One thing I liked on a conceptual level from Iron Kingdoms was that Meckanikal (their version of magi-tech that I might have misspelt) weapons could be upgraded to do various things (like flaming or frost damage), including just straight up more damage or accuracy. But it was only the one time. Putting an Accuracy rune on your weapon's runeplate gave you a +1 to hit and was the total bonus to accuracy you were ever going to have. There was no +2 Accuracy or +3 or higher. Characters in fiction might go around with weapons that, due to their magical enhancement, hit more often or harder or both, but they don't go around with a Sword of Accuracy, only to upgrade to a Sword of Accurate Accuracy, and then to a Sword of Really Accurate Accuracy or a Sword of Really Really Accurate Accuracy. That's when it really gets boring. We've already had the accuracy of a weapon being magically enhanced in the story; we don't need to do it again, so let's kindly move on to anything else.
Edit: it also had the advantage of not letting weapons get so upgraded that a character using a weapon with a fully decked-out runeplate became hopelessly crippled if he ever had to go back to a stock normal un-upgraded weapon. Han has his trusty blaster that he's tinkered with and tricked out; he doesn't just sit down and give up fighting if he's stuck with a borrowed Stormtrooper rifle.
Agreed, though I would say you can also throw in Pathfinder fiction, too. In all the books, we never hear a character complain about not having prepared enough uses of this or that specific spell. We have characters either know a spell or not (a la Sorcerers). We have characters that are supposed to be divine casters; in which case, the novel treats practically every spell they can cast as something they can spontaneously cast (there's never a point where any divine casting character says "Oh darn, why didn't I pray for XXXX today?"). The closest we have to Vancian is still more Arcanist/5E, where the character either prepared the spell or didn't, he never says anything to the effect of "Oh darn, I only prepared that spell once; why didn't I prepare it twice?".
Thirding this request. I liked being able to read more before having to scroll down.
Yep, I'm encountering this, too.
Using Version 11 on iPhone SE.
Milo v3 wrote:
.... Why would it need to? Greatswords are already high damage dealing weapons, and don't really fit the "finesse" style of things like sneak attack.
Because when I'm picking Rogue, there are several things the class offers that I might be picking the class for, and I don't want my choice of "Hey, I want to be the skills guy" to somehow dictate "So of course, I only want to be using a dagger". Yes, with the way weapon damage dice go up, Sneak Attack with heavier weapons might need to be tweaked (half SA dice on non-finesse or non-agile weapons, or reduced SA dice, or both, or some other kind of tweak to keep the math working), but I still want to be able to inflict whatever kind of not-damage debilitating conditions come along with SA (which would not require a math tweak). Mostly I just don't want to see "I'm the skills guy, so of course you can predict what hyperspecific list of weapons I'm capable of using" like in 4E, 5E, and the Operative in Starfinder.
What's unattractive about lawful good characters? Two examples:
One: I'm playing what I consider to be a lawful good character. He has lawful traits and good traits. He's not a caricature of the alignment, so he also has evil and chaotic traits (as well as neutral traits on both axes), but I intend for them to be exceptions and outliers. In good faith, I believe that I have described a character that fits more into LG than anywhere else, and that I am portraying that character in a way that will be taken as LG. When I advertise my character as LG, that is what I'm communicating.
But that isn't what is being communicated. You see me write LG on my character sheet, and naturally, you think what I'm portraying should fit into your idea of what can fit within the bounds of LG. That what I estimate to be the natural and obvious tolerances for "well, that might have been a deviation on LG, but the character is still LG overall" will be the same as your estimate. And if/when I disappoint and have the character do something that I do believe to still be within the standard accepted deviation of LG but that you do not, then I must be doing it wrong. Cue unwanted and unwarranted scrutiny.
Two: I play precisely and exactly the same character as before. I still think he's more LG than anything else, and I don't portray him one iota differently than I did in the first example. The difference is: I don't pass him off as LG. He's as LG as I know how to make a character, but I write TN on the character sheet. So whatever I have the character do, with all his lawful and good actions and occasional chaotic and evil actions, it's all taken as the standard accepted deviations on True Neutral. Anecdotally, the conversation always ends after I say the character's alignment is TN. Somehow, it invites less scrutiny to do it that way (and not just LG, but practically any non-TN-alignment).
The character did not change. The apparent open invitation to pause the game and rip me a new one over personal differences on a subjective topic went away; that certainly changed. But the character did not.
You want LG (or alignment in general) to be less unattractive? Get rid of the impetus to subject players to scrutiny they never asked for and don't deserve. Make alignment have nothing at stake. No one argues if I declare my character to be decisive rather than wishy-washy, and you think that, while the character isn't wishy-washy, he isn't decisive enough to be decisive. With nothing at stake, the argument dies before it starts and you and I can simply agree to disagree.
For a more focused fix, look at Magical healing, it forces the body to heal quickly. It’s easy to imagine the process of forced healing causing stress to the body and that repeated forced healings within a day could have a negative effect.
I feel like this doesn't need to cover healing from character-derived resources (spell slots, a Monk's ability to heal himself (if P2E Monks get something like that, Lay On Hands, etc) since they already have their own limitation, anyway. The in-game justification could be that healing magic stresses the body, but the caster shares that stress with the recipient. And then the explanation for when the caster IS the recipient could be that the body learns how to handle that potnetial for stress when the caster learns how to cast the spell (or otherwise magically heal himself).
Captain Morgan wrote:
It's only the same thing as realizing there are those that want to play a Barbarian, those that do not want to have something hanging over their head, and that these two things do not contradict each other. Yes, it may make aspects of the system result in sources of magic not being explained. It also results in the system not springing a stressful Sword of Damocles on a player for having the unmitigated gall of being interested in the Barbarian class (or the Druid class).
I just don't have it in me to value the former over the latter. It's anathema to me.
It will never not dismay me to see the bolded as something still being pursued for the purpose of being inflicted on others.
Wait, that's what they're doing with the Rogue's choice of weapons? Copying 4E, 5E, and Starfinder's decision to say "Hey, since you're playing a character that is otherwise best expressed by the Rogue/Operative class, we're going to go ahead and assume that you must want him to be stuck with a hyper-specific selection of weapons"?
Ugh. Hopefully, we can tweak SA between now and P2E's launch to nip that character-concept-crushing restriction in the bud. And even if not as a function of the default class feature, maybe with a feat or a class feature allowing the Rogue to expand his weapon repertoire beyond "Ye Olde Stock Limited Liste".
I mean, this is P2E. Last I heard, one could jump dozens of feet straight up into the air. Or steal the pants off someone while they were still wearing said pants. If such things are possible, then surely I can shank someone with a claymore (or, for that matter, a ballista).
Now, yes, I get the numbers require some separation. Assuming the same modifier to damage, a 1st level Rogue with a finesse weapon doing, let's say: 1d6 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d6 + stat in non-sneak attack situations will easily get outclassed by a Rogue with a greatsword doing 1d12 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d12 + stat normally. And that gap would only widen with additional weapon dice.
That just means tweak the numbers.
3 avg dmg per hit difference favoring the greatsword
*20th level finesse SA: 6d6 + stat + 10d6 (min 16 + stat, max 96 + stat, avg 56 + stat)
18 avg dmg per hit difference favoring the greatsword
Too large. So let's tweak it. What happens when we halve the SA dice a sneak-attacking greatsword Rogue gets (besides making it where a greatsword Rogue isn't even using SA until later than 1st level)?
*20th level greatsword 1/2 SA: 6d12 + stat + 5d6 (min 11 + stat, max 102 + stat, avg 56.5 + stat)
18 avg dmg ahead on regular hits, 0.5 avg dmg ahead on SA hits
Okay, let's also say that SA dice for non-finesse weapons are d4s instead of d6s.
*20th level greatsword 1/2 reduced SA: 6d12 + stat + 5d4 (min 11 + stat, max 92 + stat, avg 51.5 + stat)
still ahead on regular hits, but behind on SA hits now
That's just off the top of my head. Undoubtedly, there are more and better ways it can be tweaked. And certainly other factors that would also need to be accounted for (crits, weapon properties, etc.). But if the math concerns of allowing a Rogue to use a greatsword (or other large weapon) can be resolved without resorting to "You're using a greatsword? No Rogue for you!!", isn't it infinitely preferable to go to every other length necessary before we redefine "Rogue" to mean "that guy who's not allowed to use a greatsword"?
Brock Landers wrote:
Ever since 1st Ed AD&D the Druid has had some good blasting spells, better than the cleric. The balance lies with not letting it get out of control, like in 3rd Ed (Wild Shape casting feat, etc). A spellslinging bear, with a buffed bear sidekick, and summons more bears, can get unwieldy.
You mean it would be...
Thinking about it more, Bard is actually a perfect fit for the Occult. After all, how many evil cultist rituals involve the leading of brainwashed followers in ominous chanting and demonic linedancing? How terrifying would it be to come across people singing:
"'Cthulhu fhtagn!' What a wonderful phrase!
*Someone more familiar with Lovecraft can finish that.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Plus, P1E never (to my knowledge) allowed Performance to connote an action without witnesses or intention of popular acclaim or regard, which made Bard an intimidating choice of class as it seemed to necessitate the player to WANT the spotlight.
Thanks. This helps. Though, this expansion on what "Performance" is allowed to entail should probably find its way somewhere into the final product...
Mark Seifter wrote:
So how does that reconcile with this?
Mark Seifter wrote:
I don't think it will cover for people who don't want to do anything involving performance, but it might do well on the niche of a batman bard that some took with archaeologist. The polymath is the muse for you if you're always thinking "Oh, I want to do this...but wait, I could do that! Why can't I do it all?" Prepare a spell to spontaneously cast, get more spontaneous heightening, use skills in a versatile way so you can succeed at a wide variety of stuff? That's the polymath's shtick.
Are you saying that "Performance" as used by Paizo in the context of the Bard includes conducting rituals with absolutely no witnesses (besides the universe itself) and with no goal of entertaining anyone or even being acknowledged by anyone?
Friendly Rogue wrote:
As far as I can tell (and Milo, correct me if I'm wrong), the bolded is the only point of contention for Milo (and definitely me).
Edit: Milo was already writing his response while I was writing mine; oh well.
I totally buy the Bard having extensive esoteric knowledge, including the obscure and best-left-forgotten (and therefore, the Bard is Occult).
I totally buy one expression (no, not all of them, but certainly one) of the occult being music (and therefore, the Bard is Occult).
I totally buy the Bard spell list being focused on the mind and force effects (and therefore, the Bard is Occult). Heck, my favorite refluff of the Bard is to make them manipulators of the universal Om from Hindu traditions; nothing says "music equals magic" quite like vibrating the fundamental metaphysical strings of existence, and having reality rewrite itself to match.
It falls apart when you HAVE to be a performing music-y dude. When you can't NOT be the performing music-y dude. And even having the performance be an oration like a military drill sergeant is still an obligation to have the character be someone who fundamentally can't function if people aren't paying attention to him (which even the Om manipulator concept doesn't require, since it's more like the Truenamer in concept and more concerned with talking to the universe than any particular resident).
It's not WE who can't divorce the concept of a spoony luter from a Bard. I already asked if performing was optional. The closest I heard to an answer was "no". Paizo is saying the Bard must include the concept of a spoony luter.
It makes sense if the so-called "shields" are really a force field within the hull (or a structural integrity field or the hull armor being polarized or any technobabble that doesn't imply a bubble IN FRONT OF and BEFORE the physical structures of the ship). But they used the word "shield" which carries a certain expected meaning (i.e., not something that would be functioning in the manner you describe).
Let me put it this way:
"This morning, I got into my rake and drove down the speech to get to my apple."
Nonsensical, right? Obviously, I'm trying to communicate something to you and you're completely justified to think I could have done a better job. So what if I had tried this?
"The following uses the word "rake" to mean "car", the word "speech" to mean "highway", and the word "apple" to mean "job". 'This morning, I got into my rake and drove down the speech to get to my apple.'"
Still aggravating to get through, but at least now, I'm acknowledging that I'm not using the words that typically have the meanings that I'm trying to convey and I'm giving a guide as to how to go from what I said to what I actually meant. Now what if I had tried this?
"This morning, I got into my car and drove down the highway to get to my job."
No aggravation or confusion. Not even any hint that someone somewhere out there could mess up a sentence like that. See the difference?
That's still a kind of performing, though (and the Archaeologist still HAD to have Verbal components for his spells whether they normally had them or not, and he still couldn't take Silent Spell). And I don't consider any of what else the Archaeologist got to be a "drastic mechanical change", especially not when they were almost (all?) core Rogue abilities, and especially given P2E's more modular nature.
How required is music/performing/being-the-party-face?
I.e., I look to the Bard class for the jack-of-all-trades blend of spells, skills, and some combat ability; using music is as peripheral here as it would be for any other class. My favorite P1E Bard archetype was the Archaeologist (since it traded out almost everything music-y for features I'd actually want to use instead). The Archaeologist's only failing was that his spells still had to have a Verbal component even if they normally didn't, and that he was still barred from taking Silent Spell (and I'm almost certain those were only oversights on the part of the writer who wrote that archetype).
We can sub in playing an instrument for a spell's Verbal and Somatic components; I take this to mean you don't have to. Do we have similar freedom of expression elsewhere, or is the Bard stuck with having to be musically- or performance-inclined?
Michael Sayre wrote:
Because I haven't seen a post already saying this, the POD appears to be available now.
@Ravingdork: Yeah, I know I can just re-name them. "Starfinder ships do not and have never had 'shields', they have 'force fields' or structural integrity fields' and any rules references that use the word 'shields' are doing so incorrectly" is something I'm already familiar with. My gripe is that I'm the one having to do that, though.
The traditional depiction of a shield is "the bubble outside the ship". The traditional depiction of armor is "the outer surface ON the ship". If they want Starfinder so-called "shields" to be more like "structural integrity fields" or whatever, then there's no problem as long as they call them out as operating in that non-traditional method. Or even just reference a semi-mainstream scifi franchise where that is the standard way shields work. No, Star Trek doesn't count because the things that would be the closest analogues (polarized hull armor and/or the SIF) already have their own names and aren't called "shields".
AFAIK, you can only put in a certain number of runes/potency/properties if your weapon isn't well-made enough; otherwise, you will have to get rid of the ancestral family blade that you started the game with and therefore is only so-so in terms of quality. Has there been any word on reforging (or alchemically treating or Masterwork Transformation spelling) an existing blade into a better quality weapon? I've been looking but haven't seen anything yet.
Don't feel bad. Pigs are intelligent creatures; that's why we have so many different ways to eat them, to keep them from rising up against us.
And when P1E did have spell creation rules (Word-casting), they never got support outside of their debut book (UM).
Or... more like Unchained Automatic Bonus Progression wealth? Unless the author specifically writes them to have magic weapon after magic armor after magic cloak of game-math-correcting, most Tales characters MIGHT have A magic item.
I understand you think you're being stymied. I'll even agree that opening up the Paladin to any alignment does take something away. What I don't agree on is that the thing being taken away was ever yours to begin with (yes, my dice analogy). Your idea of your Paladin concept is "champion of lawful goodness". We're good so far. Your idea of your Paladin concept is "champion of lawful goodness where no one can use that same class how they see fit, at least, not without having to move Heaven and Earth first". This is essentially the same as making a Dwarf in a gaming group with the intention of your Dwarf PC being the only Dwarf PC, and then getting bent out of shape when someone else wants to play a Dwarf, too. Your character sheet is yours. Their character sheet is theirs. You have no primacy regarding Dwarf characters being PCs, other than to say yours is one. In like fashion, they don't get to foist an "Elf in a party with no Dwarves". Somewhere you got it into your head that the integrity of your Paladin characters was in any way, let alone in a significant way, dependent on how other people that you will never meet or game with played theirs.
You bolded that section, but let's talk about what I asked immediately after that you didn't bold. A question with variations that I've asked and I know has been asked by others:
How does the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction prevent you from playing a human Paladin?
How does Bards being able to be lawful prevent you from playing a nonlawful Bard?
How does Samurai being able to be nonlawful prevent you from playing a lawful Samurai?
How does Fighters being able to use weapons besides axes prevent you from playing an axe-only Fighter?
How does Gnomes being an available race require you to play a Gnome?
In each of these other cases, we can examine them based on their own merits, and find them lacking. I can decide for myself not to play a Gnome. I have less than zero say saying no one else should be able to. You can decide to play an Elf. Do you get to just declare that you're going to play an Elf in a no-Dwarves party? Your character's "Elf-ness" is not contingent on everyone else being prevented from playing a Dwarf. My character not being a Gnome is not contingent on no one else being able to play a Gnome, and if I thought it was, I'd be wrong. No, I am not just allowed to be at the other end of the spectrum; pushing "no Gnomes" is just plain not something I get to do for anyone else but myself. Why can we identify this for what it is everywhere else, but sub in "the Paladin and what alignments he can be" and it gets a free pass?
I'm not calling it a sadistic glee on your part. I'm equating your concept of the Paladin depending on how closely others hew to it with the guy who gave you my dice in my dice analogy. I do believe you think the Paladin is just naturally supposed to be that way, just like you did nothing to take my dice in the aforementioned analogy. Nevertheless, those hypothetical dice were never yours, any more than your concept of the Paladin should depend on whether or not I had to take a master class in negotiation just to play a Paladin without something hanging over my head. I know you did nothing to sinisterly graft that aspect onto your image of the Paladin; it's still my hypothetical dice.
We're not accepting those compromises because those aren't acceptable compromises. "Hey, we're going to keep these fall conditions (because that's apparently the crux of the Paladin) hanging over your head, but we decreased them by one. Can't you settle for that?" You stated your minimum in that thread, so I'll do the same.
The Vindictive Bastard. It was the best Paladin P1E ever had because it had no alignment requirements of any kind (not even "don't be LG") or code of conduct of any kind (not even "don't turn right around and go back to upholding the stock code") and because its class features were laterally different enough from the basic Paladin's that one could halfway pretend they weren't insultingly lesser token appeasements. I.e., the player didn't have something hanging over his head.
Some Paladin, or archetype of Paladin, or specific selection of class features in place of RA and the SP that's still just as worthwhile, that is not contingent in any way on having something hanging over the player's head. Essentially, the Barbarian's Fury totem, but for the Paladin. Some acknowledgement that in the Venn Diagram of "players that want to play a Paladin" and "players that don't want something hanging over their head", there is overlap. Where in your alleged "many good compromises" is one that resembles what I just described?
Or to borrow your own phrasing:
"Not gonna lie. Seeing this come up again and again is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that only opening the Paladin class by a few alignments is all the compromising necessary. That keeping something hanging over the player's head while slightly increasing the Paladin to only the four corners isn't maintaining the same headache as before (*hint: it's not about what alignments I can play a Paladin as while having a fall hanging over my head, it's the 'there must be a fall hanging over my head'*). And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how the crux of the Paladin must be "has to have a fall, can't let the player not worry about falling, the player must be a stressed-out nervous wreck 'cuz game and fun'"? Can we just accept that I have this opinion that any emphasis on falling or restrictions is overemphasis and results in the Paladin missing its own point, and that that opinion is valid?
Now, I understand that the Paladin has a pretty specific legacy. But it's a legacy with a high cost that players that don't buy into said legacy shouldn't just automatically be expected to pay. And I'm certainly not saying there's no room for the LG-only Paladin as a concept. Having that in the game and NOT be at the cost of other players enjoying that class (again, not saying that cost was ever sadistically pursued, just that it's there) is great, and leaves room for both playstyles. But it needs to not be a forced marriage of class and concept."
Not saying that idea for a, what, Chaos Knight? isn't a good one (the trickster nature of the UA Oath of Treachery for the 5E Paladin is my second favorite part of it), but why is that randomness so necessary in the mechanics? Clerics of Cayden, Desna, Calistria, Gorum, Lamashtu, and Rovagug don't come with unpredictable tables. Such a character multiclassing with a Fighter wouldn't introduce those tables. Why would a class that takes that multiclass combination and makes it more cleaned up and coherent?
The Raven Black wrote:
Intended or not, it's what comes across. Yeah, it's all about world-building or legacy or some such. It still comes with "Hey, Timmy, you're going to have to take a master class at negotiating to play the character you want to play because someone several states over would be bothered by that sort of character being freely available". I don't care that your goal isn't stymieing another player; I care that said stymieing is occurring, period. Especially when said stymieing would not be occurring in the reverse were Paladins any alignment (or do you want to tell me about how the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction has completely prevented you from playing a human Paladin?). And I just don't have it in me to consider any world-building or legacy in combination with that sort of stymieing as having any kind of net positive.
That's why I phrased the bolded how I did.
Champion of Caiden IS Paladin minus "Righteous Ally" and "Spell Points" plus "something replacing Righteous Ally" and "something replacing Spell Points (or keeping the Spell Points and tweaking what they can be spent on)".
You say that like it's some major undertaking. It'd be like if Clerics back in P1E were non-evil only and had the ability to channel positive energy and spontaneously cast Cure spells, with the developers scratching their heads wondering where they'd even start with making an evil Cleric, when such a hypothetical situation (and indeed, how P1E actually has it) is resolved by nothing more than changing the channel positive to channel negative and spontaneously casting Inflict spells instead of Cure spells.
Except it's even easier here, given how modular and exchangeable all the various classes' class features are supposed to be. If Pathfinder has ever been geared towards making class features easily swappable, it's more so here.
Tell me about it. I'm here with the extremely reasonable view that, as a game, as a Saturday afternoon diversion meant to be enjoyed and anticipated, a player should be able to default to "no worries/has nothing hanging over his head", no matter what class happens to catch his interest. That in the Venn Diagram of "Players that enjoy the Barbarian class" and "Players that don't want something hanging over their head", there will be and must be overlap. God bless them, that's why the developers put in the Fury totem. I wish they'd made "totems that don't put things hanging over the player's head" as the default rather than the exception, but at least they recognize "not wanting something hanging over their head" as a valid concern amongst players of Barbarian characters. Except that it's not just players of Barbarian characters, it's also Alchemists and Fighters and Rogues and Rangers and Wizards and Monks. And every other class in the CRB. And every other class yet to be printed for P2E. And yes, that does include the Paladin.
And on the other hand, we have people bothered by just the idea that someone out there is playing his Paladin character his way, without something hanging over his head, and he might not have to move freaking Heaven and Earth to do so. Oh, shocker, crime, and scandal!
Whew! I knew I couldn't have been the only one to see this as a solution. Developers, please give this as much further consideration as possible. Indenting (whether success then crit success is first or failure then crit failure is first, it doesn't matter) allows the two usual outcomes (success and failure) to be visually listed together without being interrupted by crit success or crit failure (in either case, going unintuitively out of order), and still allows for crit success/failure to say, " As success/failure, but additional yay/boo".
Or this is how spell blight comes back.
The only difference I can see with the counting up is that you count up instead of down. That is it. Unless I'm missing something. Which is fine if you prefer it, some folks count damage up rather than HP down and that is fine too.
Even that can be a tangible difference; after all, isn't it why we don't use thAC0 anymore? While in this case, it's a world-framing issue as opposed to the ease-of-use issue of thAC0, framing the Resonance as being something introduced into your body and your body having a tolerance limit could make all the difference in the world (though not likely given that that isn't Resonance's only issue).
Ryan Freire wrote:
But it DOESN'T fit better with the concept of a divine champion of a god and it ISN'T more thematic than trying to slap a champion of Caiden on the same chassis as a champion of Milani or Desna. Or it indeed might fit better and/or be more thematic. Obviously it is to you. And that's your call. It isn't to me. Champion of Caiden IS Paladin minus "Righteous Ally" and "Spell Points" plus "something replacing Righteous Ally" and "something replacing Spell Points (or keeping the Spell Points and tweaking what they can be spent on)". That's my call, and as long as we're not in the same gaming group, you are as much a nonentity when it comes to having a say on what hoops I should have to jump through to express a character I have in mind as I am when it comes to having a say on how you should or shouldn't be able to express one of your characters.
After all, except for the RA and the SP, you keep EVERYTHING the P2E Paladin class has when you "fall", and therefore, ALL of those other class features ARE the class features of the not-LG Paladin. We already, right now, this very minute, have in print (or will have in print once it's printed) 95% of the not-LG Paladin. And it DOES use that much of the same chassis as the LG Paladin.
You want to talk about being disingenuous? Alright, it's disingenuous to say the LG and the not-LG Paladins cannot be expressed by the same base chassis when they factually already are.
Ryan Freire wrote:
But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.
Ryan Freire wrote:
And while they're picking a god, they're using the same base chassis. A Cleric of Shelyn uses the same generic divine powered class as a Cleric of Lamashtu and a Cleric of Nethys and a Cleric of Gorum. Even adding an archetype won't change that (depending, of course, on how extensive P2E archetypes are). So while a P2E Inner Sea Gods book may have one or two archetypes per primary deity, Paizo is not going to be printing 20 different Cleric base classes.
This made me realize the LG-only/not-just-LG argument strongly resembles Lord Business and Emmet in the Lego Movie. There's nothing wrong with having Batman team up with a robot pirate on an 80's spaceship *SPACESHIP!!* They were able to put the Piece of Resistance on the Kragle; so can we.
So items can only have a certain amount of potency or properties depending on how well-made they are. So what happens if I'm a low-level starting character and I can only afford a lesser quality weapon, but it's important to me that that specific weapon (and not some substitute that I come across at higher levels) be the weapon I use for my entire career? Can it be reforged (by me or a hired NPC) into a higher quality weapon? Will the CRB have the Masterwork Transformation spell?
I have a nickname, now? Holy crap, you just made my day!!
Ironically, I thought the Vindictive Bastard's alternative class features and how party-centric they were in comparison to the base Paladin's class features made for a better case for the VB being lawful than the base Paladin.
See, this is completely reasonable. I see the Paladin as just one hyper-specific take on what that base chassis can represent amongst many, many, many uses for that same chassis, but that would have been chump change had almost the entirety of P1E not been so against ANY passable *divine* champion. The Warpriest, conceptually, was EXACTLY what we were taking the Paladin for, and amazingly, neither the game nor the setting imploded in a puff of logic when it was right there alongside the Paladin, not infringing on the Paladin's conceptual space. But it had the mechanical issues you described and that, combined with the Anti-Paladin being released in the APG as the CE version of the Paladin (and it not being the first of many such not-LG versions) and the Gray Paladin being the lackluster token appeasement, puts A LOT of distrust in Paizo's willingness to do right by the *divine* champion class.
So I can get behind this willingness for a *divine* champion class. My objection to this not being the same chassis as the Paladin is a logistical one. I feel the *divine* champion, being able to cover the Paladin and other concepts (just as the P1E Cleric covered both deities AND concepts, including being a Cleric of Goodness and Law), should have AS HIGH or HIGHER a priority for a CRB class (that is to say, one with that level of refinement, that level of continued support as supplements come out, and that level of respect as a class that players should never have had to fight for for multiple editions but should have naturally and obviously been a part of the roster from the getgo) than the Paladin's more limited take. And since we know the CRB class lineup is going to be the eleven original plus the Alchemist, I cannot pick anything but the hyper-specific Paladin to get the boot in favor of a *divine* champion perfectly capable of covering said hyper-specific Paladin (again, as capable as the P1E Cleric was).
The Raven Black wrote:
Because his "dismantling" only goes so far as to take out the "your Paladin MUST behave this way or lose class features". Nothing about it takes away the "your Paladin CAN behave this way". The old edition requirement of "humans only" is dismantled in the same fashion. Are you prevented from playing a human Paladin due to said dismantling?
The Raven Black wrote:
That is completely false, but I'll chalk it up to you being genuinely that unaware.
Okay, why do those have to be different classes if 95+% of the chassis is going to be the same for both? Clerics of Desna get their divine empowerment from just about as opposite a source as you can get as Clerics of Asmodeus. Now how many separate classes do we need for a Cleric of Desna as opposed to a Cleric of Asmodeus? Heck, P1E had the Cleric class used for those gaining their powers specifically from deities and those drawing from a concept; the Paladin is nothing more than the "less castery, more combaty" version of the LG-concept Cleric. How many other concepts were out there, all being represented by one class?
We don't have twenty different classes for all the different Clerics of the Inner Sea deities. We don't have eight different classes for each school of Wizard. Why MUST LG-concept Cleric get its own separate class when it becomes "less castery, more combaty"? It's the same difference between a two-weapon Fighter and a two-handed-weapon Fighter at best; something distinguished by an archetype at the max (and before the APG, not even that).
And for the record,
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alternately they could leave paladin the hell alone as its own thing. and implement divine champion archetypes that slot in well with specific classes that are more in theme with the specific gods interests.
We have been leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not in your gaming group, forcing you to bear witness to our not-LG Paladins or preventing you from playing your LG Paladin, that's leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not on these boards, asking Paizo to make every other kind of Paladin but to take the LG Paladin out of the game, that's leaving your Paladin alone. That's just common courtesy, and I'd dearly love to see it returned by you leaving our Paladins alone.
Ryan Freire wrote:
No but an archetype for a divine champion for each god is absolutely an achievable goal. Something that could be released in say Gods of the Inner Sea 2.0. Because there is never going to be a 1 class thematically fits all for every god but thanks to the archetype system, divinely empowered wizard champions of nethys and divine rogues of Norgorber are not out of reach.
I addressed this overall point above, but I have to ask again: how does the Cleric not qualify exactly for the bolded and why would dialing the casting down and the mundane fighting ability up change that?
Ryan Freire wrote:
"They already replaced three blown out tires. Can't they let the fourth one just stay flat?"
Touch AC was already conceptually redundant with Reflex saves, in that both represent you dodging an incoming threat without the benefit of armor. The only differences were the specific game mechanisms by which they were resolved (one is the caster of the Disintegration ray rolling to try and hit you, the other is you rolling to try and dodge a Fireball), and that always felt like a clunky artifact of the system. For example, if you were also flat-footed, that Disintegration caster has an easier time trying to hit you, but you aren't any worse off trying to dodge that Fireball. They're both supposed to represent you dodging, so why would you be worse off dodging one but not also the other?
It's official Monks have no Alignment Restriction.
While there's always the possibility that the Monk class itself won't have alignment restrictions but selecting even one ki ability saddles you with alignment requirements, edicts, codes, and anathema (and you can only pick a ki ability if your name has an odd number of letters; no, not your character, you the player), I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic that we're finally free.
These are just head-canon speculations.
1. Imagine the Earth and its many layers of tectonic plates, mantles, and cores. Your drift drive puts you into the drift, the better the drive, the deeper you go. Once there, you move about using your conventional engines. Exiting the drift, no matter how deep you were in, puts you at the normal space equivalent location. So using the Earth analogy, a lesser drift drive will put you a few hundred miles below the surface. Traveling a couple of miles at that layer will translate to more distance once you get back to the surface. On the other hand, a better drift drive would put you closer to the core. If you're close enough, then even only a mile or two will still put you on the opposite side of the planet once you translate back to the surface.
2. Not sure, but Wingblaze's answer seems like the most reasonable take.
3. For the galaxy at large, ease of travel still doesn't equate to successful travel. That is, they still have to know that Absalom Station exists as a destination to go to in the first place before they can go there on purpose. I think you can go to destinations accidentally (doesn't Triune have a city/station in the drift that you can accidentally come across?), but Absalom Station would only be in danger of a sudden coordinated attack by a fleet if said fleet cranked up its engines one day with a sudden urge to conquer something and it didn't matter what, where, or who.
Not sure about the Azlant empire, though.
I've seen some rather interesting discussions on the paradigm of law versus chaos (and what law versus chaos should even mean), the recent explorations of what a CG code of conduct would look like, I remember one intriguing take on the Incredibles (Bob as NG, Helen as LG, both in terms of their strengths and flaws), and I still value my copy of the 3.0 Manual of the Planes. Even if I don't agree with the concept of the spectra of behavior being parsed out into 9 general boxes and those results being knowable to mortal mind, it's not like alignment as a concept is harmful or toxic.
As long as there's no agenda. But when I need to be able to continue taking levels in Monk, that requires being lawful, and therefore I need to all observers to agree the character is still lawful no matter what, then it's crossed the line.
Alignment is a lot like riddles, actually.
The comments on this webcomic page delved into the nature of riddles and how difficult it can be to successfully use them in an RPG. Namely, that riddles more often than not have multiple correct answers that can be intuitively arrived at, and the trick is knowing/guessing/licking into the specific correct answer the riddle-giver was looking for. Fun enough if you're into that sort of thing and the riddle is little more than an exploration into different ways to view the world with nothing at stake if you guess the wrong-but-still-intuitively-correct answer.
Now consider the Riddler and his deadly stakes and why everyone in Gotham prefers it when he's locked away in Arkham. Running afoul of alignment restrictions and thereby being forced to express your character in a manner you had no intention of is practically the same thing.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Can a Paladin/Knight/Oathbpund/pick-a-name in a game without alignment have a code? If so, then your answer is "yes". And therefore, we don't need the alignment restriction from a roleplaying perspective. And we already know from earlier designer statements that the code isn't meant as a drawback to counter extra powerful class features/mechanics.
Pagan priest wrote:
And I'm not saying they wouldn't also be exercising those better options. But that would be in addition to those lesser options, not in place of. Remember, this is my attempt to provide a rationale for why the ships would be bigger while the crews would be smaller, by saying that the space is taken up by, for example, not the ship's water reclamator and atmospheric reconstitutor, but the fifty water reclamators and seventy atmospheric reconstitutors per person, with spare parts enough to make another few hundred of each (also, per person).
And remember, an SF ship is only 1d6 days away from Absalom Station IF they have a working Drift drive and IF they have working thrusters for once they get into Drift space and IF they don't get a random encounter along the way. It's like Bruce Wayne's line about Superman in BvS; if there's even a 0.00000001% chance of those factors contributing to stranding them away from help, simple prudence demands that they treat it as a 100% certainty.