But some classes may perform better than others, even in their intended roles, and some classes may fit some concepts better than others, even other class's concepts. YMMV, though some facts are objective. Remember, even the commoner can be useful and definitely mechanically playable, that doesn't mean you should use them as a bar or play them.
Well it was okay for the developer of course isn't really a great rebuttal to someone's opinion. It doesn't really suggest a solution so much as tell them to shut up and deal with it, which of course, isn't helpful in itself so much as aggravating.
Now I could roll my eyes and tolerate that for a game. But then... 'we'll let John GM for a change because he's been wanting to for a while. We'll use the same characters.'
I had a GM do that once. He swapped out with one of the players in the group and left for the day. The player then proceeded to decide to play a different game and we had to put up with supermonsters that ignored anything we threw at them. Homebrew monsters with 500 strength we're supposed to survive for 10 rounds before we're allowed to kill them. Homebrew monsters count as houserules right?
Forum ate my first post. Was a long one too. Hard to judge Technicians because your looking at a chasis and a pile of techniques in two differently places and techniques can be a big deal. Anyways, as far as the chasis goes...
Stuff:
Hero looks cool, 2 good saves, 3/4 BAB isn't inherently bad, and D8 HD as normal. However 3/4 BAB can really hurt you when you don't have a way to bring it up, and only White Fang style really makes up for that by using natural attacks. It can really suck to miss, and it doesn't look like the guy has much to help himself hit things, and he's possibly MAD with 3-5 attributes.
Techniques and tiers could be formatted a little differently, at least merging the beginner tier or putting it closer to the techniques part that way you can see how many you get and what you get access to at level one without reading past the next two blocks of text.
I missed heroic potential's recovery method on my first read through, might mean it could find a better place in that section. The option to burn points for the day is cool, and the scaling doesn't look bad, but I kind of wonder if a more static cost might've made more sense, but that's nitpicking. At fifth level you might not be able to enjoy your talents that well, with 14 charisma(not an abnormal number imo) you might end up only being able to use your new awesome intermediate talent once per encounter and only have enough points left for one technique after. If for example you used a static 3 talent points at first and an additional one at 3rd and every three levels after on the other hand would give you 4 at that level. It also mentions a strategy point, that's a vestigial text right?
Heroes' calling gives a bonus to help with MAD, but that bonus is pretty small. The scaling for those things looks pretty unequal, because clarion commander uses your classes main bonus, but shadow heart uses another stat that would add to your MAD, and if your bonus is to strength your probably pumping that to begin with. That said, it'll probably only be a few points difference, but I've never been a fan of MAD. Also, Shadow Heart gives a cumulative bonus, but does that mean every round you move that you get more concealment and you can keep up the momentum from out of combat, or that its in combat and the number of rounds really matter?
Skill Artistry needs its text clarified to describe what giving a bonus to one skill equal to another means. Does that mean you use the ranks of another skill, or you can add in say... Your diplomacy(which you cranked) to your bluff(which you also cranked) to effectively have twice the bonus, and can I pick a bonus to the same skill twice?
Never Outmatched looks like name and fluff about hurting yourself don't look like they really add into its ability. The ability is actually really good for just burning down one foe, but not that great for taking down numbers or surviving. The bonus could also be pretty minor, especially for a guy who's only hitting once.
Anyways, I think it looks pretty cool, and I want to try it in a homegame to see how it plays out sometime, but not sure when I'll get a chance so all I've got to give is an at-a-glance look.
First, am I correct that deity and mystery associations are recommendations and not hard and fast rules?
That's correct, you can make an atheist oracle if you wanted to or worship the god from the elemental plane of cold and water and have the flames mystery.
Smite Makes Right wrote:
Second, what would be good mysteries for Wadjet?
Time, Waves, Battle, Ancestor. You could also ignore the deity entirely and go for something like Lunar or Lore if you felt like it.
On the other hand, some Critical Fumbles go like this...
DM: Ouch! Rolled a 1! Okay, roll to confirm.
Fighty McFighter: Ah ^%$%. *rolls a 1*
DM: Another 1! Okay, let me check...
*DM rolls a 1d100*
Hrm...
*DM rolls scatter and distance*
Let's see... that brings us to...
*DM looks to mage*
What's your AC?
I've got a better one.
DM: Ouch! Rolled a 1! Okay, roll to confirm.
Fighty McFighter: Ah ^%$%. *rolls a 1*
DM: Another 1! Okay, let me check...
*DM rolls a 1d100*
Hrm...
*DM rolls scatter and distance*
Let's see... that brings us to...
*Dm Looks up at the fighter*
You just managed to decapitate yourself.
Lots of fun with critical fumbles, aww yeah! Well I mean... unless you wanted your characters to live. It also tends to work against players much more than NPCs.
One thing we'll have to discuss is if the Exemplar is representative of a deity or alignment(s).
Imo, why not make it all inclusive and make them represent an ideal. That ideal can be a deity, in relation to a deity, in relation to an alignment, or whatever the exemplar is really championing.
It's an open house situation in PFS. Most of us realize that means cutting the game a little slack. And as a perk, if you realize that a particular PFS GM is out of his demented little gourd, you can simply avoid his table forever afterward. It's far less complicated than backing out of a home game - though obviously it's not good for the PFS society at large when that happens.
Depends on how your local PFS runs things too. The one I went to didn't actually post who was running things or going. Going into town to find out that one jerk you don't like is running can lead to a rough decision.
Speaking of changes, instead of just locking threads or deleting post it might make sense to take an action to keep a poster from repeating the same action. In moderation of course. Always awkward to see someone who just got their post deleted in mass, for the umpteenth time in a week, come right back to do it again in the same hour. At the moment it feels like you get punished for commenting about the guy and he gets away scott free and without consequence, and like some posters may take advantage of that fact.
If I were to go fighter with this, I would say either Lore Warden, Two-handed Fighter, or Two Weapon Warrior.
Lore Warden is simply the best fighter archetype there is, Two Handed Fighter is great for adding damage, and Two Weapon Warrior takes advantage of the Staff being a Double Weapon.
Two weapon warrior has a pretty big disadvantage in that it loses any bonus on attack damage from weapon training unless he's making a full though, and he doesn't get anything that might make up for it until 9th level.
GM's discretion is a bit different than house ruling. Saying something is up in the air might be more GM's discretion, but on the other hand skill focus gives 3 skill points unless there's a houserule that says otherwise. One is left in the books to interpretation, the other is a static value. Its a lot easier to talk about things based on no houserules unless told otherwise, otherwise I might have to argue that this spell is [good] so I don't know why we're arguing in the first place and that its silly that you didn't just change its alignment.
Khrysaor wrote:
The spell says you take someone's ebbing life force to fuel your own. This is different than just snuffing out someone's life force which is where the evil connection comes from. You are stealing someone's life force and not just ending it.
Its not really that much different from just snuffing it. For instance if your alternative was to stab them, it would take the same time, possibly longer if you did pitiful damage and they didn't die. Better to put that life force to good use imo.
To be clear, paladin's issues have much more to do with their code than their alignment. LG fighters don't have the same issues, nor do LG members of any other appropriate class. "You should play this way!" is all about the code, which is, yes, telling you how the character should act. If a CG paladin has a "code", then it is going to cause similar issues.
Ish, code might be the most of it, but even having an alignment restriction can lead to people getting hung up or asking people to roleplay a certain way. Like the DM who asys a barbarian loses his powers for acting civilized(or entering a city in one story I heard) or the monk who loses his monkness even though he's incredibly disciplined but thinks out of the box. A LG fighter doesn't have to care as much, though he can choose too, and I have see players and/or DMs throw a fit over having their alignment changed(some cases I agree with more than others mind you), but that might go more into alignment than anything.
The fact the restrictions appear at all can lead people to believe they have to enforce them rather than work with them, if that makes sense. Might be going a bit off topic though.
More on topic and for what its worth, I think you could definitely create a code for any alignment prone to causing issues. I've always been big on being flexible and allowing build your own codes in my games as a houserule because I think that's more likely to build a character the player really wants to play and can definitely foster roleplay. You get anything from a classic paladin, to a paladin of a god, to a paladin of 'true justice' and a paladin of the brew who's all about alcohol. Little harder to fall, but I'm fine with that as long as everyone's having fun. Then again I also put falling into the hands of the player, so that's a bit biased.
Anytime you pre make a code of whatever you might very well be creating it on your idea, and not everyone may agree on that idea. Leaving up to interpretation to others can also lead to issues. I think its a lot easier and less likely to fall into pits or traps if you make it more player centric, but not everyone's into that.
Exactly. Dead is dead. How he got dead, not so important. WHY he got dead? Important.
If dead is dead good players can torture, crucify, impale on spikes or some other means equally deemed cruel.
Importantly, death knell doesn't prolong the death. They just poked them and the guy went "Blargh, will saves! My one weakness! Blehblehblehdead." except you know, less dramatic thrashing and more "Blehdead".
A lot of the things about "Automatically evil because evil spell" ignore whether your actually being evil or not outside of the idea your being evil because evil. Guy dies, one way you expend a spell and get the buff, the other you finish him or he bleeds out.
Luckily its all GM's digression instead of a hard and fast rule, but at the same time that makes it hard to give advice about it. Best I can say is "is it actually evil?" and "Well what would happen otherwise?".
I think most of these guys wind up snagging new players into the game, so they can 'teach' them that this is how it's supposed to work. New players don't know otherwise, so they're just more likely to accept what they're told.
Then these players eventually become bad GMs, and their players become bad GMs ...
Bit of truth to this. For example a group I was in once thought movement from a charge doesn't provoke and used it to shut down some builds. They then bring it to the public setting when they go to PFS, and when they run games they run it that way and say it works that way, and some people bite into that Zeitgeist and suddenly you had a lot of players who were running the game with that house rule.
Of course when you wanted to run a reach build the fact everyone is suddenly avoiding your AoOs or brace that kind of drove you a bit nuts.
The idea that energy can be 'good' or 'evil' is ridiculous, you can't quantify abstract subjective concepts like that.
You can, you just make it weird when say, you use something objectively evil to make the world a better place and then everyone comes down on you and says "your a bad person!" and people might make up their own reasons as to why it works this way instead of just removing the arbitrary decision it has to be evil in the first place or admitting its just because or arbitrary. Of course stabbing someone with a sword to kill them and using death knell both have the same results, the guy dies, though at least he gets a save on the latter?
And, y'know, being chaotic individualists, it's more likely then not.
Why does being chaotic good infer individualist? A lot of being chaotic good infers they want to make things just and disregard laws doing it, not that they do things for themselves more often than not. That character might be more neutral or evil for his apathy or selfishness.
They aren't just chaotic either, they're chaotic good. Good infers they're going to be benevolent doesn't it?
As long as there is no claptrap, I will be delighted.
Steam Borderlands Page wrote:
Be an Anti-Hero as One of Four New Vault Hunters: Fight alongside Handsome Jack as four new vault hunters contributing to the rise of the corrupt Hyperion Corporation, each with unique skill trees, action skills, and play styles. Use Wilhelm the Enforcer’s “Air Power” action skill to summon powerful combat drones to aid the party in combat, or use Athena the Gladiator’s “Kinetic Aspis” action skill to absorb incoming damage and convert it into energy unleashed on enemies. Players can also choose from Nisha the Lawbringer (the future Sheriff of Lynchwood) and the most unpredictable character of all…
Playable Claptrap?!: For the first time ever, play as the most emotionally dependent robot in all of Pandora! This combat-ready Claptrap has been reprogrammed for love and war. Okay, mostly war. Marvel at his low first person perspective. Stand in awe of his offensive capabilities. Be amazed at his ability to climb stairs…yes, really.
Yeah, sometimes the only good thing to come out of contact with certain GMs is a fund of stories you can use to impress and horrify your fellow gamers.
Aren't you wanting to role-play and ignore the mechanics of alignment and paladin alignment restrictions? Just because turnabout is fair play ... It isn't as if alignment isn't just as much a part of the ruleset a anything else.
If people are asking for more relaxed requirements, yes, they're asking to ignore it a bit, but no, they aren't saying they want to ignore alignment mechanics entirely, and they want to do it to have fun, probably through roleplay and game mechanics.
Well I can write fluff from a couple of characters too. What point is there to that?
The paladins mechanics, if less restrictive, can fit other roleplaying niches pretty well, but as written(restricted) it just can't because arbitrary.
You could replace the word paladin in that statement with any other class in Pathfinder.
How is paladin or it's specific requirements the problem?
Of course, paladin restrictions are a lot different than say, a fighter. People aren't asking for a fighter that has full casting, they're asking for the mechanics of the class.
Some people actually care about the mechanics of the character they play. There is a difference between playing an inquisitor, a cleric, or a paladin in the game. Sure it can fill the roleplaying portions, but when you pull out the battle map or have to solve a problem using those nifty class features of yours you might care about what you bring to the table and what your character is supposed to do.
Are you going to tell me there's not a mechanical difference between those classes and how they play out on the table? I mean, we could all just roleplay and ignore all the mechanics I guess, but that doesn't really need classes or a majority of the rulebooks text.
Well I can write fluff from a couple of characters too. What point is there to that?
The paladins mechanics, if less restrictive, can fit other roleplaying niches pretty well, but as written(restricted) it just can't because arbitrary. Other classes can play the paladin's roleplaying niche, but not vice versa. People know they can play an inquisitor, or a cleric, or a warpriest, or a fighter. Those are four different classes though, and they all play differently. Paladin is the oddball in that the class is pigeonholed two, and maybe three times over(deity, alignment, and code).
Plus, it's been a while since I looked at Legend, but I'm pretty sure stuff like Power Attack/Combat Expertise have become general combat options that don't require a feat.
It's just so hard to find a group for such a minor system, but it's good to see more mention of it.
Misc. information:
Power Attack, deadly aim, and its opposite Precise Strike are. Combat Manuevers don't provoke to begin with and don't require a feat investment. A lot of the combat maneuvers are meant to be used at early levels and fall behind at later ones unless you take the monk's discipline of the dragon circle if I remember right. The idea being that at later levels you have access to all sorts of cool powers from your circles, and you may have four circles to draw from. The game also scales differently, giving BAB to armor for instance(lvl to AC in 1.1).
That said, I haven't seen the 1.1 version which is the current one and that one still needs hammering apparently.
I wouldn't say its too minor. Its yet to really be released. Free to look at though if you want a peek. Easy to pick up too, imo.
I once had a guy who made facing a thing in the game. Everything related those houserules were just awful, imo. Especially for bards. He ruled bards had to be seen to give benefits to people, and if your bard was blocked from view by say... an enemy you were flanking with, or the bard was sitting in back, you wouldn't get any of the benefits of having a bard's performance. Same guy also said they could only use vocal or somatic components, and that they couldn't fight while they used their perform because they were too busy performing. Bards whole thing was apparently to be spoony bards who danced in the background but had to try really hard to be seen to give anyone benefits.
Another time I played with a guy who used fumble rules, but there was only one fumble, and that was that you dropped your weapon on a one, but he never kept track of whether you dropped your weapon so there was no reason to actually care when he said it.
Somehow I get this feeling that some of us need to go "OK, D&D had its problems. And Pathfinder went one way, but it also has its problems. Lets break off and do our own thing."
There are actually people who have done that, and a lot of variations on D20 fantasy like Legend by Rule of Cool.
I'll have to check that one out. Unlikely I'll be able to get my group to migrate to...basically anything, but I can dream.
That's how my groups have been for the most part. Tough to get them to migrate or try new things, even if they're pretty easy to pick up, so we end up defaulting back to 3.5 or pathfinder.
More positively though, feats are in legend, a good chunk of them are in the "Does something interesting and actually applies mechanical benefits and not penalties" category of feats. I always thought that category was the ideal target.
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.
What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?
No more than a CN "kill and steal anything I think is fun" PC can. Alignments don't cause problems- jerk players using those alignments are excuses for jerk behaviours cause problems.
Actually, a game format can create a situation where a problem is more likely to occur, or can have worse consequences. The paladin for instance is a magnet for "you should play this way!" situations, and has a hammer over their head where they lose their class if they don't. A more flexible class could avoid that entirely, see fighter. There's also a thing about how your creating a game for a variety of people to have fun, and having flexibility can really help that. Paladin also appears as a class that can fill multiple roles, but apparently is pigeonholed into one thing, with consequences for leaving that thing and is inflexible as to fill those other roles because... reasons. Creating a sort of trap.
Man I was really hoping for a thread about trying No More Heroes stuff in pf; over the top bosses and suplexing enemies.
Don't forget the lazer swords and humangous mecha and Aww man Henry's Finisher and all sorts of other awesomeness. You know you want a statted out Dr Peace.
Anyways, what I play varies with the campaign. I love playing a knight in shining armor and its whole motif, but I'm also partial to gray morality. I wouldn't say I fall all one way or the other.
Somehow I get this feeling that some of us need to go "OK, D&D had its problems. And Pathfinder went one way, but it also has its problems. Lets break off and do our own thing."
There are actually people who have done that, and a lot of variations on D20 fantasy like Legend by Rule of Cool.
Probably off topic though. Waiting on the next book to shift for feats that look questionable. Speaking of which... The Bonded Mask arcane discovery is pretty meh. -1 to diplomacy to search for information and +1 to saves vs. scrying and mind reading. Almost totally useless if your GM lets you use a mask as your arcane bond anyway, imo.
What is with these feats and feat equivalents that take give penalties for your investment. Is that even necessary?
Pretty much all of the player companions and player guides for campaigns. There's also quiet a bit of content hidden in modules and the adventure paths that I don't believe transfers over. If I remember right, Inner sea gods isn't a core line book, its a campaign setting, and none of those books are in there either.
I've often wondered why LG is considered to be restrictive but other alignments aren't. Shouldn't CG be just as restrictive, just in a different way?
Really you could make any class or alignment highly restricted. Just throw in a bunch of requirements and possibly some "but thou must!" things, you could even make them go full on Chaotic stupid by having to say, fight slavers on sight or lose all their powers or steal or switch sides to the losing side to retain balance. Use the Kender write-up for 'roleplaying suggestions' and use it as a list of requirements!
EDIT: Also as an aside, I really don't think shallowsoul made this thread in good faith, as they seem to want to mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. It's very off putting.
This is pretty much Shallowsoul's MO. :/
Also, excellent analogy and post!
Careful, its the people who point that out that get in trouble! Not the guy who makes the thread.
Alternatively, strip the class of a few abilities in return for losing the restrictions, and allow taking the restriction as an option (which then gains you the extra abilities in return.)
Not safe to balance mechanics with roleplay imo. "I don't eat pork, so I get superpowers!" isn't really mechanically balancing, and "If I eat pork, I lose all my powers I chose to use because I thought they were fun and become a burden and not fun to play and my GM can sneak pork into my dinner" isn't that great either.
There's also a thing where you may as well give everyone the option to take those restrictions to get superpowers. LG fighter with the paladin code doesn't get anything for being a just heroic defender of justice. At best he just doesn't lose his class features if he ever has to lie to save lives. Of course a guy who loses his powers for doing the right thing and is supposed to be the paragon of good just seems sort of wrong to me too.
I think most of the people who would like to see things like the Paladin's alignment restrictions relaxed or removed believe that most of the flavor for a character comes from the player, not the rulebook.
I'd say that's pretty correct about me, for what its worth. I like examples of what kinds of characters can be created, but being pigeonholed or arbitrarily forced into one isn't one I'm a big fan of. Sort of awkward to be told your supposed to life to be someone else's character rather than crafting your own. Comes with a plethora of problems of its own, but some guy named Chengar has been really good at listing them so its hard to add in...
Seriously though, could you imagine if another class like barbarians had a barbarian code about being tribal and uncivilized? Or rogue's had to steal things and couldn't make long-term alliances.
"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." You'll just have to take my word for it that I am correctly describing what I remember.
Well in that case it did wonderfully and pathfinder is weird for not following suit while the other branches of the game did. You'll have to take my word for it.
I disagree. IMO mechanics exist only to support flavor.
Imo, good mechanics can be refluffed, bad mechanics can destroy your game. If you make everything based around one singular inflexible fluff, your going to end up with a very limited number of characters and personalities available.
Eh. Mechanics trumping flavor doesn't work so well when the flavor is part of the mechanics.
If you go all the way flavor though, your liable to create some horrific inflexible possibly imba' abomination. If your making that for a community to use, you might have to prepare for pitchforks and torches, because people tend to want a lot of different things and a lack of flexibility might not end too well.
At least people sometimes point the pitchforks at each other instead of you.
