Out of the core, it will nerf a few classes by a bit.
- Summoning focused Wizards, Sorcerers, and Clerics are out
The big nerf in here is for druids as they lose their spontaneous casting ability outright. Hopefully, your GM will give them something to compensate for that.
I have to say that, while I wouldn't choose to restrict the game in such a way, I can understand why a GM might want to do so. There are benefits to simplifying the game and removing summons (for example, combat will move faster). There are definitely players in my group that I don't think could handle dealing with summoned creatures, as they have a difficult enough time managing their own character.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Read the OP's most recent post. NPC is a fighter and has leveled up twice since the last fight, and spent his feats on being able to sunder based on his past inability to punch through a PC's armor. That's just realistic leveling of a recurring enemy NPC.
i wanted to address why I was going to write the letter. it was because my ninja doesnt know how paladins work but figures if this dude is going to be like him and kill like an assassin maybe he will be like him and write a letter. Thinking maybe that is what you are supposed to do? like trying to follow the rules when you dont know what they are.
Ah . . . that makes more sense then my original impression of "I disagree, and thus am going to write a sternly worded letter to your superiors because I know you should not be permitted to do such", which I had a hard time attributing to a chaotic character.
I think the interesting line to be wary of is what exactly it is that would vex you CN ninja. Was it the waste of life? Was it real hypocrisy? Was it perceived hypocrisy (you aren't acting anything like I think paladins should be)? What precisely about the event would have been the trigger(s) of your ninja's distaste. And make sure his reactions to the paladin are appropriate.
For example, if a trigger was the fact he killed helpless prisoners, but won't allow you to kill sleeping enemies, needle him with "What? You can kill helpless opponents with no problem, but when I do it it's "dishonorable"?" or "Would it be better if I chained them up for you first?" (heaping as much disdain as possible). Just being kind of evil all the time would be less poignant than focusing on countering him on a few specific things.
No worries about credit. As I said, you explained the details of the AP far better than I did, and in more depth. A wonderful thing about the forums, on occasion someone else manages to say what you are thinking far better than you. :)
... ton of Council of Thieves stuff that I alluded to but was unable to phrase nearly as well ...
Thank you for explaining the Council of Thieves paladin issues better than I did.
Also, reading through it, I realized a couple interesting things. First was that the Council of Thieves is a really good example of how paladins can have very differing codes. Why? Because there is Seelah, running around breaking the law for the greater good. One of the earliest enemies in the AP are the Hellknights, who are basically paladins that focus on Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil. The thing is, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a Paladin/Hellknight. Some of the Hellknight orders are more paladin-friendly than others, but there is no reason why the Order of the Rack Hellknights (who focus on limiting forbidden knowledge and are the ones present in CoT) could not have a paladin in their ranks. Thus you can end up with a situation of a lawful-oriented paladin hunting down a greater-good-oriented paladin.
The second thing I realized, is that that is pretty much what Marthkus is arguing in terms of a paladin following the law. His paladin is really more of a paladin that went into the Hellknight prestige class (at least in my opinion).
No, yeah. I'm pretty much done with the paladin bickering unless someone says something truly earth-shattering that I must respond to. Sorry about the thread-jack. Hopefully you were able to get some useful advice/alternate perspectives before it got horribly de-railed.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Exactly! Thanks to a well selected Mercy at level three, a paladin can even recover from the disgusting taste of goblin baby with only a swift action! Paladins are clearly the class best suited to eating goblin babies.
Silly us, for expecting you to have actually read the part of the rulebook that you kept quoting to us as justification we were wrong.
So with the minor alteration of "government must be in complete anarchy, or instituted by something clearly and irredeemably evil like demon princes, devils, undead lichs", I am in line with how a paladin should be? Well damn . . . as Cheliax is ruled by humans my CoT paladin is probably still out of luck.
You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.
I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".
So wait . . . if I am a paladin I may be required to eat goblin babies, but have it be breaking my code.
I need someone else who is appointed by a governing body to tell me it's ok for me to kill someone, unless they were conscious up to the last time I hit them. In no way, shape or form am I qualified to judge them, divine powers stemming from the forces of Good and Law notwithstanding. Even if I have an ability specifically built to be more just and fair than any other mortal person or governing body because I chose to specialize in making sure justice is carried out, I should not use that ability unless someone else gives me the ok first. In fact, having that ability makes my job more dangerous, because I might think it will actually protect me from making mistakes. Not only that, but I can't intentionally strike at a weak spot, as it is dishonorable to attack someone where they are weak.
If I don't want to overthrow the entire government of a nation, I am not allowed to quibble about any of their laws. It is all or nothing, either the government must go completely, or I must comply with every law they have. For me to want to overthrow the government of an entire nation, it must first be in complete anarchy. Even if it means I need to volunteer to get tortured to death by devils due to the laws. It is better that I submit to death by torture than break a law of a government that is in a state of less than complete anarchy.
Killing myself by repeatedly attempting to hug a ghoul is far preferable than killing it to make sure the farmers nearby that it has been attacking remain safe. The safety of innocents is far less important than my honor, and it would be very dishonorable to do anything but hug a bloodthirsty killing machine.
I am so confused right now. I thought I knew how to play a paladin. It seems I was very wrong.
Superman is the closest thing you can find to a non-paladin paladin. Although he will not lose all of his power if he should fall. Many DC hero's have codes that they follow that are beyond what LG requires. For example Batman does not kill. Could he kill and still be LG? In many cases yes, but then he wouldn't be the Batman that we know and love.
Superman breaks America's laws all the time. He runs around far faster than the speed limit, flies through the air with no regard for FAA regulations. Destroys property (often in fights) and does not reimburse the rightful owners. By your logic, Superman doesn't consider the American government to be a legitimate authority (obeying the law is all or nothing), and wants to overthrow the American government. That completely changes how I view Superman.
I don't think anyone ever claimed paladins can just ignore the law willy-nilly (aside from Ilja's initial hyperbole). We have re-iterated, ad nauseam, that paladins can ignore laws that are deemed unacceptable, and not stemming from legitimate authority. You have been countering our examples of fairly blatant illegitimate authority with, "Nope, they have to follow the law". You essentially said Paizo was wrong in Council of Thieves for allowing (nay, requiring) paladins to ignore the laws of Cheliax, by stating that the nation of Cheliax must have been in horrible anarchy for this to be acceptable (when nothing can be further from the truth).
On a serious note. A split personality would do wonders. Giving him a still-human personality that is legitimately terrified and wants redemption, especially if you are having the ghoul be someone that one of the characters knew while he was still alive. Have the "human" personality be constantly at war with a darker personality that occasionally exerts itself. It should provide a good character that hides his core irredeemability well, after all, there is obvious good in there, actively fighting against the evil. He's not lying when he says he wants redemption, it just is not possibly, and his darker personality is slowly taking more control.
Would twist it to be very much in line with Ilja's suggestion of having it be a tragedy.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would, but I don't really want the final fight to consist of the horrendous crime against nature singing at the PCs. :P
I vote Perform: Dance.
Either that, or have him pull a pipe-organ out of a portable hole as soon as combat starts and begin playing. The party will never see it coming.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Heh. I can see it now. The GM introduces the paladin into the CoT game and immediately has the guy Fall. Just on the spot, no reason.
Not me. My backstory is that I turned myself in immediately after entering Cheliax like a good little paladin. Thus I begin the story being tortured by devils at the hands of Asmodean clerics. On occasion, I get to overhear them talking about what my party is doing! Best AP ever!
Or, in the case of Cheliax, and evil oligarchy? Mired in excessive bureaucracy? Hooray anarchic bureaucratic oligarchies?
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
My point wasn't that strong. Like the omission of sneak attacks and coup de grace's being dishonorable, the fact that the adventure path does not instruct to GM to force paladins to turn themselves in and be tortured to death is probably an example of lazy writing.
So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.
You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .
In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.
Agreed. It is a great way to have an interesting tortured hero as EldonG suggests, or perhaps the power bestowed upon the paladin by the people makes him believe his is above them, and slowly leads to his corruption. Being placed above the law is probably something a paladin should be very wary of.
You can regard a particular attempt at redemption as a waste of time.
Not only can a GM determine a race categorically cannot be redeemed, but it can also be determined if an evil member of a not-always-evil race is irredeemably evil (some GMs are hardline "all members of a race are redeemable unless I definitively say the race isn't", I don't agree with that stance). In which case, the obligation is to kill the person.
In these fuzzy "not part of an always evil race but possibly irredeemably evil", either the GM should give a way for the paladin to know if they are right in thinking they are irredeemable, or they should allow the paladin to make a judgement call and accept that Sarenrae trusts the paladin's judgement (or else why would she make him a paladin?).
I think the extra wrinkle gets in where many good nations may not prosecute a paladin for murder if he is still in full possession of his powers. There is an expectation that a paladin in possession of his divine powers is doing his gods work, and if his god okays his actions, who are the mortals to say otherwise? Not to say that the legitimate authority can't intervene, but when you have a person walking around imbued with powers of good and justice, kind of hard to prosecute without looking like a fool.
So I would extend it by saying that, while paladins are not innately above the law (unless the law is unjust), due to their status and reputation, they are generally accepted as being examples to follow. As such, the legitimate authorities might chose to defer to a paladin based upon their reputation. So I would say being above the law is not a class feature, but could end up being by-product of your reputation as a do-gooder and overall just conduct.
Agreed, but definitely not LG.
I mean . . . submitting to the authority of a city that requires baby eating upon entry to the city doesn't strike me as something a crusader of good should do. Especially since if they require eating a baby upon entry, who knows what other evil things that might have legislated.
Judge: Here begins the trial of Bill the paladin, charged with the heinous crime of not devouring a baby upon entry into our fair city. How do you plead?
Thus Bill was never seen again, all because he refused to fight against unjust laws.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Indeed, applying hyperbole properly it should be:
Team "paladin can do whatever she wants because what the paladin does is always justified"
Team "paladin must become a butler for any always chaotic evil undead abomination he encounters until it accepts his challenge for a proper duel".
Oh! I know! I know!
The paladin's god!
. . . wait a minute . . .
So . . . dying in your continued efforts to grapple a ghoul (poor halfling with 12 Str and no Improved Grapple, you should have known better than to become a paladin), and thus unleashing it upon the world to kill untold innocent folks is better than slaying it? What happened to protecting those in need and punishing those who threaten innocents?
And the ability doesn't specify that the paladin needs someone else to give him permission to use it for its intended purpose . . . why? Lazy writing again? Or you making things up? Heck, in the ability description is says he "may use his power to judge the guilty and absolve the innocent", is the "but only if he is already duly appointed by a court" implied?
And what makes him not a legitimate authority figure in himself.
A paladin is not some random schmuck given divine powers.
A paladin is chosen by a god, or potentially just by the cosmic forces of law and good to act as their agent. Why? Because presumably, the paladin innately has a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Presumably, even before being instilled by divine power, a paladin would be a fairer judge than most of the population.
Would a goblin rather be tried by a court in a town that has utter hatred of goblins? Or tried by a paladin that will judge him fairly and actually be open to the possibility of redemption?
Except it is not really a court mandated execution. It is a "we don't know if he is guilty or not. You there! Try to kill him using your god-granted powers that make you the perfect judge!"
Also, I still want to know why Bill the Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader can lose all of his class abilities just because he used one of them on a guy guilty of serial murder.
If your interpretation of the rules ends up with a class losing all of its class abilities due to using one of its abilities in the intended way, you need to re-think your interpretation.
Lazy writing, or you providing your own interpretation? No where does it say sneak attacks or coup de grace's are dishonorable. You are interpreting that they fall under so forth. Many of us here seem to think that is silly. You have a different interpretation of the rules, and that is fine, but you have been stating them as fact, which they are not.
Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?
Not trying to apply it to the captive morlock situation (though I would argue it could apply, as the Inheritor's Crusader can be the accuser). Marthkus's contention is it is dishonorable to kill a helpless creature.
Consider the following scenario:
According to Marthkus, Bill loses his paladin status as he just killed a helpless creature. Why?
Marthkus, if it is inherently dishonorable to kill helpless creatures, how can paladins be an Inheritor's Crusader? The class specifically calls out paladins as a potential entry class. When they use Sword Against Injustice on a helpless prisoner and it kills (because they are guilty), are they stripped of their paladin powers?
Should he have healed up the morlock, given it a weapon, and then slew it in combat? Why? The morlock likely has absolutely no chance winning, in which case you are setting up a farce combat in order to create a facade of honor. This almost seems evil to me, as you are deliberately setting up the morlock to suffer more.
So tell me, what is intrinsically and indelibly honorable about giving a creature false hope and prolonging its suffering?
Certain paladins may believe strongly that every creature should be given a trial-by-combat, in which case they might believe killing a helpless creature is dishonorable. Others may be more in the lines of thinking that the creature should have a merciful end.
Again, I posit that it can depend a lot on deity:
Indeed. As I said, it is entirely possible that redemption is not feasible, or that a paladin of Sarenrae will not be convinced the creature is seeking redemption. In which case, killing them may make the most sense, a fact that may very well distress some paladins.
At a certain point with the complexities of some of the paladin alignment challenge situations, there needs to be a realization that the paladin was given his power because his deity believes in his ability to act in accordance with their will. Sarenrae is not giving divine powers to any old schmuck, she is choosing someone who espouses many of the same views as her to act on her behalf. She is not watching the paladin like a hawk making sure everything goes perfectly, but trusting the paladin to do his best to act in her name appropriately. Falling is reserved for when the paladin is clearly doing something evil, not serving as a good representative (being dishonorable), and/or is clearly acting against her wishes. Sometimes there is no ideal answer for a situation, but the paladin is expected to do his best and should not be punished when his best falls short of a sparkly ideal resolution.
As I stated, I'll be playing a paladin of Sarenrae. How am I supposed to handle this exact situation? I'm on a quest...I know what morlocks are...these have already pinged as evil. Now...by my tenets, I have to redeem the redeemable...I think it's an utter strawman to say I have to take them in and babysit them 24/7...so...knowing morlocks, how do I redeem them?
And this is the grand question that often goes unanswered. It is very easy to say "he should redeem them", but figuring out how might be tricky. It is not as simple as kill vs. redeem. Redemption is often much harder to do.
Do you release them and trust that they will do good from now on? Well, in all likelihood that is condemning them to fail in their quest for redemption. They are currently evil, all their friends are evil, being evil is all they know. You generally can't just say "go and be good now", because it is extremely likely they will lapse.
Do you have them follow you, even if it is just in the short term? Sure, this is a decent solution in some cases, but if you continually amass people seeking redemption, and are amassing people faster than you are successfully redeeming them/dropping them off with someone else, soon your party will include a ton of hangers-on from all the people you are looking out for. Do paladins of Sarenrae basically get Leadership for free from all those followers?
Do you drop them off in someone else's care? Sure, if there is a place available. What if you are days/weeks travel from any town, and are on a tight timeline to save the world? What if all the nearest towns have intense hatred for morlocks and lack your perspective regarding redemption?
Leave it as it is and come back later? Probably an ok plan, as long as you don't think leaving it will cause you future problems, at which point you have to weigh the potential threat of leaving the morlock behind versus killing it or taking it with you.
I don't have an answer for how to redeem the morlocks. So much is variable based on what the morlocks say, what my particular paladin's backstory and view on life are, and what else is going on in the AP, etc. I think it is appropriate to want an answer, and I think those who argue for redemption at all costs (for any tricky paladin scenario) should be willing to ponder whether there is a feasible way to enact said redemption and accept that there may very well not be a practical way to redeem the prisoners.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
I would say, you examine the morlock closely, ask them some questions, determine if you believe they seek redemption. If you are convinced that they do, you attempt to aid in their redemption. If you are not convinced that they seek redemption, you kill them swiftly and mercifully. Such is Sarenrae's creed. Any creature who truly seeks redemption should be given help in his quest. Any creature who remains unrepentant should be put to the sword. Now, within that you still have a lot of lee-way on how your paladin will decide if the creature is redeemable based on race, backstory, gullibility, and how far is "too far to be redeemed".
As stated, this was not a paladin of Sarenrae, but of Torag. And Torag thinks Sarenrae is kind of a sissy with that redemption stuff. Torag and Sarenrae are pretty good examples for showing how different the "right" actions for a paladin can be based solely on deity, though as ub3r_n3rd and I have said, there are a lot of different factors at play.
The general problem I have with a lot of people arguing against the "kill the prisoners"-type option being acceptable is (in this thread, as well as the deluge of other paladin alignment thread that plague this forum), as Kobold Cleaver pointed out, they use straw men rather than proposing a valid course of action that is both incorporate's a paladins ability to make logical conclusions (releasing evil willy-nilly is bad), and also stays in keeping with their deity's creed (ex: for Torag/Sarenrae, killing evil/unrepentant evil is not just acceptable, but expected) and personal beliefs.
Options, remembering that if these creatures are pinging as evil, they are either steeped in evil, or potent creatures in the service of evil, and while Detect Evil is not the be-all and end-all, it is a pretty darn good basis for further conclusions:
As I see it, there aren't really any perfect sparkly wondrous options that works for every paladin. Depending on the deity, the preferred options can change. Sarenrae is big on redemption (5 & 6), but if as her agent you don't believe redemption is possible, killing is the required course of action (1). Torag believes Sarenrae is too soft (more in favor of 1). Shelyn would be far more merciful than either, as she believes killing should be avoided whenever possible (strong aversion to 1).
On top of all this, regardless of the deity component, there is a range of perfectly valid approaches to being a paladin. You can mercilessly hunt down evil wherever it lurks, or you can believe all creatures are capable of redemption and try to save everyone, or anything in between. Neither of these is objectively wrong. A player or group may lean towards one interpretation over the other, but that doesn't mean the other interpretation is intrinsically wrong (except for that particular player or group).
For clarification, I am not saying executing the prisoners is the only valid option. I am not saying that in all cases it is the best option. I am not even saying that if I were playing a paladin, I would chose that option. I lean towards playing more of a redeemer myself, believe it or not. My last paladin basically believed in "love conquers all", and tried to spread love to all his enemies with varying degrees of success, and would avoid killing whenever possible. But depending on the type of paladin, and his personal and religious beliefs, execution can be the best option. Likely, for a paladin of Torag who takes the extermination of evil seriously, option 1 is the best option, and 4-6 would not be considered valid options.
People seem to want the paladin code of conduct to be black-and-white. If you are a paladin, you can do X, but can't do Y. But that is not the case. There is a full spectrum of paladins out there, all capable of having different interpretations of where to draw the line, and what their duty is. From any individual paladin's perspective, things may be black-and-white, but looking at the big picture, there are a lot of shades of gray in the paladin code.
Rambling post over . . .
tldr: frustration with straw men in lieu of constructive arguments in the various paladin threads, lots of different perfectly valid types of paladins, the best option for any given scenario can change greatly depending on the paladin's personal beliefs and his deity's tenets
Barry Armstrong wrote:
In my opinion, too many Paladin players think that Detect Evil is the end-all justification to cleave now, ask questions of the corpse later.
Agree with most of your post, but have a different experience with this. In my experience, this is not a problem at all. From what I have seen on the forums, people who say "Yes, it is ok to kill evil people even if they are helpless" are quickly painted as thinking that Detect Evil is the end-all justification.
You can see it occur this very thread (don't want to re-read to find direct quotes). Saying "paladins are supposed to hunt down evil, it is why they have Detect Evil and Smite Evil, so they can do their job" was twisted to "he Detected as evil, I can kill him!". Just saying "you can use Detect Evil to determine whether to sniff around more" tends to elicit cries of "Detect and kill is not ok!". The far greater problem I have seen, is that people on the forums who posit killing helpless creatures might be ok depending on the creature and the paladin's god have their words twisted to try to make it sound like they want paladins to be Lawful Stupid killing machines, when their argument really is that paladins are not Lawful Stupid peace machines.
Shallowsoul, the issue is that you are arguing against the first part of the same bullet you bolded a section of. Performing an execution in itself is not dishonorable in any way. And that is what the paladin was doing, executing evil members of a race that is a long-time dwarven enemy.
Within that bullet, you are using the second half to argue against the first half. You are essentially arguing that "showing no mercy" is dishonorable and turning that bullet into a Catch-22.
It is always good hearing another perspective and adding getting a more full picture. However, I still think there is a lot of meta-game bleeding into the game here with the OP.
General disclaimer: Anything I say regarding alignment should be qualified as "generally". There are a lot of ways to play each alignment, however there are buckets that most often chaotic aligned characters will fit in. In addition, when I speak of the CN ninja, I will usually be talking about how I would play him, but everyone is entitled to their own interpretations.
With the situation, the paladin's argument for killing was somewhat valid, depending on the type of paladin he is (some are smite-happy, some are redeem-happy, etc). Your protests were valid as well, but in the end it is the GM and the paladin player who determine what will cause a loss of powers. I'm going to set aside all the paladin alignment questions for now, and assume that Detect Evil was played perfectly fine, and Torag deemed it perfectly acceptable to kill those prisoners. What confuses me is the CN ninja's reaction to all this.
Now, if the ninja expects paladins to be redeemers, and this one clearly is not, then obviously he should be curious and perhaps a bit concerned by this revelation. He also can be legitimately upset about the fact that potentially valuable sources of information were killed, and be upset with the treatment of prisoners, having a past as a criminal. However, how he confronted the paladin does not seem very chaotic to me.
Saying "I'm going to write you up to your superiors!" . . . . that just seems like something a lawful person would do. A lawful person would want to work within the system to see that justice was done. Chaotic folks generally don't put much stock in hierarchical organizations like the paladin's order surely would be, so I find it odd that one would threaten to do so. When the paladin said "Sure, here is where you can send it", it was really more of a "I'm calling your bluff, you have no standing, plus my god seems to be on my side". While the paladin may have been a bit arrogant in his rejection of your input, why should he, or any of the organization, care what you think? He still has his god's blessing, why should he listen to a former criminal over Torag? Expecting the paladin to be fazed by "I'm gonna tell on you!" is very silly.
The question is whether there should be lasting animosity. From what has been stated in this thread, there should be a helping of disdain (for lack of a better term) due to their stylistic differences (stealth and cunning versus loud plate and honor). There should also be some caution as what the paladin did was really harsh. From what has been described by the OP, nothing really here that would warrant a CN ninja completely not helping the paladin in combat anymore. I believe the OP also said at some point his character was upset the paladin didn't respect his authority, and had a holier than though attitude. For the former, as a chaotic character, the ninja probably doesn't respect authority, so expecting another character to respect his authority is hypocritical. For the latter, yeah . . . that's a danger of playing a class that most of the time is holier than though. This would surely grate on the CN ninja, which would, in my mind, shift the slaying of helpless prisoners to be more of a "so, you aren't as wonderful as you seem to think you are".
Emmit Svenson wrote:
Indeed. Creatures with higher mass potentially should take more damage from a fall.
The damage from a fall is from the change in momentum, or the impact. The equation for an impact force is Impact = 2 * m * v / t. Given that all falling objects fall at the same rate, and the impact time would be roughly the same (since I don't want to get into details regarding the change in ability of the body to compress and whatnot). Given this, the only factor different between a huge creature and a medium creature is mass. Now Enlarge Person says to multiply weight by 8 for each enlargement, so assuming density remains the same, the Huge person will have an impact force 64 times greater than the Medium person.
What all this does not account for is the change in the body's tolerance of impact force. Simply put, a larger creature may be subject to greater force, but their larger musculature and bone structure may be able to handle the increased force. I have no idea if this growth in force tolerance in the joints would increase proportionally to the mass at a 1:1 ratio or not. Simplest way to handle it (and somewhat logical) is to say that it does scale linearly with mass, and thus the Huge person is back to taking the same effective damage as the Medium person.
The other thing to consider is that most huge creatures will have proportionally higher HP as well, which can be seen as an ability to shrug off damage from falls.
All of this is kind of silly to do, as it is attempting to apply real world physics in great detail to the Pathfinder mechanic, which is really just a useful and simple abstraction. I really don't want to have to grab my calculator every time someone falls to determine based on weight how many d6s I should roll.
Basically agree with Stefan.
For me I expect you to roleplay the content of what you are trying to say, and then the actual results of the roll determine eloquence and how well it is received. For "roleplay the content", I don't expect a long "Pray tell, good sir, can you direct me to the location of the Cave of Doom" unless the player wants to. A simple, "I ask him where the Cave of Doom is" will accomplish the same thing. The roll determines how eloquently they spoke, and how well received their message was received.
Sometimes the content will override the roll. Telling a paranoid and somewhat clingy drunk girl that you are sleeping with her paladin boyfriend will likely get both her and her boyfriend a bit peeved, 30+ Diplomacy/Bluff roll not-withstanding (this happened once with my group). Sometimes the content can augment the roll, such as threatening an arachnophobic person with summoning a spider swarm on them during an interrogation giving a slight bonus to the intimidate check.
I might houserule that it does, just for the amusement of the barbarian attempting to kill things using a very irate wizard.
The way I see it, there are 3 types of "alignment":
The first does not give any ability to bypass DR. The second gives ability to bypass appropriate DR with natural weapons. The third allows an object to bypass DR. Align Weapon alters the 3rd type of "alignment" for a weapon (only if it has none already).
Intelligent weapons are unique though, as they are not just a weapon, but a creature/sentient being. As such, they get the first type of alignment. This does not give them any innate mechanical benefits. However, they are also the only type of object capable of having an alignment other then type-3.
Whether the presence of type-1 alignment blocks Align Weapon is a bit up in the air. My own RAI/House Rule would be no, but the Intelligent Weapon will always resist if you are not assigning a type-3 alignment that is a part of its type-1 alignment. So attempting to Align a LN Black Blade to Good would give it a save. My reasoning for this is you are basically forcing a sentient being to act in a way not in accordance to its nature. However, a LG Black Blade would have no objections to doing Good damage.
Things I wish were standard issue military equipment at some point (but severely doubt they were):
The point being, saying "dual wielding shields was never an accepted military fighting style, and thus should not be allowed" is a bit silly. There are plenty of weapons in PF that never saw use militarily, but are pretty cool. PF is a fantasy RPG, not a real-world weapons simulator.
Turin the Mad wrote:
Yeah . . . that is pretty much where I am right now. 5 kills in 2 consecutive sessions (and 2 consecutive posts!), bringing my total up to 6 as well. This is Skuld's 3rd (and final) time on the list. I blame the rise in deaths on the introduction of more mages as enemies, combined with me taking the gloves off and playing the enemies as decently intelligent and ruthless.
The Gory Details:
The party managed to clear out the Aberian Ruins without further incident, partly because the Dealer had entered the Nessian Spiral. When entering Nessian Spiral, not only did they trigger the alarm left be the Dealer, but they then wandered down the hall with the Cerberi and promptly fled once they realized the dogs would not leave their post. When they entered the torture chamber, they thus walked in on a well prepared Avahzi and her 4 thief cohorts.
Rather than charge Avahzi, they chose to huddle together near the door to deny the thieves sneak attack opportunities. This had the unfortunate side-effect of placing them in the perfect position for her spells. A flame strike severely wounded the entire party, the following Unholy Blight pushed Davi, already whittled down to low health by the the wand of spiritual weapon and several surprisingly accurate rogues, into the negatives. Meanwhile, Skuld was clinging to consciousness via her orc ferocity.
Dunn and Halung began their last stand, with Halung raging, and Dunn for the most part being able to keep him healthy via a constant steam of high-powered heals, with some aid from Skuld. Unfortunately, after a few negative energy channels, Skuld fell unconscious. Halung finally made it in front of Avahzi, at about 12 health, only to eat a near max damage inflict serious wounds, and fell. Dunn managed to grab Halung's corpse and run away with 9 health remaining. Skuld's unconscious body was left behind to get coup de grace'd by one of the thieves. With her corpse was the infernal contract.
Davi and Skuld's bodies were not recovered, thus the players will be re-rolling. Halung has been reincarnated as a goblin. My group has some serious issues with casters. They keep bunching up for AoEs and no one gets in the caster's face.
I really like the Codex Alera, but I don't consider it a great series, at least not on par with Song of Ice and Fire, Dresden Files, Mistborn, or what I anticipate The Stormlight Archive will be. Don't get me wrong, it was good, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it (multiple times), but I feel like it was a lot more hit-or-miss than the Dresden Files. It is one of those series where there were moments and characters that I absolutely loved, and moments/characters where I am kind of meh about.
One thing to keep in mind, is that the series was started on a bet. Butcher claimed he could write a good book using two lame ideas, and the ideas chosen were Pokemon and the Lost Roman Legion. When considering those origins, it is really impressive how good the series is.
First of all, holding up Molly as an example of sexism is a bit silly in my mind, though I do agree that the ubiquitous use of the "training bra" reference to explain age difference was overdone. As Matthew Morris said, it makes sense at times, like when Molly was naked, or even when Thomas was telling Harry to go for her, but it was also used when there was no sexual context beforehand. But the underlying thing is, she is supposed to be really messed up.
She's drop dead gorgeous, and she knows it. She is also a natural manipulator, who at times has been show to be willing to use her looks/body to get what she wants. She is rebelling against an overprotective mother and a conservative Christian family. She has had an obsessive crush on Harry since she was a preteen, as he is a dangerous, mysterious version of her dad. Her rebelliousness gets her into a bad crowd, then she almost accidentally kills her friends, gets kidnapped by fey, rescued by her crush (echoing her dad saving her mom from a dragon), and then she faces execution by a group of shadowy figures only to be saved once again by, and taken under the wing of, her obsessive crush. All of this is plenty to cause some ridiculous psychological trauma and severely warp her. And all of this is before she gets insane PTSD from Chichen Itza, helps Harry kill himself, becomes a serial killer via mind magic, and spends some time living on the streets with a vicious Sidhe. And now she gets to fight the allure of Winter. She is one of the most psychologically messed up characters in the Dresdenverse.
I also didn't think the nipple-piercings were a defining characteristic of her. They were mentioned a couple of times, mostly in the context of "hey, there is a hot young thing near me, and she totally wants in my pants, and she is naked/wearing an insanely tight top with no bra, and it is cold/she is aroused". Can you honestly say if you were in that situation, you wouldn't notice the nipple-piercings? Maybe Molly is overly sexualized in the books, but she also is flaunting her sexuality in front of Harry in an attempt to seduce him a fair amount of the time. What I found more defining of her was her eagerness, both to please Harry (messed up psyche), and to help out and feel like she is contributing something; as well as her passion and inability to think things through properly.
Epic Meepo wrote:
True, and at the same time, Karin is revealed as somewhat sexist as well, given her assessment of men communicating primarily in primitive grunts. Arguable as bad as any single thing Harry does.
I found that Murphy's description of Harry as normally moving around slowly and deliberately, as though he was going to break something accidentally, combined with her assessment of how he changes when there is danger, added a lot of dimension to the character. A dimension that is not really possible to achieve while writing in the character's point of view. I really want Butcher to do more short stories from other character's perspectives. In particular, I would like to see Harry Dresden from the perspectives of Michael, Charity, Molly, and Billy. Each has a very different view of Harry, and could provide a good amount of insight into an aspect of his character.
As for the sexism in general in the Dresden Files, I didn't really find Harry all that sexist in a demeaning way (aside from a couple moments in the early books), and he does grow out of it. It is more like he is clinging to the old chivalric ideal (which I find somewhat understandable given some of the stuff he went through as a kid). Yes, he has a glaring weakspot for the damsel in distress trope, which is a sexist character flaw, but it is one that is regularly exploited by all the strong female characters that are present in the series. And the presence of said female characters makes it apparent that Harry's sexism should in no way be attributed to Butcher. Also, a lot of the sexist comments/actions he makes in general throughout the series are directed at Murphy, and are primarily teasing in nature.
The Gory Details:
Searching for a way into the Nessian Spiral, the party (Skuld, Davi, Maruk the spastic gnomish Hellknight, and Halung the barbarian) scaled a 20-ft cliff to enter the ruined east wing of Aberian's Folly. After narrowly killing Crosael and 4 thieves that ran over to assist in a battle that left Skuld and Davi unconscious and Maruk blind, they fled with Crosael's body and whatever spoils were easily at hand in fear of reinforcements. Hours later, when they returned, Aberten "The Dealer" Vittershins had a bit of a surprise for them.
The party re-entered the ruins via the same way they came in the first time. To their surprise, someone had moved all the corpses they had left out of the room. Carefully going through the ruins, they still managed to flub their perception rolls and not notice the rogues sneaking around them in the adjacent hallway. When they reached the library, they threw caution to the wind and began reading/burning books. Unfortunately, they were soon ambushed by The Dealer, and the rest of the living thieves.
As Maruk and Halung tried in vain to pick off Aberten, Davi found himself fighting for his life, surrounded by rogues. While he was holding his own against the rogues, and unfortunate Searing Ray boosted by the power of The Dealer's Harrow deck managed to knock him unconscious.
Hoping to shield the group from any more rays of fire, Skuld cast Obscuring Mist. Aberten was unfazed, as he simply pulled out his Wand of Lightning Bolt and shot a blast through Halung, Skuld, and Maruk. Finding the Mist to be more of a hindrance then an asset, the party decided to flee. Halung (now carrying Davi's body) and Skuld fled into the hallway, as Maruk stayed behind to distract the thieves before making his own retreat through the connected rooms.
Unfortunately, The Dealer gave chase to Halung and Skuld, and a second Lightning Bolt managed to kill the unconscious Davi, and almost knock-out the other two. Halung and Skuld split up, with Halung barring himself in a side room with Maruk, who had successfully pushed through the thieves and barricaded the door. Aberten gave chase to Skuld and finished her off with another lightning bolt.
With a combined 12 hp between them, Maruk and Halung made a daring escape. Maruk grabbed Davi's corpse, and sprinted through Crosael's room and leapt off the cliff. Halung entered a rage, and dashed right in front of The Dealer to snatch Skuld's corpse and leap off the cliff as well. Unwilling to leave the entrance to the Nessian Spiral unguarded, and wary of the possibility of an Erineyes lying in wait outside, The Dealer let them flee.
Skuld and Davi have been reincarnated. Skuld is now a half-orc woman. Davi, who already was having some issue with his sexual identity, has switched genders and is now a dwarven woman.
I have to agree with all those who suggested throwing something that targets will saves in there. Heck, just throw in a wizard with a bunch of mooks and have the wizard cast "Hold Person" (or have a witch cast "Sleep"). AC doesn't help against Coup de Grace.
I echo the other posters in wanting to take a glance at his build. +16 AC from gear (as Kydeem postulated) is possible, but generally that would entail allowing his touch AC to dip quite a bit as he relies on full plate and natural armor bonuses. Also, assuming regular WBL, focusing on defense that much should limit his offensive capabilities.
Not knowing your campaign, it is hard to give good advice concerning how to challenge him appropriately within the confines of whatever story you are weaving. One thing to do is to make sure he is roleplaying his stats. Using smokesticks to provide cover as he approaches an archer? That could be ruled as too smart for a 7 Int/7 Wis fighter. Basically, call him out when he does what would qualify as advanced tactics. If he dumped his mental stats, he should not be a master tactician. He built a big dumb fighter, make sure he plays one. Throw social/skill challenges at the group. Combats with difficult terrain or terrain that require acrobatics/climb/swim usage. Convincing a ridiculously powerful enemy not to fight them. The fighter excels at fighting, and he has optimized his character as such. However, focus a bit more on non-combat stuff and things should balance out a bit.
The core problem, though, is not IC but OOC. It sounds like the player has an abrasive personality and playstyle that doesn't mesh with your group at all. Continually questioning the GM and repeatable complaining about things like, "that enemy shouldn't have had such high AC" is incredibly rude, and in my opinion, completely unacceptable. If speaking with him doesn't work (and it sounds like it hasn't), there may be no other option but to bid him farewell.
I've never been pushed to give a hard stance re:multi-classing making sense, as most of my players share a similar viewpoint, but I do require a multi-classing make sense for the character.
For example, one of my players has an Oracle of Lore that recently multi-classed due to the player feeling there was too much overlap with the party cleric. He had narrowed down his options to Barbarian -> Rage Prophet, Harrower, or Magus. We discussed it, and both agreed that it would make no sense for a middle-aged woman who enjoys theater and collecting lost knowledge to suddenly decide to become a barbarian. Thus, that option was taken off the table by mutual agreement, though I would have blocked it completely if the player had pressed the point because it really didn't make sense for the character. At the same time, if there had been some trigger for the change and sudden appearance of rage(close friend dying, etc.), it would have been a different situation entirely.