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

3,260 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

He's deluding himself.

Casting IH is making an evil choice. He's a hypocrite. He can continue to think he's making good choices, but where it really matters, i.e. wanting healing, he stoops to using Evil because it's better and more convenient.

He could say whatever he wanted...his actions would speak for him, and soon enough he'd start popping the paladin's detect-o-meter, which has been a kind of 'oh s+&&' moment for some people when it happens. Of course there's the one guy who tried to make it seem like I was singling him out personally, but he's the same guy who thought he could stay CG while using Evil magic to good ends. I warned him, he learned otherwise. And since I don't allow Evil PC's when I GM, he had a choice of taking drastic action to reclaim his destiny, or becoming an NPC. I ended up with his character sheet, and he started someone new.

What happened to the new NPC after that was interesting, but that's a separate story.

==Aelryinth

Aelryinth wrote:

This would fall under tolerating a lesser Evil to fight a greater Evil. It's still Evil, in the end. Your example is different because the character is going into it with eyes open.

he's Evil with a Code. that doesn't mean he's not Evil, nor does it mean he can't have noble qualities. But he is indeed making his choices and choosing to be Damned rather then making other choices. it IS his choice.

==Aelryinth

I'm really starting to see why so many gamers are fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of objective alignment.

Thanks for your thoughts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
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. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:

Probably wrong here but this feels like it is coming to a roleplay vs rollplay issue. One side uses alignment for story and character development and world immersment, and the other just sees it as a resource to be monitored through a profit/loss system.

...

If you are on the rollplay side, just cut out alignment if you only look at it like something on a balance sheet. It serves no purpose for you. It's a story builder.

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.


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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
LazarX wrote:
These arguments ignore one critical fact. Infernal Healing was not created as a world-independent core spell. It was created as part of Inner Sea magic which means it's a Golarion native spell. And in that spell what makes it evil is that Asmodeus created it and released it as a means of corruption. THAT is what makes it evil. You can't discuss the spell without the setting that creates it. If you use this spell in a different setting that's not Golarion, it needs another justification for it's very existence.

"A wizard did it."

It's simple, it follows the precedent set by virtually every other wizard spell, and it creates the perfect justification for renaming the spell, dropping the specific components, and removing the [evil] tag.

You're welcome.

Then what you have is an unbalanced spell that violates some core tenets of the game, a spell I would not allow in any campaign I'm running. Infernal Healing is balanced by the problems it brings into the game. A person healed by this spell will ping on Paladin or other Detect Evil radars as will anyone carrying wands/scrolls/potions of said spell

*Marked Return To Sender*

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:


You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.

--------------------------------------------

A wizard did it wrote:


You give the touched creature fast healing 1.

--------------------------------------------

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
The game never fully explains it's reasoning for why a rule is the way it is. We are assumed to figure out a reason on our own.

Or to change the rule to suit our tastes.

Just saying.

(Unless we're talking about organized play, of course.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

And without some sort of indication of why it's evil, I can't figure out what makes this act evil in and of itself.

*Shrug* I may be in the minority on it, but that's me.

Maybe you are, but maybe you aren't.
I think a lot of people are asking for a lot more of the alignment system than they do of other aspects of Pathfinder. Why are demons vulnerable to cold iron, but devils vulnerable to silver? For that matter, why are lycanthropes vulnerable to silver? I've known since I was six years old that you need a silver bullet to kill a werewolf, but I've never received any indication of why that's so. I've never received any indication as to why gnomes live longer than dwarves, or why humans and orcs can crossbreed, as can humans and elves, but not elves and orcs. Et cetera, et cetera.

I don't know about others here, but there certainly are many many arbitrary and/or inconsistent rules in D&D and PF that get under my skin, including many monster resistances and vulnerabilities. Start a thread about them, and I'll be happy to talk about 'em!

However, this thread is about [evil] spells, so I thus far haven't had reason to comment on PF's many other inconsistencies. I suspect that other posters also see other inconsistencies in the rules that you might not be aware of for similar reasons.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Failure to provide an explicit reason is not an inconsistency.

Call it inconsistent, arbitrary, or whatever you like. Point is, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect either an explanation or a house rule when one of these sort of things come up. We all realize that PF is just a game, but this "Move along citizen, the rule is a rule because it's written in the rule book" attitude just doesn't cut it for some of us.

And frankly, I find this sort of attitude troubling, but that's probably worthy of a whole different discussion.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
One reason that infernal healing, in particular, could be evil is simply because it encourages the use of devil's blood and/or unholy water. This, in turn, will encourage people to start performing unholy rituals (because they need the unholy water) and/or making deals to devils (it's much easier and safer to ask a devil to donate blood than to try to kill it outright and exsanguinate it -- but you need to provide something "trivial" to the devil in exchange for its blood).

This touches on one of my other pet peeves; the unwritten 'Arcane magic shall not heal' convention that D&D and PF are still dragging along, such that arcane healing still demands either convoluted rules use or special conditions like infernal healing.

Anyhow, it's good that you've put thought into why IH could warrant its [evil] tag. It kinda begs for further explanation, given that unholy water and curse water similarly lack explicit explanations for being Evil -- but I'm guessing you can explain those too, so I'd say fair enough.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
It's not that hard to look at most of the "evil" spells that people want to cast and to see exactly why the forces of Hell (or the Abyss) would be offering them as sucker bait, knowing that people would be saying things like "how can it be evil to heal someone?" or "how can it be wrong to cast Protection from Good?" And from such cobblestones is the road to Hell constructed.....

As an aside, I could house rule just about any spell as [evil], and provide a similarly compelling explanation. So, other than blindly accepting that a game writer at some point slapped the [evil] tag onto various spells, the deciding factor in which spells are justifiably [evil] is whichever ones any particular DM wants to explain as being so.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:

I had a DM that let the party gang rape my character's cohort. The idiot couldn't quite understand why I quit after that. Kept pushing to know why I quit coming to the game (I had made a polite excuse as to why I wouldn't be back). He was terribly upset when I explained what a douchbag move it was for the DM to ignore evil actions in a game where he had specifically outlawed evil characters. Most of his players thought it was hillarious. Honestly, 3 twenty-something guys couldn't figure out why rape isn't fin or funny.

Pretty much ruined gaming for a year as I wasn't even interested in role-playing because of that.

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:
Triphoppenskip wrote:
I'm always happy to have someone give me advice as a player or as a GM but I hate people like that guy who feel they have to be an a$$ about it.
While I obviously wasn't there, it sounds less like he was trying to be ass (to the rogue) And more like honestly trying to help and f!@@ing it up. And honestly, I'm probably guilty of that same infraction.

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.

------------------------------------------------------

ngc7293 wrote:
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."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Krisam wrote:

{. . .}

Many years ago, I read all these pages about alignment by James Beach, and they have proven formative to my perception of the nature and use of alignments.
Hmmm . . . somehow missed this article the first time through this thread. Some of this is an improvement on the standard implementation of the D&D alignment system, but definitely not all of it.

Ditto.

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. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
Sméagol lied.

The facial expression and intonation make this one funny as well as nasty. :)

Also...

Gollum wrote:

"Pretty little fly, why does it cry?

Caught in a web, soon he'll be...dead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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:

“When you never came back, I naturally assumed Lisa Wong or somebody else had killed you. I mourned you for three months, and in the third month of mourning you, I tracked you down. I wasn’t trying to track you down; I was trying to track down the f!@+ing a#+$+*+s I thought had killed you. So I find you; and what do I find? Not only are you not dead; you’re getting married to some f$~$ing jerk, and you’re pregnant. I…overreacted."

...

"I didn’t say I was going to explain myself; I told you I was going to tell you the truth. But if that’s too cryptic, let’s get literal. I’m a killer, a murdering bastard; you know that. And there are consequences to breaking the heart of a murdering bastard.”

___________________________________________

And I'm surprised neither of these has appeared in this thread:

A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:

“My father was a drinker, and a fiend. So one night he goes off crazier than usual; mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn’t like that. Not. One. Bit. So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. Then he turns to me, and he says ‘Why so serious?’ He comes at me with the knife…’Why so serious?!’ He sticks the blade in my mouth…’Let’s put a smile on that face!’

Aaand…why so serious?”

___________________________________________

A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:

“I had a wife once, beautiful, like you, who tells me I worry too much; who tells me I oughtta smile more; who gambles, and gets in deep with the sharks. One day they carve her face. We have no money for surgeries, and she can’t take it. I just want to see her smile again; I just want her to know that I don’t care about the scars. So I stick a razor in my mouth, and do this…*swishes cheeks*...to myself. And you know what? She can’t stand the sight of me! She leaves.

But now I see the funny side; now I’m always smiling."

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

...Even the party rogue taking the spell book and selling it in town is very reasonable. It's just too easy money. ...

I think this says it all...

We play very different games.
Yeah - I think if that happened, someone would get punched in the face. And I don't mean a character. :P

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.


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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

One problem with making general groups is that there are always exceptions.

It's actually quite fascinating seeing people make existentialist critiques to a game mechanic.

I agree, and I'm convinced that game writers have used NPCs to deconstruct the alignment system.

Just recently, I was rereading text about an old 2e NPC; he blackmails, he intimidates, he manipulates laws to gain power for himself and his organization, he's obsessed with power and success, and he champions a mercilessly laissez faire 'If you're poor it's your own fault so quit whining and start pulling up those bootstraps' philosophy. Classic Lawful Evil stuff, right?

Betcha can't guess which alignment appears in his stat block...

Spoiler:
Chaotic Good. I kid you not!

Attitude-wise and fashion-wise, this NPC totally fits the trope represented by the alignment that appears in his stat block, so a group of PCs could have lengthy dealings with him without getting that 'This dude is EEEVIL!' feeling. But once they see what he's about, or find themselves in his way...hooboy!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:

I have been playing TSR era recently D&D and I can now see why a lot of things like restrictions existed and the lack of things like feats which leads to power gaming.

I'll have to loo in the PFRPG core book but there was a little line in the 3.5 books about multiclassing which more or less said only with the DMs permission. That rule seemed to get ignored a lot in 3E heyday not sure if it carried through to Pathfinder.

I actually prefer TSR era multiclassing rules or at least a tweaked version of them over the d20 multiclassing rules.

Its just things as basic as changing the way spells and magic items are acquired from OSR D&D to 3.x created a lot of problems IMHO. If a spell was broken in AD&D the DM could just not hand it out, d20 he would have to explicitly ban it as PC classes get to chose the spells they want when they level up.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

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!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
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!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*

Eh. To me the problem has less to do with size as it does speed. After all, a 5-foot step is essentially described as a quick shift without dropping your defenses, so I mean, how effectively you cover that distance seems to be as important as anything else.

So it always bugged me that a creature with a base movespeed of 15 and a creature with a movespeed of... let's say 5000 have an identical 'quick step'.

Much moreso at least than a pixie and a giant with the same movespeed being able to shift similarly at least.

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.


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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain...
Every one I've ever gamed with, soo ...three (four counting me!).
I again congratulate you on your great fortune to know such cool DMs, and your own liberal attitude! But the question I posed is: Judging from the responses to the OP of this thread, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain spell requests?
I wouldn't draw any such conclusions. Resisting an actual change to the written rules does not imply resistance to adapting those rules to better fit a specific table. I've tossed whole swaths of rules out (e.g., alignment) but it would be pretty arrogant of me to ask Paizo to do the same to their current product line when they've clearly invested a lot of their metaphysical design into the rule set.

Here are some snippets from the thread's first two pages:

Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

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:

The problem with limited spell lists is then every character will tend to have the same spells. This is the way it was in 1st edition when there were only 4 spell lists. You had cleric, magic user, druid and illusionist spells. Paladins got cleric spells; rangers used both magic user and druid. Bards were a weird case where you had to start as fighter, then go thief, and then could become a bard; who gets druid spells.

This usually meant that similar characters had the same spells. This also created the situation where you had to have certain classes. This is where the idea of the standard party of fighter, cleric, magic user, and thief comes from. I for one am glad that has changed. Now if no one wants to play a cleric his role can be covered by multiple other classes. Doing away with specialized spell lists would mean that would no longer be the same.

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:

Eldritch Knight and Magus...

Your welcome...

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.
LazarX wrote:
It's called Rule Zero.
Seranov wrote:

I think it's not really a big deal. If there was one single spell that I desperately needed, there are numerous ways to get it: the vast majority of which involve actually making efforts to go get what you want, instead of expecting it to come to you.

Not that I consider Gravity Bow, or Lead Blades, or Strongjaw, or any such feat to be really important for a martial character of any sort. Damage dice are mostly irrelevant, anyway, as most damage will always come from static bonuses. There are much more important things to be using spell slots on.

born_of_fire wrote:
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.

blahpers wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Mr. T's floating head dominated the conversation for so long that I forgot that Cranefist was the OP. Sorry about that.

Apology accepted.

blahpers wrote:
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.

blahpers wrote:
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?

blahpers wrote:
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!


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.

1 to 50 of 232 << 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.