|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I learned to play rpgs with 2e during the 90s, but there're only three things that I miss from that era:
1. Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, which I didn't begin appreciating until Planescape.
Pretty much every other change has been a positive in my book, or at worst neutral, although I do now have a better understanding of why a lot of old school stuff is the way it is, and why many older D&Ders have stuck with pre-2000 editions or switched to retroclones.
I was a 'mayfly' until last year, but am now a happy 4e grognard. ;)
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I prefer the old older more narrow saving throws of 2e as well though.
Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.
Hi, Divinitus! You're absolutely right that there's no philosophical reason that raising the dead is automatically Evil; it's just one of those legacies that's been inherited from 3e D&D. A lot of DMs either invent a good reason for undead and undead creation to be Evil, or rule this legacy away.
(The smarmy reactions you're getting are because this is a perennial hot-button topic that invariably ends in flame-wars.)
I still say writers got it wrong to change them to "conjuration".
Yep, this is one of the things that TSR got 100% right.
But don't try to stop others from doing it if they want. And yes, censorship is exactly what some people are advocating here.
Citation needed. And let's keep our goalposts firmly in place; 'censorship' is a wider term than 'ban,' and might cover sentiments beyond the supposed ban-desires that you and others are reacting against.
Keep in mind that this whole sub-topic began with cmastah recommending a show, mentioning that it has no fanservice, and then Freehold replying with 'Sounds cool, but no fanservice = no Freehold.'
Afterward, Aranna said that she often finds that fanservice detracts from an anime, and that social awareness can and has led to improved entertainment. Before Alzrius badgered him into leaving the thread, Tels said that he doesn't mind fanservice in general but doesn't like watermelon boobs. And I followed up with my opinion that the world will be a better place when anime learns the meaning of 'everything in moderation.' No mention of bannings that I remember.
And then the thread exploded with a lot of overreactions* and [intentional?] misreading of posts. But hey, I could have missed these pro-ban comments, so feel free to link them. Because for the record, I do not support fanservice bans; what I do support is a bit of human empathy and social awareness.
*If you're not convinced of the general overreaction, take a look at Sissyl's comment about these supposed pro-ban fans getting orgasms from taking fun away from others. Lol, talk about throwing stones from glass houses! I might as well speculate that fanservice lovers want fanservice to be mandatory, because they get their jollies from knowing that their softcore [often child-]porn actively undercuts self-respect and cultural improvement.
And the tragedy is that a role player such as yourself needs more expound-ment to see a problem with fanservice. Maybe the next time you watch a fanservice-heavy anime, role play an impressionable teenage girl with low self-esteem. And then imagine that you always have been and always will be that female anime fan until the day you die.
That'll be much more enlightening than spending hours and hours throwing every conceivable argument at some anonymous internet posters you feel compelled to argue with.
I get an inordinately large kick out of hearing words that got ripped right out of English, spoken with a Japanese accent. ("Japan doesn't have a word for that?!") Also, if I generally like an anime but not its voices/sounds, I can mute it and still know what's going on.
I'm surprised how difficult it seems for some anime fans to see why fanservice might be really objectionable to women. Does sex sell? Absolutely. Will fanservice ever totally disappear? No more than racism, homophobia, or boy bands will completely disappear.
But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands, and say "Oh f@@% it, bring back the Backstreet Boys!" Because here's the thing: fanservice creates a very subtle but very real effect on women and especially girls. You can say 'Well if a girl doesn't like fanservice, there are other things to watch,' but the fact is that girls will end up watching some of it anyway. Aranna watches fanservice because some fanservicey shows have other redeeming qualities; other girls and women get peer pressured or 'I want to watch what my male friends, bf, husband, big brother, or daddy are watching!' into watching animes with fanservice. (As has been pointed out, an R rating is no real obstacle for a determined child or teen.)
And what's the effect of a girl and even a woman watching fanservice? A small but insistent voice in the back of her head telling her 'You only have small-to-regular boobs, you ain't nothing!' 'Your ankles are bigger than your wrists, you ain't nothing!' 'Your waist is too big for a man to wrap his hands completely around, you ain't nothing!' And so on. It's like how stereotypes like 'black people are stupid' and 'gay people are sex-obsessed perverts' create a kind of background mental chatter. Consciously, a person knows that it's absurd and irrational; but people aren't rational. That mental chatter is enough to undercut or even crush many people's self-respect, which results in all sorts of issues.
I'm not saying that fanservice is the worst thing since Hitler, or that it's not a byproduct of human nature. I'm saying that the world will be a better place when more anime (and other entertainment) learns what 'everything in moderation' means.
This is an excellent example of the lies that edition warriors like to spread, and the double standards they live by. Powers absolutely work in three dimensions, and out of combat by the way. Unlike conjuring spells in PF, which can't summon creatures to a space in the air. (SO MMO GAMEY!) And like invisibility, which ends when the subject performs an arbitrary action. (NO CREATIVITY TOO MUCH BALANCE!)
Again, the above is not a criticism of 4E. It is merely a statement of how it is designed. That kind of inflexible design would be fantastic for say a board game. It may be wonderful for some gaming groups. I, however, happen to like the direction up.
PF has zero consistency in errata; the devs let casters get away with murder but anything nice that martials discover get nerfed into the ground. But hey, that's not a criticism of PF; it's merely a statement of how it is designed. That sort of haphazard design would be fantastic for say a collectible card game all about magic, and it may be wonderful for some game groups. I however happen to like devs who care about their product, and for consistent balance.
I'm really starting to see why so many gamers are fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of objective alignment.
Thanks for your thoughts.
However, I could see with some players where I would just instantly make the character an NPC, because I would know the player, and thus know that he would not play the character any differently than before the change, thus perpetuating the problem (thankfully, as I said, I have not encountered such a player personally).
Yeah, this is what I've been imagining; a character who's willing to damn his own soul for the betterment of others. A tragic hero doomed to a terrible afterlife because a capricious universe deems his choices noble but his tools wicked. I.e., a player who knows that his character is technically Evil, but no less a good guy for it.
...I apologize. No doubt that would involve quite a bit of cognitive dissonance for you, but it sounds rather interesting to me. :)
I really like the morals-made-reality aspect of alignment too, but yes, trying to reframe the debate as a 'rollplay vs roleplay' issue is absolutely wrong. And seeing how alignment was in part inspired by the red army vs. blue army rules of miniature war games, it's rather revisionist as well as insulting to other role players.
At best, alignment is completely orthogonal to character development. At worst, alignment is antagonistic to character development when there are alignment restrictions or other rules threatening to punish players for role playing their characters outside of whatever narrow role the game casts them in.
That's why there are so many role playing games completely devoid of alignment, including those of the fantasy genre; many many gamers role play without alignment better without than with. In fact I'm kind of amazed that this very fact didn't have you rethinking your whole premise before posting it on a public message board.
I dunno, I always thought the pally was much more powerful than the other martials, but his drawback was that power could only be directed at evil, and he had to behave himself.
Sounds like you're a child of pre-WotC D&D too. :)
Anyhow, the "extra power balanced out by role play restrictions" philosophy fell out of favor in 2000, 'cause it works...well, inconsistently at best. And because the fighter got his own toys starting with 3e.
The paladin's alignment restriction and code are just legacy quirks at this point.
For someone so concerned with reading into context, you sure seem to have missed an important detail. I would have thought that the bolded part of my post would imply simpler spell text, but since you missed it I'll give you a hand:--------------------------------------------
Asmodeus did it wrote:
A wizard did it wrote:
--------------------------------------------You pointed out an easily, easily solved problem -- the lack of justification for Infernal Healing in other settings -- and I solved it for you. I couldn't care less what you would or wouldn't do in your games, but from personal experience I can tell you that letting go of the unwritten 'arcane magic shall not heal' rule is nothing but good clean fun. And besides, as Voadam mentions, that rule by now has more exceptions than the English language.
As to concerns for imbalance, I posit that a spell is either balanced or it's not, regardless of alignment tags. Just like the ranger's unique ability to fight with two weapons at once and other amazing class abilities aren't balanced out by his requirement to be Good.
Usual Suspect wrote:
Wow, that's an asinine group. The DM wouldn't have had to push me to know why I left...
Rape is something that the heroes kill villainous NPCs for doing, not something that PCs do because lolz the evulz!
The Indescribable wrote:
Yeah, few asses realize that they're being asses; they think they're being helpful, and just don't recognize subtle social cues like crossed arms and monosyllabic mutters.------------------------------------------------------
Later at 3rd level, I decided to use spellstrike again and this time with shocking grasp. I hit. I followed the rules as I was told. Then he jumped like a cat (the other guy playing a magus) "NO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS" (yes, he yelled). He claimed the spell strike worked with both of my attacks not with just the one. I tried to argue with the guy but he has this method where he gets louder with his argument. And then the GM was agreeing with him. I KNEW I was right but I was getting so frustrated and I didn't want to deal with these two and I blew up. I told them I had enough of the character and I didn't want to play the Magus anymore. (I was good enough to at least finish the session)
"I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over all the shouting."
I've been skipping around this article, and Beach obviously put a lot of thought into it, and was ahead of the times when he wrote it. Like when he recognizes that the 2e description of the Good-Evil axis is contradictory by wanting to be both objective and subjective:
2e PHB wrote:
"Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil."
My Final Word on Alignments wrote:
Yet they never felt compelled to tell us how such a thing like Detect Good or Detect Evil or Know Alignment made such value judgments in such absolute terms. It was almost as if they clearly intended such things to have absolute definitions at first, but then backed away from that position when they realized the relativity of many moral concerns - i.e. it was as if they had intended for alignments to be absolute universal truths, but had to later back away from that position since it was obviously wrong.
But later, after completing his lengthy criticism of alignment, and how frustratingly framed it is by a strictly Lawful Good perspective:
My Final Word on Alignments wrote:
Unfortunately, to use any other standard or absolute other than the Lawful Good one already in use would doom it to failure since too much of the system is already written and in place. Only TSR itself could pull off such a major revision and expect it to gain acceptance through the new printing of their next edition. But I am not TSR and this is only one little paper, despite its length. So I am more or less forced to use much of their standard, or forced to forget the whole thing. But I did not write this paper to forget it, and you didn't read it this far to be let down. And so, using the Lawful Good standard, but modified to exclude the abstract, universal, cosmic notions of balance, we proceed.
Beach steps back from writing the alignment revamp that he'd presumably rather write, and decides to try to hammer the existing model into shape -- with mixed results, as you say, UnArcaneElection.
If I went to the trouble to write such a lengthy article on a game thing that I felt was so fundamentally flawed, I'd go the whole nine yards with it -- tear down the old, and start from scratch! But maybe I'm unusually Chaotic like that. ;)
I went to the trouble of finding and transcribing these quotes after recognizing some other quotes here, but for some reason never posted them. Oh well, better late than never...
Preceded by a sadistic explanation of black mamba venom:
A Blonde Villain wrote:
“Now, in these last agonizing minutes of life you have left, let me answer that question you asked earlier more thoroughly. Right at this moment, the biggest ‘R’ I feel is regret. Regret that maybe the greatest warrior I have ever met met her end at the hands of a bush wackin’ scrub elkie piece of s#~! like you! That woman deserved better.”
Preceded by much blood and death:
An Old Villain wrote:
And I'm surprised neither of these has appeared in this thread:
A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:
A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:
I love how both of these stories are told with complete sincerity; so much so that I didn't immediately realize that they contradicted each other the first time I saw this film.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Now, now, I don't think you're thinking this thru.
It's like the Justice League; Superman's power is totally in line with the others' because Batman can totally whip out the kryptonite to keep him in line. And that's a totally reasonable thing for Batman to do.
Does anyone honestly believe that Sorcerers would outshine Wizards if we were to remove the level adjustment and allow them to get spells at the same pace as wizards? Look at how few spells Sorcerers get.
I don't think that anybody with much play experience has believed this in about a decade. With respect to PF, the staggered spell progression for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters is simply the result of the inertia of backwards compatibility and tradition.
Two very poor reasons to keep any bad habit, but there ya go.
I agree that a lot of the small changes that were introduced with 3e resulted in quite a few problems, and some of 3e's innovations probably didn't turn out as the original 3e team expected. (See: multiclassing and feats.) And if you like the way that 2e handles things, then by all means, go retro!
But after playing 2e during my childhood, and then playing 3.0 and 3.5 for eight years, I think that introducing 2e-isms just introduces a different set of problems. Arguably lesser problems overall, but I'd personally rather spend the time and energy tinkering with PF than Frankensteining 2e and PF together. In the end, I think I'd spend a similar amount for a greater result.
But this is your game of course, so YMMV.
While I don't hate PF -- how could I hate a clone of what was once my favorite D&D game? -- neither do I own any PF products or have much hope that it'll ever being something that'll get me truly excited to play.
However, all the quirks and dare I say it, outright problems which PF has makes it much more interesting to discuss and debate than my current favorite game. Which is great fun to play, but is too well-made to generate many hot-button topics -- within its own fandom, at least.
Also, like bugleyman, my user account predates PF, and there are fun non-game related topics here, like my anime thread!
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.
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.
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.