|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I suppose it would be nice to have a fleshed out world for once in my life, let alone multiple times. Unfortunately, none of the groups I have been a part of have had the time to explore them beyond the immediate area.
By the time I had actually fleshed out my world, it had become obvious that "Titus Andronicus starring the Muppet Babies Players" was too sophisticated a production for both my table and my campaign milieu.
Coping with disappointment as I usually do, I just kept playing D&D. :)
Knight, this is an honest question, not snark*: is Generica, the Land of I Don't Care synonymous with Golarion, or does it also include 3pp?
I'm just curious because RDM42 mentioned published settings being treated as sacrosanct as compared to homebrew settings, but I think that sort of gets it wrong, no insult to RDM. Published settings are required to include all of said publisher's material, so I see them as a lot less sacrosanct, actually. Just using Paizo material, you can play a Clint Eastwood Man with No Name type from Alkenstar who ends up adventuring alongside an Inuyasha type party in Tian Xia, but no GM should be required to do that in a homebrew setting.
*I suppose the snark would have been directed at Paizo, not you, in any case. ;)
I don't mean to accuse anyone of badwrongfun, but are people convinced that the mechanics are so mated to setting that a class like swashbuckler (with the panache pool) significantly contradicts the setting in a way that fighters and rogues don't? I feel like focusing on spell casters muddies the issue, whereas new new mechanics for martials are usually answered with, "He just fights that way."
Full disclosure, I think "I was caught in an experiment gone wrong at the arcane college, so my spell book transformed into a familiar and now my magic's all screwy," is a terrific rationale for introducing the witch class to a setting.
Nice try, but one half hour after your post, the first shot in the next edition war was fired. At this point, there had been so many edition wars on so many fronts that Imperial historians started using the term "Nth Edition War." :P
Maybe it's one of those situations where divine power is pretty accessible, but the approval of any one individual god is, like, unknowable and mysterious?
Ian Bell wrote:
The implications can get a bit weird, though. According to the druidic faith, being undead is more natural than metal armor? ("Zombies? Well, sure, they're still walking around with all the rotting flesh and everything, but it's not like they're blacksmiths.")
Grand Magus, I don't mean to sound argumentative, but it seems to me that you're talking about level advancement when you describe the reason the d20 system is bad at modeling Star Wars.
Isn't the d20 system, with its ability score modifier + skill ranks + d20 roll, a linked attribute + skill system, or have I missed a step here? I'd also ask the same question about class skills, cross-class skills and untrained skills vs. meta-types and class archetypes.
Back in 2000, when I was first running 3e, I decided that that masterwork weapons were iron and/or steel, whereas normal weapons were bronze, just cause I thought it was cool. When I finally read the low tech weapons section of the DMG, I was all, "D'oh, that's worse than I thought!"
Not to come off as a dingus, but D&D is a rules system, not a setting; could be either, could be neither.
The Raven Black wrote:
A Paladin always has the option of falling. It is a matter of personal choice. Choosing death over falling tells much about the Paladin's character
What if their code forbids death before dishonor? As in, it's the paladin's duty to stay alive and improve the world, even through dishonorable/out of code actions if necessary?
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I liked the first one, too. The second one...well, let's just say that Galactus took the form of a big blackish cloud-like thing rather than a character. Disappointing.
You ain't kidding, man; I was all, "Wait, Lawerence Fishburn is doing the Silver Surfer's voice, and the dude who played both the faun and the pale man in Pan's Labyrinth is doing the motion capture? This movie's going to be so awesome that I'm going have to change my pants after I see it!"
But Norrin Radd wasn't a tragic character who became the Herald of the World Devourer to save his home planet, he was just some weirdo who was scared of a space tornado, and my pants remained pristine and unsoiled.
Man, I was about 11 years old when I got ahold of the Thieves World box set. It was the first time I dealt with any system aside from D&D, and it felt like unearthing the Rosetta Stone.
It's funny. I started RPGs with B/X D&D, so I always conceived of dungeon traps being dealt with by a rogue's, ahem, thief's find/disarm abilities. The day I realized that 0e D&D had no class with trap finding abilities, the intricate trap design of ToH, and particularly Grimtooth, suddenly made sense to me. "Lightning bolt trap? I stand on the rubber ottoman, not the leather one, and push myself to the middle of the pool of water, where I jump to the wooden table, not the metal one!"
Milo v3 wrote:
I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly curious about your opinion. Can you imagine a circumstance where a paladin leaves one order because she believes the order is dishonorable in whatever way and joins another without falling? That is, the paladin changes her behavior and the code she follows, but maintains a LG alignment throughout the process, and never falls.
It's not useless, it just assumes the reader understands the idea of honorable behavior. It's also worth pointing out that the CRB says that a paladin falls for willing committing an evil act, not a dishonorable one.
That's why I let paladins at my table strangle puppies, but only if they eat the meat; sport puppy strangling is an auto-fall! :P
Sure, but they have to worry about sliding into neutral, not evil. By the time a character has gotten to the point where "kill anyone with blue eyes" is a reasonable choice, they're about 10 miles past good, you see?
Edit: The way I conceive of the alignment system, all the characters think they're lawful good. They're convinced they're choosing all the best option for all the right reasons. It's the player who reads the alignment entry on the stat block and plays the character appropriately.
Well, speaking only for myself, I've found 5e works very well with TotM, and includes some simple optional rules for playing on a grid. I'm talking about the differences between positioning a rogue for sneak attack damage in PF and 5e; it's not even worth tracking on a grid in 5e, whereas in PF, I wouldn't trust myself to track the AoOs without a grid.
The Traveller I played had range bands, what are these "squares" of which you speak? :P
I'm not saying you can't see the war-game roots even 5+ editions later, but 5e relies a lot less positioning than PF, and a lot lot less than 4e did. I think this has less to do with 5' increments of measurement than how granular/micro-tactical the combat options are.
Once again, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't see a lot of rules that rely on knowing the relative positions of characters.
I don't find 5e requires a grid anymore than pre-3.x editions did, but then the 1e Monster Manual did list movement in inches, so . . .
Speaking seriously, I don't think 5e provides a lot of rules that work best with a grid unless you think looking at a grid with minis in inherently better than asking the DM if the orcs are within Magic Missile range.
Wouldn't that make a 5e style "Come up with a good plan that convinces the DM to grant advantage to your attack rolls so long as you maintain X,Y and Z" more true to Bookrat's definition (which I personally have to take care not to call the real world definition) than a game heavily reliant on positioning of miniatures? I don't mean to sound argumentative, I'm just curious of your opinion.
Bookrat, my understanding of strategy, operations and tactics are exactly the same as yours. I've just had to come to terms with the fact that tactical means some thing else when you use it to describe a table top miniature combat game or an RPG. I think you're correct, but the gamer usage is so common that correcting people isn't worth the effort at this point.
You've also proposed that a paladin can fall from telling a single lie. I can't speak to the specific codes of the deities in Faith of Purity, but the code is the CRB just isn't that restrictive.
Behaving dishonorably is grounds for a fall. While lying is listed as an example of dishonorable behavior in the CRB, I find it rather hard to believe that anyone who is familiar enough with RPGs to find the Paizo message boards can't image a circumstance where a paladin should lie.
"A quick, painless death? Actually, I'm afraid your son was eaten alive by goblins, and by the end he was hysterically shrieking 'Mommy, mommy, make it stop!' Oh, zounds, I apologize, what can I say, Paladin code."
Yes, but the OSR clones stay away from from WotC copyrighted material and Product Identity, specifically to avoid the sort of problems Vic is talking about. For instance, once you have the term saving throw in the OGL, having the five AD&D saves rather than the three D20 saves falls under the game mechanics exception, but you still can't have Beholders, Displacer Beasts or Mind Flayers.
Speaking as a layman, that is.
I don't know, man. Once they do that they'll introduce a romantic subplot about a brother and sister; it's a slippery slope! :P