|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That's why I kind of get confused on concepts such as "betrayal" or "owing"? Like...an author taking extra long doesn't even come up on my radar as anything like a betrayal. If the author slept with my wife...now that is betrayal...
...And now I'm imagining coming home to some future wife of mine in bed with Neil Gaiman.
"I'm so sorry honey, but he's some kind of American God!"
Ah yes, well, I speak under the general assumption that larger creatures have higher speeds. :)
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I suspect the main reason five foot steps never go beyond five feet is that it would screw martials even more than the current rules do. Martials really don't need to face monsters that can ten foot step away and deny them a full attack.
Bingo. It's also why each size category's weight and height ranges follow the square-cube law, but standard space and reach do not. The 3e team obviously realized that real consistency was just too problematic, and so they ended up writing something that looks like it came from an early Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? reject.
But then there was DS9 and I hated it, it was soooooooo BOOOOORRRRRINGGG! Nothing happened until the Dominion stuff started up otherwise it was Space CSI.
Haha, this just goes to show there's no accounting for taste. The space CSI vibe, and DS9's tone of slight moral ambiguity, which is more than the other ST shows can boast, is what makes it the least boring Trek series, IMO. Possibly with the exception of Enterprise's later two seasons.
Here are some snippets from the thread's first two pages:
Simon Legrande wrote:
If only there was some way that spell lists could just be modified to taste. It sucks that the Paizo team said "here's the rules, you better not alter them!" I had to buy a new CRB when my first one burst into flames the second I changed a rule I didn't like. I'm afraid to use the PRD now because I don't want my computer to explode.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xD
K177Y C47 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
As a GM I would see no reason for the Bard to have gravity bow. It's a measly 2.5 average damage increase that can't be critical to your character concept.
It's called Rule Zero.
Because. Those are the rules of the game you are playing. The completely arbitrary rules of the game you are playing. Someone, somewhere, decided those are the rules and that's all there is to it. You should not be surprised to find arbitrary rules in games, they are a part of every game we play.
I didn't see any of them say "But yeah, I'd totally let your bard learn Gravity Bow." Or even that they'd hypothetically give it earnest consideration. Some of them even attest to the contrary. Maybe they'll repost to restore my faith in the Paizo community though.
But in any case, what of it? If your GM says "no", tough cookies. Get a more cooperative GM or learn to work within the boundaries set by the table--or GM a game yourself and show how awesome it is to use your idea of what the rules should be like.
Well of course most of us can take a tough cookie, and eat it. I know I have in the past, and I'm sure most of us here have too. Restating the obvious doesn't make the RAW any less influential on DMs, or this topic any less worthy of discussion.
Really, with so many DMs being reluctant to make house rule judgments upon player request, it should be downright obvious why having a clear and consistent set of RAW is important.
Mr. T's floating head dominated the conversation for so long that I forgot that Cranefist was the OP. Sorry about that.
Since I don't care to scroll back for names on my phone at this point, suffice it that I consider requesting that Paizo effectively do away with class-based spell lists is unreasonable, that it was requested in this thread, and that the request was worded in such a way that it could be reasonably perceived as a demand.
Seems to me that we're seeing a corollary of Poe's Law here: cranefist says 'I wish,' some folks reply, some other folks reply to those replies, and then people start getting the idea that the OP is 'throwing a hissy fit' (someone earlier) and that those other guys are 'making demands,' when in fact we have no evidence to suggest this at all.
I assure you that I can reasonably perceive a lot of the replies to the OP as snarky, argumentative, antisocial, and several other less flattering things. And in my younger days, I would have mistaken my perception for reality. But we can't depend on perception, particularly in such an impersonal and anonymous environment.
This is unlikely to produce any effect other than players arguing back and forth to no effect. Pathfinder isn't going to change the wording, and players who don't like class based spell lists already have more than enough means to rectify the issue at their own tables. So why waste the time and effort on a fruitless discussion?
Playing PF is unlikely to produce anything other than a lot of wasted weekend afternoons, so why waste the time and effort on a fruitless game?
Now, if MrT wants to argue the merits of such a system rather than actually try to convince Paizo to make it thus? Great! Let's head to the S/HR/H forum and talk alternate spell systems. You'll get plenty of discussion on the subject.
So your complaint is that this thread is in the wrong forum? Well by all means, request it be moved, but it seems to me we've gotten lots of good discussion already!
Likewise, you shouldn't be surprised when people wish that some of the arbitrarily lame rules were arbitrarily fun.
Yeah, the "there's no need to modify the paladin class because other classes can achieve similar concepts" argument doesn't wash because by that logic, there's no need for the paladin in the first place. Want to play a knight in shining armor? Play a LG cleric, warpriest, or inquisitor of a war god with a mount.
Come to think of it, all kinds of classes are superfluous by this logic. No need for the ranger; just multiclass druid with fighter. No need for the druid; just play a cleric with nature-y domains. No need for the barbarian; just play a fighter with anger management problems from a tribal culture. No need for the bard; just play a sorcerer/cleric/fighter who likes to sing.
So, nope, I'm not buying selective paladin logic.
The black raven wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:
Everything above quoted for Truth.
There are good power gamers and bad power gamers. The good ones practice a bit of restraint and tact, which goes a long way: They don't give unsolicited advice -- although oftentimes a "You seem unhappy, Bob, anything I can help with?" question will result in Bob asking for charop advice. And then there's that fine line between giving enough advice to make Bob happy, and giving too much advice and coming off as a control freak. Which can be hard to see, even for those without Aspergers. :/
Er...did someone tell you that 4e monster-making requires software? If so, they lied to you; there are handy guidelines right there in the DMG. I've been making monsters without DDI since day 1; I even wrote a handy guide to monster creation for 4e!
It's all pretty straightforward; monster-making in 4e is just results-oriented rather than process-oriented, as it is in 3.x.
I'm one of those crazy house rule nuts, so I love having power gamers in my campaigns! They help me find where I can tinker with the game so that it plays better. :)
So long as they're cool with finding a rules exploit, getting to use it once due to an in-game fluke of physics, and then me nerfing it, of course.
Ah, so you were not in fact addressing 137ben's point, which I've bolded.
Very well; I agree that the what...ten or twenty or so Paizo employees seem to favor the traditional paladin, as evidenced by the PF rulebook.
2- Everyone rolls a set of stats and you can pick the set you wish to use from among everyones sets. This IS even fairer than point buy and is perhaps the fairest method I have ever seen.
I agree; if ya have to roll, use the potluck method!
Letting everyone roll a set of stats is most fun because it gives everyone more options -- the monk player can take the set of straight-14s, while the wizard player can take the set with the 3 and the 18. In big groups, the potluck method is likely to result in very high stats all around, so the DM might want to have each player only roll a single score or two.
Oh and don't forget to write those scores down, in the event of new PCs joining later on!
Things that I like about 5e: The specific inclusion of LGBT characters is a great little progressive touch.
I also like how wizards are handled. One of my few disappointments with 4e is the traditional wizard fluff combined with the inability to learn new spells via loot/trade/purchase/research. (C'mon, commit to one way or the other!) So I like how 5e wizards can add spells to their books beyond their free level-up spells, I like how save DCs aren't based on spell level like in 3.x, I like how spells scale with the spell slot used, and I like that save-or-lose spells seem to be somewhat tamer than their pre-4e incarnations. (Though apparently Gate is problematic in a whole new way...)
Things that I don't like, or don't care about: Pretty much everything else in 5e is either 'meh' or a definite strike against. Bounded accuracy? 4e already has that thanks to monster castes. Which 5e mostly lacks. Dis/advantage...whatever, I guess. I never found it difficult to add +/-2. I like the lack of alignment restrictions and rules, but 4e already gives me that.
I like 3e style multiclassing in concept, but of all the things to take from 4e and TSR editions...stat prereqs? Really, guys? There is at least one way to do 3e style multiclassing well, but it requires a departure from the tradition of treating 1st level PCs as (semi-)competent.
'Rulings not rules' and 'house rule it!' seem to be a selling point for many fans, but I've never had problems making house rules or rulings in the past. So this point is lost on me.
Proficiency bonuses would be fine by me if characters could/were proficient at dodging swords. Because, ya know, adventurers tend to spend a lot of time doing that. I don't want to go back to feeling like combat is a bunch of dudes standing in one place wailing on each other. Yeah, yeah, hit points are abstract, blah blah blah. It's a huge immersion breaker for me that characters can learn how to dodge fireballs better, but that a nude 20th level fighter is just as easy to hit as he was 19 levels ago. 4e's level-based AC bonus is right up there with the d20 unification, ascending AC, and sliced bread in terms of things I consider unquestionable improvements. So the return to rock 'em sock 'em robot combat leaves me totally cold.
The six-save system...ugh, what's the point of this again? I didn't think that it was possible, but WotC has managed to outdo TSR saves in both number and non-intuitiveness. Apparently there's some kind of rhyme or reason to the madness, but I feel like I've been told a bad joke: If it requires explanation, it's not worth the trouble. And then the 5e team went ahead and ignored half of the six saves...bwuh?
I'm also not a fan of how different spells call for different rolls. Some require the caster to roll an attack, others call for the targets to save, while others call for ability checks. (I would have thought that Maze's Int check is a perfect candidate to be made into an Int save.) I realize that 5e is The D&D of Yesteryear, but c'mon guys. Classic spells are lacking in consistency because they evolved haphazardly over many years, and were written by many disparate gamers who didn't communicate. But the 5e team should know and do better.
The point buy rules and the hard stat cap make me roll my eyes in turn. It's almost as if the 5e team wants to create additional tension and potential drama due to random chargen. Oh, and just say no to random HP.
I'm sure that the ability boost vs. feat option will become broken and/or a no-brainer choice. Savvy players will know to max out their prime stat and take one or two 'duh' feats, while other players will fall into various trap options.
It might just be an OCD pet peeve that some of us gamers have, but what does the 5e team have against assigning class abilities and other features at regular intervals? Would it really have felt 'not enough like D&D' to have a graceful XP table?
My Conclusion: At a younger age, I probably would have bought 5e just for being the new edition. And I'll probably play it at some point when I meet someone who happens to DM it. But I've played three completely distinct editions over twenty years of my life, and 5e doesn't impress me. I could house rule away the stuff I don't like, but why bother when I already have 4e?
5e will be the first edition that I don't buy since I began gaming. Maybe 6e will be more promising!
Well presumably, your player would provide the decade-old book for you to okay. And presumably you'd at least give it some consideration, because you want your player to have fun options to play, no? As I mentioned earlier, having a forum account means that you can tap the wisdom of those of us who do have experience with 3.0 and 3.5.
Still your call of course, but would you dismiss an idea out of hand because it doesn't come from PF?
Josh M. wrote:
I'm excited for 5e. I'm going to download the PDF today and give it a go. A big reason I avoided 4e was because I had this huge investment in 3.5 material(over 100 books) and didn't want to see them not get used, so I went with Pathfinder. But, every Pathfinder game I was in, the DM's refused to allow 3.5 material. In my current PF game, after some pleading, I'm actually playing an Incarnate from Magic of Incarnum, and I can tell the DM regrets letting me do it. I've asked about other 3.5 options, and he just groans, so, I guess that's that.
I think it's a shame how many 3.x (and pre-WotC) DMs just say NO to entire books. Even during my 3.0 and 3.5 years, I seemed to be the only DM I knew who just banned or nerfed the individual cheesy options. I still have my massive collection of 3.0 and 3.5 books, which I hardly used before 2008, and not at all after.
4e's "Everything is Core" slogan sounds silly, but it seems to have a positive influence on DMs in this regard -- I'm actually the only 4e DM I know who outright bans anything. 5e sadly seems to be going back to the core stuff vs. optional stuff mentality, possibly with even more emphasis than any prior edition. :(
So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
I'm sure that I'll download the basic game, and will probably someday meet a DM who wants to run 5e, and I'll be happy to give it a try. But I've been playing D&D for twenty years now, DMing and playing three distinct edit...I mean, versions of it. ;) Anyhow, I like to think that I've acquired some sense of what kind of rules I'm going to find really fun, and what's going to be the same old same old.
In other words, I seriously doubt that an edition that's all about 'feeling like D&D' is going give me a dramatically unexpected play experience. And as I mentioned earlier, my game time and opportunities are limited.
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?
I particularly enjoy the unintentional irony of "Maybe if I boycott another edition, WotC will come around to my way of thinking...so I'll buy the starter set." :D
If WotC tanks, I really hope it's for a solid 50 years. That way MOST of the people who have been clinging to the tropes and sacred cows will finally move on and when the game reemerges people might have a bit of an open mind when it comes to this particular IP.
I'm not one of those doom-and-gloomers fretting about D&D being canned, but I agree that even that result of 5e could be a positive in the long run. I mean, if it were picked up again in 50 years, who knows, it might just end up being an ill-conceived rehash of what 'feels like D&D' written by gamers who won't have actually played D&D...but maybe, just maybe, a future D&D team would actually reconsider which of D&D's many quirks are actually important!
Is it because people just want the Paladin's power and not the restrictions?
Nope. It's because I like giving my players the option to role play whatever theme they like, and because I see no good reason to treat paladins differently than clerics. Believe it or not, it's about role play, not roll play.
Both of these class restrictions make sense, and aren't overly onerous or restrictive.* And like I said, I treat paladins like I treat clerics.
*Well the druid restriction is silly in the details, but it's alright conceptually.
Barbarian: Any nonlawful
This restriction, as well as every other non-deity-related restriction, gets ignored in any game I run. Yes, even the monk restrictions. :o
Return Question: Why are some people so dead set on keeping the LG restriction? "Because that's what paladins are" is not a valid answer.
I exaggerated your claim, but you very much did say something of the sort. Repeatedly.
Is anyone going to claim those three alt-alignment-paladins were popular and often played?
IME, non-LG paladins are just as popular as the traditional kind in games where the Code and the LG restriction is simply dropped, and in 4e. I can't fathom how this is difficult for some to imagine, as I've never heard anyone claim that LG clerics are more popular than non-LG clerics.
Yes, of course a few players do want a CG Paladin. I don't think the demand is high enuf to justify one. Mind you, the alt-paladins didn;t make me upset, and someday they could happen- but I would like distinctive names for each, so "Paladin" can still mean "LG".
You know, in an ideal world of unlimited page count and flat printing costs, I think that special snowflake classes for each alignment could be super nifty. But in the real world, nine narrowly-defined classes result in eight of them being relegated to the obscurity of splats and Dragon mags. If not outright ignored. Thus, the one special-snowflake class that makes it into the basic game has the lowest play rate because its appeal is limited to such a narrow subset of players.
Maybe someday in the future, there will be an all-digital ttrpg with devs who care enough about nine special-snowflake paladin-alike classes to do a real quality job of it in the basic rules. But until then, the simple solution is to have one flexible paladin class. Thanks to classes like the cleric, we know that this is a tried and true compromise between flexible generic classes and special-snowflake classes.
Or alternatively, include the flexible paladin-alike class in the basic game, and relegate the LG-only paladin to some splat or Dragon mag. That should make everyone relatively happy.
Take a look at this thread and the argument that DrDeth is posting, particularly his conclusion on the playing of alt paladins. The idea is to see whether or not that argument is right, using the same alignment system so the results cannot be tossed out.
You mean his "Nobody plays non-LG paladins" claim? If that's your concern, my curiosity is satiated.
As absolutely nothing that Dr Deth has said in this thread lines up with anything I know or have experienced, I'm sure that time will prove your concerns happily unfounded. Until then, happy gaming!
Chef of a Restaurant: "Customers saying that they want chicken cordon bleu doesn't prove that chicken cordon bleu will actually be eaten, and since historically it hasn't been, that's pretty good argument against adding it to the menu right there."
I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy, but hopefully you can recognize the absurdity of your claim without it.
4e does, however, still have LG.
Say what you will about 4e, but as you yourself noted, the 5e team has opted to follow in its footsteps in this particular case. I wish they had taken more cues from 4e, but of all the controversies that the 5e play test has stirred up, I can't remember anyone complaining that paladin players will continue to get to choose their characters' alignment.
(Not directed at you personally, MagusJanus) I think this fact demonstrates that the "If people wanted non-LG paladins, we'd have non-LG paladins" sentiment is the result of a very insular community. People tend to game with others who share their general opinions and values, which can lead to confirmation bias, and the Paizo community itself can be a bit echo-chambery.
Not to mention the Paizo team's well known bias toward many of the game's legacy quirks. When the writers themselves don't like an idea, it's no surprise that they omit that idea from the game!
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Faction War is a very good book, with good info on Sigil, though in my planescape campaign, the factions never died. Though we never got that far. Loved Planescape. I keep tinkering with the idea of running again. I did a fairly cool 3.5 Planescape campaign--- just love the vast variety of PC concepts...
I too love PS' built-in explanation for the walking menagerie trope that so many D&D parties fall into! A half elf, a modron, and a tiefling walk into a bar...yes please!
I recently reread some of my old PS material, and one of the campaign suggestions actually bars the use of most core races! Which sticks out as is a bizarrely metagame restriction, especially considering PS' cosmopolitan tone, and most DMs probably don't/didn't enforce it.
Let's just say: Vecna uses his newfound power as a God to teleport into Sigil...
There are no words.
Oh, and as for PS fandom, I have the five different shirts, the special edition record covers, the autographs of the entire design team, the laptop, crew jackets for every tour... I was a fan before it grew so commercial. =)
You lie! :o
Why is the ALIGNMENT the requirement?
Because someone way back in the early years of D&D, probably Gygax or Arneson, thought that it'd be really swell if every single paladin ever were LG.
And PF, for all of its advancements since those days, is still a D&D legacy game.
Nope, there’s no problem with paladins of non-LG alignment. I’ve been allowing them for years, and nothing has gone wrong. :)
Ooh, nice to see another person who hates that module. As far as my favorite published settings go, Planescape is probably second.
No true Planescape fan likes Faction War. You can't get the members-only jacket with anything less than loathing. ;)
(Yes, I just No True Scottsmaned PS fandom. And I don't care!)
First, it does lack something. Aspects of it aren't very good. Mainly, the entire war is mostly a backdrop and happens offscreen. A book three times its size would have been better, letting the heroes get involved, plot with their factions, and so on.
Yeah, a less railroady approach to the module would have at least made a good adventure. Like, assume the PCs are faction high-ups -- not necessarily even factols, but able to meaningfully influence events. Allow for several possible outcomes, ranging from 'The Lady disposes of Duke Rowanwood and his accomplices' to 'The Lady disbands several troublesome Factions.' Let the PCs start their own Factions to fill the void left by disbanded Factions! (In fact I wonder how some of the Factions have lasted this long, anyway.)
Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with Faction War if its follow-up module hadn't been stillborn, or if, as 137ben mentioned, WotC hadn't made its fallout part of the canon.
No, Faction War did okay. Not the least of reasons for this is they did not produce more stuff after it that used the new Sigil. In particular, they never released Die, Vecna, die!
(I'm actually not familiar with Die, Vecna, Die, though my keen powers of deduction give me a good idea of its plot.)
I am curious about which module of which you speak. Of course, I have never played in a published setting until I got into Pathfinder. Even then, it was only through a few APs.
I speak of Planescape's Faction War module, in which the Lady of Pain ultimately exiles Sigil's great Factions, regardless of what the PCs do.*
Understanding what this means requires a bit of background. Sigil, the City of Doors, is Planescape's centerpiece, its Waterdeep. And a big part of what makes Sigil unique and memorable -- arguably the thing that makes it more than just another Waterdeep, or even another City of Brass -- is its Factions. Rather than a hierarchy of nobles or priests, or even mages, Sigil is governed by these Factions. The Factions don't have to play a big role in a Planescape campaign, but they frame everything that happens in Sigil, and give Planescape its unique philosophical tone.
So exiling all of the Factions is like...I know hardly anything about Golarion, but I'll take a stab at this...the [in-game] Pathfinder Society being permanently disbanded. Or like Mystra of the Realms getting killed, and never getting resurrected/reborn/whatever. It changes the very tone and theme of the setting.
Apparently TSR was going to follow Faction War up with a module that would have reinstated Sigil's Factions, but the company went belly-up and then bought out by WotC before that happened. And so Planescape has been in stasis since the 90s, Sigil forever bereft of its defining Factions.
...Oh wait, I forgot, the Faction War never happened! And never will. ;)
*Planescape is a great setting, but its published adventures can be very Silly PCs you're just small fries now sit back and listen to the great story I wrote!
This. All humans* have consciences, and like to believe the best of themselves, but the fact is that most people don't act on their ideals often enough to leave Neutral territory. Most people want to help others and be selfless, but for various logistical and psychological reasons, end up reserving the vast majority of their helpfulness for their close friends and family. Most people will say that they believe in a faith, or the rule of law, or some ideal or other, but never end up paying more than lip service.
*Except maybe corner cases like sociopaths.
Repeat your mantra as often as you like, but it's still debatable. By 2008, I had developed a lengthy list of house rules for 3.x -- and when I say 'lengthy,' I mean I actually called it my tome of house rules! -- but if I were to DM 2e again...well, I wouldn't, because I'd end up rewriting the game from the ground up. 3.x frequently misses the balance target, but 2e isn't even trying.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Yeah, I'm not at all convinced that 3e and its descendants are any more imbalanced than what came before. Balance, in the modern sense, began with 3e. Not that 3e and its descendants always achieved balance, but it set balance as a goal in a way that D&D had never done before.
For example, 'The paladin's superior class features are balanced out by its tight role playing restrictions and the extreme unlikelihood of rolling high enough stats to qualify for paladinhood' is a joke statement by current standards, but before WotC, it was a legitimate concept of 'balance.'
Did 3e and its descendants achieve the balance that its devs originally hoped? Almost certainly not. But is it less balanced than 2e and earlier editions? At most I'd say that they're all balanced and imbalanced in different ways.
...When did D&D/PF start expecting PCs to compete with each other?
...Until the wizard hit 9th level, at which point s/he more or less stopped gaining spell slots due to being unable to learn 5th+ level spells.
Really, abilities are always important -- different editions just shift the areas of importance around a bit.
The best thing that I can say about 2e is that it has great settings, and that it was probably an an overall improvement on 1e. 2e was my first D&D, and it introduced most of D&D's great and unique settings -- Planescape, Birthright, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Council of Wyrms, Dragonlance (?), and probably others I'm forgetting at the moment. And I've been told that thac0 is a great improvement on the wargame to-hit charts that D&D operated on before 2e.
But other than that...2e is nothing I'd ever want to go back to, except for a possible nostalgic one-shot with friends. 3.x and 4e have their complexities, but 2e has its confusion of byzantine subsystems. Character creation is a bit simpler on average, but you pay for it with a dearth of customizability, and a bunch of arbitrary restrictions telling you what you can't play, and how you must play what you can play. House ruling is more common and accepted...because you almost have to.
The Epic Level Handbook was totally broken. Not sure that Mythic is actually intended to fill this niche, but it is even more broken.
As someone with absolutely zero experience or even knowledge of the mythic rules, I didn't think that this was possible. ;)
You could always write off the race/class thing by saying your character came through planescape.
I don't remember this, and in fact even PS tieflings and aasimar had racial restrictions and limitations like other demihumans, regardless of where they came from or who (and what) their parents were.
That's why I never play PFS.
With the exception of cons, I avoid all environments in which just anyone can sit down to game. For example, the games club at my college has a couple belligerent types who make the game exhausting.
But not to worry, the other club members have never read the Five Geek Social Fallacies, so they're still trying to get the annoying players to quit by pulling high school BS!
Don't know if anyone saw Miyazaki's latest, The Wind Rises, but I did last night.
Miyazaki really outdid himself with the animation, particularly the landscapes and scenery...it's almost impressionistic! (I'm a big fan of Claude Monet.) It's light on fantasy, which is unusual for Miyazaki; in fact, there's only one ambiguously fantastic element in the whole movie. Also, it did have power; I teared up when...
Nahoko leaves for the mountains to die.
...But Jiro's constant exuberance was repetitive, and I felt the movie was a lot longer than it needed to be. Fans of the Slice of Life genre will probably disagree, but it was just too slow for me.
Oh, and also, casting method is a great way to differentiate caster classes -- are you a spont caster with a limited number of spells known? A wizard-type with unlimited potential limited by logistics? A prep caster with daily access to your entire spell list? A psionic variation of any one of those? Or possibly something else entirely?
So what we are really talking about here is a class-less magic system.
That's a gross oversimplification. Do class features, BAB, HD, saves, etc. mean nothing?
Mind you, I'm not actually advocating "Everyone has access to all spells" -- I'm just pointing out that there's more to casters than their spells.
Paladin talk has been derailing the once-civil alignment thread, so I'm starting this so that we can debate paladins until we're blue in the face without involving people who don't care.
(If there's anyone on the internet who doesn't care about paladins. There must be one somewhere, but don't ask me where...)
Like I've said before: Create your warrior for chaotic good. Give him some cool powers, if you like. Just don't duplicate the paladin's powers, and don't call him a paladin, because he's not.
If people found that sufficiently satisfying, they wouldn't come here and say, "You're doing it wrong" or "You're not open-minded enough"—which, ironically enough, is yet another way of saying, "You're doing it wrong."
Oh, the irony!_______________________________________________
Indeed, particularly when one of us insists that the specific image in his head is not only immutable -- within a game of imagination, no less -- but also that nobody is allowed to play with his toys.
FYI, despite using righteousness to argue your own ideal, but you seem to be confused as to the definition of righteousness. (Note that the only mention of law in any definition is in example text.)
I don't buy your chain of logic, because it's clearly self-serving the goal of chaotic good "paladins" being accepted.
Much like your logic is clearly a self-serving attempt to maintain the sanctity of your One True Way._______________________________________________
Why do you have to call your chaotic good "warrior for good" a paladin?
Because that accurately describes his role within the game world and his abilities._______________________________________________
MrSin, Lesser restriction SHOULD have either lesser versions of the powers OR a different set of powers completely to differentiate it from a real Paladin. Like a CG Holy Warrior might get smite alone and perhaps lose or get a watered down version of the rest of the paladin power set... to balance it they might get a couple unique powers of their own.
You're right; clerics of different alignments have different powers to differentiate them. Other-aligned paladins should have unique powers like appropriately aligned smite X powers, anarchic/axiomatic/holy/unholy divine bonds, positive/negative energy channeling, and protection from X spells._______________________________________________
Like Jaelithe says you can't have the two different ideas at the same table they stomp on each others toes.
Not so; we're perfectly happy with you playing your LG paladins. It's you who feel entitled to dictate to others what they can and can't play. Even if it's only at your own table, that's simply selfish.
Here, let me add a word that I thought was pretty clearly implied...
Given the limit of class LEVEL
My bad for assuming you would get that.
I'm getting mighty tired of strawmen.
Why am I explaining this to you for the third time now? Gah.
I'm sure that Rynjin is asking himself the same thing.
As for "Why would a N character choose to devote himself to a LG god?" question: Maybe it wasn't a choice. This is a faux-Medieval world we're talking about here. Unless every god has a temple in every little town, I don't have a problem imagining that the seventh child of some minor noble got stuck in the local LG temple despite being N, or even chose to devote himself to a LG god in order to escape his provincial life.
Maybe a LG god would turn his nose up at such a candidate for divine empowerment, or maybe not. As Rynjin points out, there certainly is more than enough evil to thwart, and a LG god might figure "Better to give a N kid some divine juice rather than risk him turning to the dark side. He's faking it now, but seeing the evil we all face may make him a true believer..."
I'm not saying alignment has to be a strait jacket in terms of roleplaying. There is a reason tit's so tied into the D&D. If one wants to play himself at the gaming table I encourage it. I also enforce a alignment if a player decides to take a class whose abilites are tied to a alignment. I have a barbarian cohort who at the start of the fight was trying was on top of a stone hut trying to break his way in to get at a enemy inside. I realized that was not proper barbarian behavior. Stopped. Ran to the edge of the hut jumped off and macked a Vrock off the side of the head. I took a AOO yet it just seemed more in character.
Best typo of the week. :)
On topic, I've been playing without alignment for six years (4e), and have yet to see any 'free for all' problems. Players who write 'Good' on their sheet (despite me reminding them that it doesn't mean anything) still play heroic good guys. I did have one group of utterly amoral mercanary PCs, because that's what everyone wanted, and I was cool with it.
Take that for what you will.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Griping? If I'm griping, then you're griping about my griping, and why would you do that? You big whiner!
More seriously, why talk about the game's sacred cows? Because many of us don't play PF because of them; our fun doesn't depend on a specific set of odd legacy quirks. In fact, we often end up enjoying PF despite those sacred cows. This is certainly true of me on those rare occasions when I play PF.
So it shouldn't be a big mystery why a portion of PF fanbase want to see some of those sacred cows gone -- because from our PoV, it makes PF a more fun game. And games do change. And what was once 'part of what gives the game its distinct identity' becomes game history trivia as the game's identity evolves. D&D's past is littered with things like racial level caps, varying XP tables, race-as-class, to-hit charts, thac0, and weird ability score charts that gamers at one point called 'part of the game's distinct identity.' And some of them still do! And yet here you are, happily enjoying a descendent of those games, despite the lack of what the those grognards would call 'distinct identity.'
It really is a quirk of human psychology. Lawful/chaotic jokes aside, some of us just don't get the same comfort and warmth from 'the way things are.' I myself still find it impossible to grok the feelings that give tradition such a strong pull on some people. I literally can't imagine how tradition can outweigh positive change in the mind of a traditionalist.
But I imagine that you have a similar blind spot when it comes to my mindset, so all we can do is accept that others are different.
PS: 'If you don't like it, play something else' is a cop-out argument; some PFers have a choice between PF or nothing, while other fans mostly like the game except for a few quirks. The sentiment is the debate equivalent of "Get offa my lawn!" And as for house rules, most DMs stick pretty close to the RAW, so many of us never get to enjoy good house rules as players. For example I've never had a DM who was willing to let wizards/sorcerers heal, because they assumed "If it's in the rules, there must be a good reason for it."