Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Imron Gauthfallow

Tequila Sunrise's page

3,143 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:

"Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".

Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?

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.

Likewise, you shouldn't be surprised when people wish that some of the arbitrarily lame rules were arbitrarily fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voadam wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Voadam wrote:

Paladin of Pharasma.

Undead are abominations that should be purged from existence. Boneyard paladins are empowered to detect, smite, and counteract the foulness of the undead.

They detect the evil of undead, smite them, lay on hands to counteract the damage of the undead or explode undead on contact. They are toughened to resist the powers of the undead (bonus on saves, immune to disease) and granted mercies to counteract their foul powers. The evil descriptor is so tied into undead creation that their smites work on evil descriptor outsiders, evil dragons, and evil creatures as well as a consequence, even though their divine mandate is focused on undead.

Remove the code, the alignment requirement, and the aura of good, and you are pretty good to go.

Warpriest or Inquisitor of Pharasma.

Warpriest gains Sacred Weapon, Blessings, Fervor, and channel.
Inquisitor gets Judements, Bane, and so on.

They both can smite via access to the Smite Abomination spell.

There is no need to modify the Paladin class when there are two classes that fill the same role.

You can be a warpriest or inquisitor of Iomedae or any god that is viable for paladins too, right?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:

As for all things, there are good powergamers as well as bad powergamers. The bad ones ruin your fun, while the good ones try to help you enhance it.

Pretty much applies to any kind of player actually.

Lord Foul II wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
There are a considerable amount of people who think they are good at giving advice when they really, really aren't.

in the party my previous post described I was told/asked to give advice, and to help build the character I was also elected party leader (I had two second in commands)

The problem is that I have Aspergers, and I have difficulty seeing the line to stop at
I made a bit of a pest of myself giving tactical advice and no one knew to tell me when to stop
The end result was sending a star spawn of cthulu after the party just to kill me off,
The funny part is that I almost won, and might have done so if my party helped me fight it off and I would have at least escaped had the Druid not joined in on attacking me.

TLDR/moral of the story: communication is key, the advice givers really might not know better

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. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qstor wrote:
thenovalord wrote:


Baddies n monsters don't need pc 'level' of stat blocks

that's one of the things I like about Pathfinder/3.5e. For me, its EASY to add say a fighter level to an orc. For 4e I never had the online computer program to generate a human commoner or an orc fighter so I couldn't do it.

Mike

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Haladir wrote:
137ben wrote:
It's a moot point anyways. The people with influence in the industry pretty clearly disagree with you. hence the continued long line of published non-LG paladins.

Haladir fails his will save...

With all due respect, I would disagree with that assertion as well.

Paladins do indeed have a Lawful Good alignment restriction in the published rules for Pahtfinder RPG, in both the rulebook and the Campaign Setting lines.

You're talking about homebrew and 3PP designs.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
4e and now 5e has dropped the LG restriction -- in 5e's case, despite a strong nostalgia factor.
Failed your Knowledge (Industry) check, too, friend. ;)
Actually, I did know that. I did not think that the decisions of Wizards of the Coast regarding another game system (i.e. D&D 4e & 5e) was germaine to a discussion about PFRPG.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
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.
Pan wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

Let one player roll stats and have everyone use those stats. By that you get non-optimised stats while still having the same kind of fairness as point buy.

Or have every player roll a set and everyone gets to choose which set to use.

But I have to say that the PCs I build tend to have rather different stats. So I am a little surprised that your players had such similar stats over several games.

As someone who loathes rolling this is probably the best suggestion and something I would be comfortable with.

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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials.
Hama wrote:
That is one of the reasons I don't play 4E at all. Everything is the same, just called differently.

And this thread was doing so well. :(


4 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

Never got into 3.x before pathfinder, but there are some horror stories attached to the bloat...

Pathfinder cut it out and reworked the multiclass rules. Reworked the core classes. In my opinion they brought over and remade everything that they wanted for this game... I'm not going to track down a decade old book on the off chance something could be reworked to fit the new rules...

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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. :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
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:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
If "edition" is no good... how about "release"? Or "version"?
I would honestly love RPG companies to use "version" to indicate "we threw out the old game and made a new one based around similar concepts" and "edition" to indicate "we put in some major changes but it's essentially the same game underneath."
Or we could switch to an actual versioning framework. That would be remarkable, but I think people who didn't understand what it meant would throw a fit.

I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Another edition another boycott maybe if we sink 2 in a row WoTC will get the message. I'll buy the start box and see if my players want to try the adventure a lot of big ifs beyond that as I do not see heavy D&DN purchases unless they do a stellar jopb somehow. Modular= big whoop I have 2nd ed for that and I do not have to mod out martial healing to play it.
Honestly, what message? I don't know how much more open WotC can truly be? The playtest was a 2-year long thing that ANYONE could get into. Literally NO strings attached. If the new game doesn't appeal to the fans, they really only have themselves to blame. And if the majority of fans really wanted OSR-style mechanics, I feel they should have got on the ball to make that happen with the new system.

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

Diffan wrote:
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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kagehiro wrote:
They're also heralding this as the last Realms Shattering Event. We'll see how long that lasts.

lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I probably won't buy anything with the WotC logo either, until they go back to 4e's 'retro' design goals for 17th edition. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

shallowsoul wrote:

Druid: ...

Cleric: ...

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.

shallowsoul wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
You mean his "Nobody plays non-LG paladins" claim? If that's your concern, my curiosity is satiated.
I claimed nothing of the sort...However, those alt-paladins were never popular and I personally never saw them played. I also have not seen anyone actually play a PF anti-paladin, but I know a few people have by posts here on the boards.

I exaggerated your claim, but you very much did say something of the sort. Repeatedly.

DrDeth wrote:
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.

DrDeth wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
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!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.
People want to play this. .
None of those proves that a non-LG Paladin will actually BE played and since historically they haven't that's pretty good argument right there.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
DnD Next is going to test that premise. They've made paladins multi-alignment.
Actually 4th had multi-alignment paladins too, and the avenger class and other cool things. There are also other games with multi-alignment paladins, some video games and others tabletop.
Then again 4th also had a slimmed down alignment system, if I recall correctly.

4e does, however, still have LG.

MagusJanus wrote:

And a lot of people slammed the system, in addition to its customer base dwindling thanks to the success of Pathfinder.

I really don't count it as a true test.

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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Let's just say: Vecna uses his newfound power as a God to teleport into Sigil...

*facepalm*

There are no words.

Sissyl wrote:
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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teatime42 wrote:
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.

Teatime42 wrote:


So, why aren't paladins tied in alignment to their deity? The newest book (Inner Sea) included several Paladin codes for the various Deities, why not just follow those? I see no problems with this myself, but, this isn't how things are done, so clearly there has to be a problem I'm not seeing. There has to be something I'm not seeing.

Nope, there’s no problem with paladins of non-LG alignment. I’ve been allowing them for years, and nothing has gone wrong. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
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!)

Sissyl wrote:
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.

Sissyl wrote:
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!

Heretic! ;)

(I'm actually not familiar with Die, Vecna, Die, though my keen powers of deduction give me a good idea of its plot.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
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!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Neutral.

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.

Neutral.

*Except maybe corner cases like sociopaths.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
All the pre-d20 editions were better balanced than 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
While I agree with that, I'd have to add that the complexity and sheer range of options introduced in 3.0 is the main cause of that imbalance. When you're dealing with a fairly static set of rules for a handful of classes, it's bound to be easier to balance than something that creates near-limitless combinations of possibilities.

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.

Which makes it all the more sad that the edition where balance was a goal misses the mark so much more than a system where balance wasn't a goal.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
All the pre-d20 editions were better balanced than 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
While I agree with that, I'd have to add that the complexity and sheer range of options introduced in 3.0 is the main cause of that imbalance. When you're dealing with a fairly static set of rules for a handful of classes, it's bound to be easier to balance than something that creates near-limitless combinations of possibilities.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Well, no. Your build was composed of your stats and your class. As you say, low stats sucked, and you never got better. So much for builds. If someone had better stats than you, they could do more, they succeeded more often, more happened when they did, they had more options for classes and dual-classing... oh, and they got a +10% XP bonus as compensation for outshining you in every way.

But you weren't expected to be competing against the other PCs, so I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that.

...When did D&D/PF start expecting PCs to compete with each other?

Adjule wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
True. You just couldn't contribute. All because of a set of lousy rolls from perhaps a year or more ago.
Low stats in pre-d20 editions weren't nearly as crippling as even medium-low scores in d20 editions.
You could even play a magic-user rather effectively with an Int of 9. Looking at my PHB, a magic-user with a 9 for Intelligence could cast up to 4th level spells. Now, you need a 14 to do that. Having fairly average stats back in 2nd edition didn't mean you were crippled. Your highest stat could be a 15 and you weren't considered a useless drag on the others.

...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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

sunbeam wrote:
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. ;)

Jaçinto wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
If Miyazaki films were more like other Anime.

Haha, I especially like Team Castle, solving the world's problems with more violence! :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ha, I've never seen How Stella Got Her Groove Back, but I'd pay good money to see Xavier getting his body back. Couldn't be much worse than the Wolverine film, right?

...Oh, yeah, I did go there!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


And that dichotomy is why I have an eight page house rule document.

Only eight pages? Bah, unless that's in 6 point font, you're in the minor leagues. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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...

Spoiler:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
terraleon wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Democratus wrote:
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?

And while I disagree with Tequila Sunrise on other points, on this, I agree. I am not advocating a class-less magic system for Pathfinder.

-Ben.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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...)
_______________________________________________

Jaelithe wrote:
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.
Jaelithe wrote:
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!

_______________________________________________

Jaelithe wrote:

Once again: "As reward for their righteousness [italics mine], these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful."

It's pretty clear one side is not going to convince the other.

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.)
_______________________________________________

Jaelithe wrote:
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.

_______________________________________________

Jaelithe wrote:
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.

_______________________________________________

Aranna wrote:
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.

_______________________________________________

Aranna wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
By the fluff text, wizards should be potentially able to learn any spell given the limit of class and spell levels.

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

Hey, maybe one of the limits of the class is that they don't get to have healing spells.

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.

Kthulhu wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


a bunch of BS about why wizards shouldn't have any boundaries
Why bother to play the game past character creation, if the Wizard character auto-wins the game as soon as he declares that he's playing a wizard?

I'm getting mighty tired of strawmen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
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..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
So who cares if the separation of healing magic from wizards is a tradition? It's D&D/Pathfinder's tradition. And that's good enough.
Truly, you Lawful types are a different species. ;)
There's no point shilly shallying around the issue. The game has sacred cows. They are part of what gives the game its distinct identity. What's the point in killing them? If you don't like them, play something else. If you must change them, change them at your own table. Why gripe to the rest of the fan-base?

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."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
It's purely a relic of D&D's past. Just restrictive tradition.

This is the most accurate answer to this question one can give.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Because they have better things to do?

Bah, there are plenty of spells on the wizard list that fall under the category of "I have better things to do." And really, can you think of anything better to do after a hard-won battle than healing the downed party cleric?

RDM42 wrote:

Why can't a fighter smite evil?

You have no trouble positing the existence of arcane magic, but you have trouble positing that you can't cast healing spells with it?

A better analogy would be "Why can't a fighter sing?"

Beyond the veil of the mundane hide the secrets of absolute power. The works of beings beyond mortals, the legends of realms where gods and spirits tread, the lore of creations both wondrous and terrible—such mysteries call to those with the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals. While some might choose a particular field of magical study and become masters of such powers, others embrace versatility, reveling in the unbounded wonders of all magic. In either case, wizards prove a cunning and potent lot, capable of smiting their foes, empowering their allies, and shaping the world to their every desire.

Wizards are literally billed as the masters of magic, able to accomplish any feat of wonder short of godhood. (And maybe even that!) You can handwave it all you want, or think up quirky setting explanations, but all of that is just after-the-fact rationalization to explain a horribly gamist and outdated restriction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The argument that narrative choices shouldn't effect game mechanics seems absurd to me. These things shouldn't exist independently of each other.

And yet they frequently do in PF, barring DM intervention.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The narrative informs the rules, and the rules inform the narrative. Alignment is fine.

This strawman argument would almost work in a game where every class had an alignment restrictions based on cheesy trope logic. If bards had to be chaotic because Restless Vagabond Free Love Musician, and fighters had to be non-chaotic because everyone needs some discipline to be that skilled, and rogues had to be non-good because I Can Haz Loot LoLs, and wizards had to be lawful because PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER requires either Robin Williams or more discipline in one's little pinky finger than most people have in their entire being.

At least in such a game you could make an argument about trope consistency. But as PF is, some classes are weirdly ethically monolithic because Gygax and Arneson, while others allow players free creative reign to ya know...role play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Honestly I feel like Marshmellow is grasping at straws....
Care to elaborate?

I'm not K177Y, but when someone starts claiming that 15 = 25 = 40...well, let's just say that it's really hard to take that person seriously.

Oh, and FYI, 'sacred cow' is a term that refers to a game quirk that exists largely because of tradition. Hence, point buy doesn't qualify, as it's a relatively recent invention with some clear advantages. If you're going to call anything a sacred cow, call rolling for stats a sacred cow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Meh.
Would you care to elaborate?

I could be wrong, but I think Freehold means "The greater variance of those d6s is why I like rolling stats!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
My experience is that 2d6+6 should be the standard for rolling, it sets the minimum stat at 8, which is about as low as non minmaxers are willing to go anyway.

Er, not that I have issue with all of the insightful and convincing arguments you've made, but...

I don't think that means what you think it means.

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.