Tameknight's page

Tameknight wrote:

Simple if you make a blanket statement saying a thing is so because of reason x and list no other reason you are implying the reason x is the primary reason.

That is absolutely untrue unless the author of that blanket statement says it is. And it's a dangerous assumption to make in communication. AND, in this specific scenario, blanket statement because of reason X was never made. It was assumed that just because no other reason is listed, it HAS to be the reason you inferred. Again, a dangerous assumption in any communication. One that only leads to drama.

Its fine that is perhaps the best part of the internet I never have to meet any of you, our assumptions about each others characters will never be tested. Though the amount of hostility for a back pack pedal and character that will probably never exist is quite amusing. Laila Tov.

Ok I will break down your statement for you,

"This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM."

You are rhetorically posing the question why games have gms.

"After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously."

And then you are answering it with the statement games have gm's to ban players.

What am I misinterpreting here?

Sorry back to the thread, thanks Talynoyx you kind of gave me the answer I wanted, you do the best you can and you don't dirty your hands. All I wanted to know was whether a Ned Stark Lawful Stupid character would work for a paladin.

When answering the question why do games have gm's he replies that it is too ban players. Saying it in that way implies it as their primary functions. If he had said one of the reasons games have gm's then he wouldn't be implying it was there primary function.

'This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.'

Implying gm exist to ban players.

Tameknight wrote:

I wouldn't want to be in the game of a person who think the primary purpose of a gm is to ban people

Good thing there isn't anyone here saying that.

In the other thread he mentioned he said that main reason gm exist are to ban rules lawyers, you know rather than say running a game. Which interestingly means that 33.3 of all gm's I know exist to ban themselves.

In the other thread, you said Lawful meant killing any peasant leaving the quarantine zone and finding dubious loopholes in the wording of holy moral codes and vows. After that Vow of Poverty nonsense you tried to pull, I wouldn't even let you roll a paladin at my table.

I wouldn't want to be in the game of a person who think the primary purpose of a gm is to ban people, hostile gm's are the worst. Well actually hostile, sarcastic and impolite gm's are the worst.

I've always though that a good rule of thumb for Paladin behavior is to ask: "What would Superman do?" Superman never lies, he acts with honor, and does everything he can to make the world a better place. He's not quick to fight, but he recognizes that it's a possibility. He's not an idiot, but he does come off as corny sometimes because he's just so overwhelmingly good.

Superman is omni-competent so he can afford to never compromise and always do things which he believes are right, are Paladins forbidden pragmatism and are the automatically absolved of the consequences of doing the right thing over the smart thing?

Say your paladin is tasked with defending a city under siege a bunch of refugees come to your gates and you let them in because that is the good and right thing to do (otherwise they will be caught between the walls and the besieging army). But then not 3 weeks later supplies are running, low people are starving, infection is running rampant and it seems the enemy slipped some agent in with the refugees who have poisoned a couple of the wells. 1000's die the town fall and it is your fault but as you haven't committed an evil action you don't fall?

So the perfect Paladin is Ned Stark who never compromises his honor who never betrays his oaths even in the face of a much bleaker outcome?

Honestly the class should be called Berserker after the Norse Super-Men it was inspired by.

The Ki Serenity Necklace increases your Ki Pool by +2 (4 levels) and your effective level for Ki Ability by +4. Would a Qinggong Monks spell like abilities count as KI Abilities for the purpose of this bonus given they use Ki?

Given the stacking negatives at a -6 and the ki expenditure it doesn't seem two bad.

Pretty much what the topic says. What are some recommend weapon abilities for a fighter? Or is it better to just keep adding +1 to your weapon?

I'm playing a spear-wielding fighter and the party has haste readily available, so Speed doesn't seem like it would be worth the gold.

Thanks.

Merciful and Vicious are good combo's they add +3d6 no lethal damage to your weapon do 1d6 lethal damage to you (which dr effects because it is no-lethal damage), that's a 18,000 gold weapon though.

I was thinking of playing a paladin at some point but was not certain of how binding the code actually is. Are paladin entirely forbidden from necessary evil actions ? if so are they then responsible for the potentially dire consequences of in-actions?

Say they were tasked with over seeing a quarantine situation and the solider on guard decided to pepper those trying break quarantine (scared peasants) with arrows. Would the paladin have to stop them even though doing so would not be a lawful action (stopping members of the watch carrying out their duty) and not necessarily a good act (if the plague spreads hundreds more might die)?

Also does a paladin get to kill the joker?

It seems like the real problem is: Vow of Poverty's restrictions are preventing you from playing an effective character.

I don't see why you couldn't just drop the vow, lose the points from your ki pool, and move on. I wouldn't allow a player in my campaign to claim Vow of Poverty and then still take on items worth more than 50g.

If you want to keep the roleplay of sending your money away, you could drop the vow as it is, taking up the mindset that you're no good to your family dead and need the equipment to continue amassing money. Actually... can't a family live on just a few gold a month? At your level, you should be able to support all of your relatives and still have enough left over to get yourself decent equipment.

Well given my character must of sent them over 16,000 gold they are not doing too badly off.

Challenge Mechanics seem logical but remember that challenge also get better dependent upon your order so keeping the plus charisma to attack is balanced with the sword order as long as you lose the bonus to AC.

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

With danger of sounding judgmental, if you don't want to play the Vow of Poverty, why did you take it?

Because it gives him a massive ki pool

Because it seemed like a cool idea at the time and I did play for 7 levels and 6 months, the character concept was that the monk was sending all the money he earned back to his family. We have now got to the point that my monk makes an acrobatic check on the first turn to jump up somewhere high so he can have a good view of the fight and shout encouragement down. The gm even keeps sending the pc gifts from his family (equipment) in a not so subtle hint that a pc who can't hit his opponents on anything lower than a 15 (on his first attack of a flurry) isn't contributing much.

To quote wizards lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency. It is about conforming to rules what ever those rules may be if those rules are the laws of the land then legalities will be very much a part of the character. To conform to the rules you have to know them. As for the ends justifies the means typically lawful are in-favor of the society first rather than the individual so if the means are legal and they justify the ends then should be obeyed. A lawful good monk could ruthlessly cut down peasant fleeing a quarantine because one his is obeying the law and two stopping peasants spreading the disease is a good act that could save thousands.

Oh come on lawful is the alignment of technicalities, lawful means you obey the letter of the laws because the laws are sovereign. To quote I judge I met "Court are places of law not justice." If you are true lawful then you would obey the letter of the law over the spirit of the law because you do not have the authority to judge the spirit of the law as that is a task for those with the right to rule.

Is there any way for a anti-paladin to fool a paladin into believing he isn't evil (block detect evil, mask evil powers etc), and if there isn't how hard would building a home brew archetype around that idea be? It's just as is it is very hard for a Anti-Paladin to subtly influence a Paladin towards darkness when the paladin instantly knows the anti-paladin is evil.

Long story short the campaign lasted longer than expected and the problems got worse as he leveled up. I might just give up on monks and go with something a little more reliable, maybe a oracle barb or fighter hellknight.

If you want to get around the VoP go with Permanency and various magic spells, just don't forget to save a few thousand gold for the Atonement spell.

I prefer Greater Magic Fang, Arcane Sight, Tongues, Resistance and See Invisibility.

Nice that works thanks.

Conceptually I don't see the problem.

The monk owns nothing, lives plainly has no unnecessary comforts he is not rich, the only things of any value he has access to the tools of his trade (equipment) but these tools he uses to help others not to enrich himself.

As for mechanically well the amount of ki isn't worth the price of no-equipment, my monk can't keep up with the rest of the party and my lawful good monk continually putting the party at risk trying to rescue him from his own pride is getting old fast. Honestly making renting really expensive should more than balance the power of the vow.

Tameknight wrote:

I see so that limits him to collective owned stuff, stuff no one in the party owns individually, stuff that is not the possession of others and yet not his possession either.

This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.

Well that was pretty uncalled for, games have gm's because they need gm's you know to run the npc's create a scenario etc, if you believe gm's are primarily there to dis-invite players you don't like that is pretty sad.

Tameknight wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

How does a Vow of Poverty monk even get a share of the party loot? (Other than the very few gp required to live, of course.)

Because he is allowed to own money just not carry it, so as long as the party hold the loot for him he is sorted.

Quoting from the vow

"He cannot borrow or carry wealth or items worth more than 50 gp that belong to others."

" The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item."

So no, a monk isn't allowed to borrow the possessions of others if they have cost more than 50 gold.

I see so that limits him to collective owned stuff, stuff no one in the party owns individually, stuff that is not the possession of others and yet not his possession either.

How does a Vow of Poverty monk even get a share of the party loot? (Other than the very few gp required to live, of course.)

Because he is allowed to own money just not carry it, so as long as the party hold the loot for him he is sorted.

No.

Why not he isn't borrowing the items and he doesn't own them?

So can a vow of poverty monk decides to spend his share of the party funds renting magic equipment (not borrowing renting)?

So a zen archer monk rolls perception and beat the +20 stealth bonus from invisibility, does this that he can attack the invisible caster without worrying about miss-chances ? or does it just mean he knows which square the caster is in?

no magic items... this kinda mean a 80 years old LvL 20 Wizard could be killed by a lucky LvL 1 character.

If a level 20 wizard is caught entirely flat footed without any buffs or readied spells by a level 1 PC he deserves to die. Not that a level 1 pc could possibly do enough damage even on a critical to 1 hit a level 20 character.

I think the gm set up a pretty cool encounter and the party botched it epicly, as for consequences well I honestly don't see them being chased by bounty etc as the town was under siege from un-dead I doubt many people go there and any that did would likely jump to the conclusion un-dead did it. The Paladin should fall for that degree of epic fail and the cleric should be severely reprimanded unless he had a good excuse (such as I let it play out to give the vamp a false sense of security so that he might lead us to the true source of the evil affecting the land). As for the non-alignment defined characters I don't really see why they need to be punished at all beyond the standard actions have consequences and killing a bunch of nobodies in an already doomed town probably isn't going to lead to the sorts of game breaking consequences people are talking about here.

I was thinking of changing fighters so they got 8 levels of weapon training and that armor training gives a direct bonus to AC. I was thinking of giving barbarians a manifested killing intent magic weapon and armor boost whilst there raging (+1 enhancement ever 3 levels stopping at +5), making sure all the magic classes got access to greater weapon and spell mantle. As well as possibly giving everyone natural armor as they level up (1 every 3 levels max 5). I would just get rid of the fickle wind spell as it makes an entire fighting style useless without even a save. I would change saves so that high saves increase with a 3/4 progression and secondary saves increase with a 1/2 progression so a fighter at level 20 would have a 15 base fortitude save and ten for his other saves.

Squawk Featherbeak wrote:

It would be wierd, but how about a Kitsune Rogue with a 2 level dip in Paladin? Charisma-based, sneak attack, and talents. (since rogues and ninjas can get each others talents)

Ninja and Paladin don't do well together. Poison Use and the Paladin's code are quite incompatible.

I am pretty sure that Clerics are the class for Naruto Shinobi (good buffed melee and horrific combat magic), maybe Magus or Qigon Monk might also work.

How badly would simply saying all non-plot device enchanted items don't exist effect the games balance? Would it worsen the power advantage of the caster classes?

I have a few first I will start with grab the power says that you automatically do the natural attack used to start the grapple in damage to the target after a successful maintaining roll. Does this stack with using your turn to harm the enemy (single natural attack)if this doesn't stack with harm does it stack with moving or pinning your opponent?

With greater grapples you can do two maintaining actions in a turn does that mean on the round after you grapple an opponent you can both pin and tie them up?

As maintaining an grapple is a standard action does master of maneuvers flurry allow you to do it alongside a full attack as maintaining a grapple is a standard action combat maneuver and master of maneuver flurries allow you to do a number of standard action combat maneuvers along with your full attack.

If an enemy is tied up do they count as helpless for coup de gras attacks?

Make him an undead servant don't let anyone destroy him.

I was thinking of letting a monk take (fist damage) boxing gloves as an unarmed weapon so he can avoid the ridiculously costly necklace of mighty fist do people think this is balanced?

If you grab two enemies and have greater grapples so you can maintain twice does that mean you can grapple two enemies at once?

Holly Berry bombs say that they are activated by a word of command what type of actions is this? Could a surrounded druid (with a successful defensive casting check) and with resist energy fire (20) cast the spell and detonate the spell in the same turn effecting everyone within 5 ft of her dealing (1d8 + level - fire resist) x 8 damage.

If a player has a shield with +5 defending shield spikes on top of a +5 (two sets of enchantments and two different sets of costs) shield and they decide to attack with shield and use all of the shields spikes enhancement on defense could they still use the Shields Enhancement bonus (not the spikes) to attack due to shield master feat?

If a Druid transformed into a diminuative scorpion whilst wearing an agile necklace of mighty fists would he get all of the dex bonus to damage as well the bonus to hit and defense from being small?

Tameknight wrote:

I argued that a CMB roll was not an attack roll

Performing a Combat Maneuver: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus."

My bad seems he was right. I have to play as a caster one of these days some of the second level spells are really epic. Would closing the characters eyes and letting blind fight kick work against mirror image? Replacing a 75% miss chance with a 50% miss chance with a re-roll?

In game I attempted to grapple a enemy npc with mirror image on and the gm told me that I had to roll to see if I attempted to grapple one of the images. I argued that a CMB roll was not an attack roll and therefor was not affected by the mirror image spell which states to roll randomly only on attack rolls. Obviously the gm can rule what ever way he likes but I was wondering who was right by raw?

No charge bonus to iteratives well that is sensible.

So haste works with every other type of physical attack in the game except unarmed? Why is unarmed being singled out and doesn't unarmed technically count as both?

Assuming a pc is mounted and wielding a lance he does 3x damage on a charge, if he has either mounted blade or cleaving finish and his charge kills the enemy and there is an enemy adjacent he gets an extra attack does the extra attack do the full x3 damage or does it just do normal damage?

Wild Shape says it works like Beast Shape 3 at level 8 does that include allowing you to turn into a medium magical beast?

One of the Ultimate Combat feats dragon style gives a significant boost to charging and I was wondering who would need to take it to apply it to a mounted charge, the rider or the intelligence 3 (so he can take normal feats) mount with all the pre-req's?