cost. Then you can reverse it to "Destroy Tree" which would completely eliminate normal sized plants and damage larger ones. You could also create a Shape Tree spell to make a tree suit your purposes better (shelter, increased hardness, thorns, Goodberries, etc...)
Nirmathas. I ran Crypt of the Everflame and loved the fluff for the place. Full of forests. Beset by political rivals to the south. Beset by orcs to the north west. Supported by the Paladins of Lastwall to the northeast. Framed by mountains to the west and a lake to the east. Nice for wilderness games.
What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.
This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.
Paladins arent special because their way is the most effective way to fight evil, but because theirs is the best example to set to other good people as a representative of good deities. Antipaladins, therefore, should be similar exemplifiers of the cruel malevolence of their masters. This does not necessitate stupidity any more than paladinhood does, but an antipaladin should be on the lookout for opportunities to do evil, to spread misery and fear, to selfishly increase his own power.
An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.
The feat says you have to have the potion in hand at the beginning of the turn. To me, that means that you could retrieve the potion with your tail on turn one while making a move and standard action, and drink the potion as a move action on turn 2.
As for potions vs weapons, without the Quickdraw feat, a character with +1 BAB can draw a weapon as a free action as part of a move action.
From the SRD:
"...you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement."
So it is not Draw+Move+Standard, but Draw/Move+Standard.
It does seem to me that there are some balance issues, but I also think that I might eliminate Sorcerers and Wizards and make Arcanists the new Arcane Paradigm, depending on the final product. I like the idea of having access to all the spells via spellbook, but I am not a fan of Vancian memorization. Memorizing a few but casting them at will is right up my alley.
I feel like penetrating DR is more in tune with the pure power of axes, rather than the finesse of swords.
I admit that I am at a loss for what -would- display for the finesse of swords, and for that, I apologize. I like the options you have made for these three styles a lot, but the other two are for heavy bludgeoning and piercing weapons on a general basis, where this one is for swords (or axes) specifically. Though I do feel that swords and axes are sufficiently different in style and theme to warren their own distinct entries.
Paladins are Iconic in their dedication to a personal code (Lawful) and of protecting the innocent and smiting the wicked (good). I think the problem came in with antipaladins. They were made to be dark counterpoints to paladins, but acting within a certain code of behavior is the antithesis of chaos. There are plenty of ways to be an evil opponent to a paladin without making up a class. However, they opened the door for other alignments getting special archetype classes, which people now demand even though they are thematic stretches at best.
That said, I think Paladins would work much better as a PRC. You design a character toward being a Paladin, pass the required tests, earn your powers (and retain them) through obeying your code, and then continue developing as a warrior or cleric when you have finished with your ten PRC levels.
I think 9/10 of the beef people have with Paladins are that one alignment gets a nice thing (even though it doesn't really work with other alignments thematically) and that the alignment in question is LG, which a large and vocal portion of the player base hates with far more fervor than a couple of Lawful Stupid/Jerk players justifies.
Need help with ideas for building the most classic, archetypal fantasy RPG campaign as possible for my sons' first serious campaign.
Assassins don't have full BAB because they are not specialized at fighting. They are specialized at killing. Waiting for the perfect shot and taking it. Someone who kills somebody in a fight is an assassin in the same way the Conan is a thief because he kills all the guards so he can steal things.
Classes with precision based abilities are supposed to take advantage of situational modifiers, not just stand there and trade blows with melee types.
I don't see what the problem is with the old standby:
If you don't like it, don't have it in your game.
I personally am not a fan of most of the new races in the ARG, but it doesn't hurt the game to have them. In fact, it gives people more options for fun play in their style, so it's a great book for the game, even if I don't use it in mine.
The problem is that one side is calling wrongbadfun, which is never productive. Don't worry about what other people like. Play the game that you like.
Meanwhile, a lot of the people on the other side are waxing elitist, implying that those of us who like our JRRT are small minded, backward, and old fashioned, and those of us who limit players in any way are overbearing control freaks, and are having wrongbadfun ourselves. Don't worry about what other people like. Play the game that you like.
I don't mean to imply that all PvPers are children, but that there is a significant segment of the MMO player base that thinks that the shenanigans displayed on that video are not only funny, but acceptable and justifiable. You can bring the adults into the community, but some people just want to watch the world burn.
If the designers are serious about stopping it, that's awesome, but i'm unsure about how effective they can be, unless they are willing to bring the ban hammer down liberally in the first weeks of launch.
We can say we don't want it, but, realistically, what can be put in place to stop it? The perpetrators will simply claim that they are roleplaying Chaotic Neutral, and the people in charge won't want to permaban twenty or thirty accounts.
Video games attract young people (read: teenagers and children), and young people think this sort of thing is funny. In an open PvP game this sort of thing can't really be stopped, and it will drive players away. I understand that the project doesn't have enough money behind it to hire the people to write and create enough PvE content to make the game viable, but you have to wonder if all the time, effort, and resources are going to go right down the drain when PvP greifing drives away all of the playerbase aside from PvP greifers
Zhayne, do you really expect them to produce eight distinct sub orders of paladins in order to satisfy a group that is clearly in the minority?
There are plenty of resources out there for off alignment "paladins". Use one, or make your own, if your goal is to broaden your experience.
If your goal is to be accepted as "right" or to effect a change in the game, I wouldn't hold your breath on either account.
I don't know what's wrong with the notion of houseruling. You want Paladins of other alignments? Include them in your game. You don't need (nor will you likely get) validation for your preferences from Paizo, particularly when so many are content with things the way they are. Will your CG paladin be somehow -less- if it doesn't have the official rubber stamp on it? Will it not be as fun to play? If either of these are the case, the issue runs deeper than a problem with Paladins.
Just play things the way you want to play them.
Humans are typically the center of game worlds because the audience of the games is (shocker) primarily human!
Some people like fantastic worlds populated by otherworldly creatures, but being a human interacting with all the fantasy. Essentially, playing themselves on an alien world interacting with alien beings.
Most demihumans play like humans with hats on because it would be an intellectual exercise with diminishing narrative returns to develop a race with a sentience unlike humans. Instead, we get beings that think the same, but are culturally different.
When you conceive of the core setting as an entry point for new players, a human-centric setting is a good idea. Experienced players who do not like this generally have the skills to craft their own worlds to suit their own preferences.
I think referring to those with alternate viewpoints as "impotent plebeians" in inappropriately insulting.
It is also an obvious attempt to display an elevated mastery of vocabulary, which is sadly lacking, as they were neither powerless (they got what they wanted) not were they an underclass (despite your claims of minority, they got what they wanted).
You have an axe to grind. Awesome. Slow your roll and keep things polite.
He has disdain for the law and those who enforce it, and has no problem breaking the law to do what he thinks is right.
His issue is not merely with lawbreakers, but those who harm the innocent. It's an opposition to evil, not chaos.
I can see slayer over Ranger, though. Frankly I forgot about them.
I only stayed away from Gunslinger because, while Frank uses guns, they are a means to an end. He doesn't do trick shots or anything like that.
He's really-really good at hunting down and killing evil people, but I agree with you entirely on the non-good argument. I stayed away from Evil because he gets no personal benefit from his actions, and, indeed, suffers a great deal for them. His actions stem more from obsession than malice. He respects good (though he does not practice it himself) and hates evil. CN.
Have "Silver Wool" (manes implies predator) as a racial feat that can only be taken at level one and gives a +4 Diplomacy bonus when dealing with other Shoray.
I don't see a bonus to craft skills or perform, as both of those imply an individual ambition that goes against the Shoray idiom. Their cooperation helps them build quickly and effectively, but doesn't lend itself to innovation. They hum happy little songs to themselves,and even sing together, but -love- when wandering minstrels come to town, and such people will be kept in room, board, and creature comforts by the Shoray for as long as they are inclined to stay.
Playing the same songs and telling the same stories.
Over and over again.
To the unmitigated delight of the Shoray (and their cute little lamb-children).