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

3,133 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.

I don't know how many potential customers gave up on PF due to play test civility, or lack thereof, but I do know that other 3.x forums like ENworld, GitP, and Brilliant Gameologists have quite a bit of negative PF sentiment. "The so-called 'play test' was a brilliant free-PR stunt" and "PF is just different enough to be a pain in the ass, but not different enough to be worth buying" are a couple of the milder criticisms I've seen.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Undone wrote:
No appears to be heads over shoulders on yes.

Let's look at the extremes.

Yes: "Pathfinder totally needs this, not that I am going to stop playing anytime soon."

No: "Paizo would be dead to me."

Perhaps this a bad polling location, since everyone on these forums plays Pathfinder to some extent, but I am not seeing reward out-weighing risk on this business venture even if the results were more even.

I personally haven't been a Paizo customer since the days of the print mags, but a PF 2e might turn me into a returned customer. But I'm probably unusual for a Paizo forumite, so I think you're right.

Arctic Sphinx wrote:
Not sure, but I kind of want to see what they come up with for a second edition, so...

Same here, basically. I have no horse in this race, but I'll be curious to see what PF 2e looks like when it comes.

Undone wrote:
The only things in this edition which I don't like are easily said no to. Crafting and Leadership. Only a few other legal things make me raise my eyebrows like dazing spell/Sacred geometry (Did someone who hated math class write this feat).

No, I think it was someone who likes math a little too much. Or it's one helluva a nerdy April Fool's joke!


Wow, didn't know that raise dead could be used on a sci-fi thread!

I originally voted for SW because at best it was much more exciting than ST, and at worst it was Natalie Portman in entertainingly absurd costumes. But with the ST reboots in mind, I think it's a wash.

So I change my vote to New BSG, which is still the only sci-fi thing that I'll recommend to a non-sci-fi fan!


I didn't get into FMA until I tried Brotherhood. The original hits one of my big triggers; it's...much...too...slooooooow. Brotherhood isn't one of my all-time favorites either, but it's fun, and it moves along at a steady clip. Hopefully netflix will add season 5+ at some point so I can finish the series!

(Or maybe it'll eventually get out from behind crunchyroll's paywall.)


Scythia wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If their spellcasting is natural, why are they all musical savants and preoccupied with random lore?

Because the idea of a bard comes to us from Celtic tribes, where a bard was a lore keeper who kept verbal history often in the form of songs. Also, the songs they sang were thought to have power, one legend says that an unpopular king was broken out in spots and sores after a bard sang a scathing satire about him.

In many folk beliefs and religious traditions alike, music is thought of as a way to commune with greater forces or channel power. The Bard class uses the concept of both the original Celtic bard, and the mysticism assigned to music.

I'm aware of the original inspiration for the D&D bard, and I think that 'I inspire people with the power of music!' is a fun concept; I just have difficulty fitting the 3.x bard into the context of the game world.


I could actually wrap my head around bards in 2e, where they were basically MCed mage-thieves, without actually having to multiclass. I remember some FR novel mentioning a bard college, which could explain why all bards are musicians of some sort.

But then in 3e, bards became free-spirited spontaneous caster-rogues with a bit of cleric thrown in for good measure, I guess. But...where do bards come from? If they're trained, why are they spontaneous casters? If their spellcasting is natural, why are they all musical savants and preoccupied with random lore? Why are they the only arcane class that can heal?*

To this day, I don't get it.

*Don't get me wrong, I'm all for arcane healing, it's just weird that the bard is the only one.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
I've tried, but I simply can't get over the "meh" feeling over D&D Next. Honestly, this is the first edition of D&D I really just can't get into. I can't see what it actually offers me that I want.

Same here. In addition to all the replies here, though, it is the new edition of D&D, which is enough for many fans to buy at least the Core 3. And it does have a couple of novel things like the proficiency bonus, even if I don't think they're going to turn out nearly as swimmingly as 5e fans are hoping.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I've never got excited about a system because of the system - it's always about the supplements/adventures/accessories.

I'm the opposite, which is no doubt why I can't summon any enthusiasm for 5e. :)


Buri wrote:
Diffan wrote:
System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.
This is of particualr import to me. Things are worded in a way that lets them be more easily understood and ruled upon.

I suspect that 5e will be just as thoroughly dissected by the CharOp forums as every WotC edition. (The only reason that I omit TSR editions is because they had the shelter of existing before the internet became a big thing.)

CharOpping is something that fans do because they enjoy doing it, regardless of an edition's relative merits or flaws. Not even 5e's 'rulings instead of rules' will make a difference, because there are still official rules that can be used as a point of common discussion. Every other edition has provided DMs the ability to overrule the RAW, and it didn't stop CharOp from dissecting the RAW. Unless 5e can brain wash its fans, I don't see the CharOp scene changing.


Buri wrote:
I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.

I do however agree with you here. I haven't read beyond the OP of the trust thread because I know I'll faceplant myself into a concussion. :p


Buri wrote:

Optional systems off the top of my head:

alternate ability score generation
alternate racial stats depending on race (human is one)
optional encumbrance rules vs the default carry capacity
feats

thejeff wrote:
Let's say I thought the original goals were a little bit loftier and I wouldn't count that towards filling them.

Yeah, if the above is the kind of thing that all this talk of modularity is about, color me unimpressed. D&D has had this kind of modularity -- aka 'variant rules' -- since day one. And besides, I've been writing variant rules of my own for quite a while, without any rulebook's go-ahead.

I can see the appeal for DMs who aren't confident enough to make their own house rules, and calling out D&D's modularity might make a great marketing point, but it's all lost on me.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
eating tofu is Evil
No, no, no, making other people eat tofu is Evil. Eating it yourself is just a bit odd. ;)

Eating unseasoned tofu is definitely odd.

Eating seasoned and stir-fried tofu is delicious! Especially the littlest bits that get knocked off, and then get extra crispy at the bottom of the wok. :)

Mmmm...


Tels wrote:
Rurouni Kenshin 2: Kyoto - The Legend Ends trailer

Didn't see the original, so I was not expecting live action! It looks like good ol' fashioned good vs. evil stuff, though after reading a borrowed copy of the first comic, I'm lukewarm about Rurouni Kenshin. All of the 2-3 stories I read were "Bad guys show up, threaten Megumi(?) and townsfolk, and then Rurouni shows up at the last moment to save the day." I was told that the comics eventually get more interesting, though, so maybe I shouldn't be judging the entire line by its first book.


Belabras wrote:
I know I'm late to this party, but did Tokyo Ghoul already get a mention?

Probably, but feel free to give us your elevator pitch. :)


Kryzbyn wrote:
Watched knights of sedonia on netflix. Wow.

I know, right?! Looking forward to season 2. :)


Weirdo wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Wait, JJ wrote eight paladin-alikes without smite abilities?! It's no wonder he ended up convinced that it was a bad idea!
Well, some of them did have smite. It just wasn't Smite Evil - the CG variant had Smite Law. Which really doesn't do it for people who want to fight Evil without being Lawful.

No kidding! When I first heard about this article, I figured that JJ probably wrote some fluff text and a code for each new class, flipped some energy/bonus types, and then switched out a few of the less-iconic paladin features for new ones. I had no idea that he practically reinvented the wheel eight times! I've gotta get my hands on that article someday, just to see what the results look like.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Buri wrote:
I'm shocked, shocked and appalled that you misquoted me when replying to TS' brilliant post, Jeremy! ;)
Yeah - I was talking about resilience though I think I slightly misunderstood your rule (just reread it). That said my larger point of having concerns about a universal answer to this issue I think stand.

There certainly is an advantage to giving each elite or solo a (set of?) unique resistances, I won't debate that. I just prefer to have a global solution for these kind of things, though you do make a good about stacking save penalties -- it might better to simply roll a d4 instead of a save. Elites ignore a condition on a 3 or 4; solos ignore a condition on a 2, 3, or 4.

Right now though, my larger problem is that I'm in a very transitory phase of my life, and am not likely to do any gaming for at least another year or so. :(


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Any ability with a duration of "until the end of combat"

I love these! Isn't there a general rule somewhere that equates "until the end of the encounter" to a define timeframe, like 5 minutes?


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.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Ya know, I may be one of the few 80s gamers who did not like the Dragonlance books. At all.
Hama wrote:
I am not from the 80s, well I was born in them, but I strongly dislike Dragonlance novels.
WitchyTangles wrote:
Count me in with the Dragonlance dislike team.

You may be the minority, but who knows?

Chronicles was the one and only D&D novelization that I loved as a teen. I read a lot of others -- mostly FR and other DL novels -- but even back then I knew those others were demonstrations of Sturgeon's Law.

It took me picking up the first of the Chronicles again as an adult to realize that it was merely second-rate in a different way. I got three or four chapters in, and thought "What did I like about this, again?"

But I may be in the minority for having loved and then lost DL, for all I know.


GypsyMischief wrote:
Just a foreward, the whole separation of Arcane and Divine magic in PF turns me off from the get go. In fact, a lot of the black and white themes in PF gross me out; Good and Evil, Law and Chaos (Which seems like a really esoteric philosophical concept to me. I feel like all practicioners of organized religion qualify as Lawful, but that's a different discussion), Arcane and Divine, and i guess that's it, basically.

It is a separate discussion because not much of this turns me completely off to a class -- aside from overly restrictive alignment requirements -- but yeah, I agree with much of what you say. I think the Good vs. Evil theme can be fun, but I find the law vs. chaos thing to be confused and uninspiring, and the divine vs. arcane thing to be utterly gamey.

(A wizard or sorcerer casting inflict wounds is totally legit, but the same character casting cure wounds requires a bunch of system mastery to achieve a result that could have been achieved by simply adding cure wounds to arcane spell lists? Really?)


Quark Blast wrote:

Re Dragon #'s 108, 310 and 312

James Jacobs wrote:
... coming up with themes for each of the classes that helped justify them as existing without overlapping other classes (aka, the paladin smites evil, so none of the other 8 should have smite evil) was really tough. And by the end of the articles... I was pretty convinced, and remain convinced to this day, that a paladin for every alignment is not a great idea. If only because it reduces and marginalizes the paladin... I would have pushed for making the paladin a prestige class.
These are still the best sources for Alt-Paladin's IMNSHO. If this idea interests you as a player or GM I would read, then re-read, these sources first.

Wait, JJ wrote eight paladin-alikes without smite abilities?! It's no wonder he ended up convinced that it was a bad idea!

I guess he had a word count to fill, but ugh, such a waste of mental energy!

Quark Blast wrote:
I think the games (D&D, Pathfinder) should've gone the direction of letting players (with the GMs blessing) build whatever type of character they wanted to play. That is, set a core build for Warrior, Innate Spellcaster, Studied Spellcaster, Cleric, Rogue and Psion. Then choose race, skills and Feats or (possibly) Prestige options that lay over that build to make the character you want to play in a given campaign.

I was never in a campaign that used them, but the 3.0 (3.5?) Unearthed Arcana has a Generic Classes variant. The lineup is Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert. (Not the NPC expert class.) I always thought it'd be cool if, rather than getting a bunch of bonus feats, the warrior was modified so that players could create the warrior concept they liked by taking class feature options like rage or smite. Obviously, such abilities would have to be broken down into smaller bits than they appear in the core classes, but it'd bypass multiclassing hoop-jumping and weird class restrictions like the paladin's.


Zhayne wrote:
Summons, mounts, familiars, animal companions. I don't want to juggle that many sheets when I'm a player. Fortunately, these are all removable nowadays.

Oooh, good one! One character sheet is enough for me, thanks.


Things that turn me off a class:

1. Alignment restrictions: I don't mind the cleric's restriction, and restrictions like "any non-lawful" aren't onerous even if I think they're idiotic, but I generally avoid anything tighter than that. Too many DMs have very specific and peculiar ideas about this stuff, particularly when it comes to the meaning of Law and/or Good.

2. Jack-of-All-Trades: I like the idea of well-rounded characters moderately talented in many areas, but in practice it just doesn't play as cool as I imagine it, especially when it comes to combat. So I generally avoid MAD classes, partial casters, and those with medium BAB.

3. Too Simple: I'll play simple martial-types at low-low levels, but I lean toward casters for level 5+ games.


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. :/


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I've been making monsters without DDI since day 1; I even wrote a handy guide to monster creation for 4e!
Interesting document. Not sure I'd ever want to think of something like a 'go to power' for a role but interesting concept.

I included the go-to powers for a couple of purposes: to serve super-fast monster creation in the event that a DM is low on time and/or creativity, and to serve as concrete examples of what each role power should do. (I remember thinking that the DMG descriptions of each role are somewhat vague for the purpose of monster-creation. Or maybe I'm just the kind of guy who needs examples.)

I used them a couple of times, but yeah, I wouldn't want them used for every single monster!

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

The note on the save bonus (specifically your mechanic for avoiding conditions) caught my attention.

I've definitely noticed the element you seem have designed the monster rule to combat. All that said even with a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding the condition for a solo I'm not sure it'd really solve the issue - do you find that it does?

Are you talking about the elite and solo resilience?

Honestly, resilience was the last idea I added to Marvelous Monsters, and I didn't get to play test it much before I had to leave my group. I had a couple of optimizers in the group, but they didn't go in for the 'stunlock with massive save penalties or UENT' stuff.

But I read the forums, and like solving problems from a universal perspective, so I figured "If an elite is supposed to be a two-in-one, it should be able to shake off nasty conditions half the time. (Save to ignore.) If a solo is supposed to be a four-in-one*, it should be able to shake off nasty conditions three out of four times. (Save w/ +5 bonus to ignore.)" Not sure where you're getting 1-in-3 odds from; maybe I explained something poorly?

*It's always been difficult for me to scrape together even four consistent players, so I treat solos as four-in-ones rather than five-in-ones. I'm actually surprised that the 4e team designed solos as five-in-ones, even if five players is the average party size, because it implies that every party needs five PCs, and it kinda limits big boss fight options. (It's hard to have a boss encounter with lackeys without breaking the encounter-building guidelines.)


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.


Aelryinth wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

For those genuinely curious about why some of us drop the LG restriction and the Code, I wrote a blog post just for you. :)

Caimbuel wrote:
What does said non-LG paladinish bring to the table? Most of 3.0 and 3.5's attempts IMO were powergamer additions with little to no fluff, just crunch.

Role playing options. Like I said, the traditional paladin is much too narrow. ;)

Bandw2 wrote:
in all seriousness aren't clerics the holy warriors of every god? paladins do their own lawful good thing.
Clerics are the gishes of every god. Big difference. ;)

Clerics aren't gishes. Clerics are goshes.

==Aelryinth

Oh my gosh, why does every god need a gish?!


Simon Legrande wrote:
137ben wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
The reason, of course, is balance.

*Gasp!* Did you just use the "b" word?!? That must be why the Paizo forumites hate True Neutral so much. To paraphrase Gorbacz, the forumites have decreed that Bal@#&ce = wuxia = anime = MMO = munchkin = 4e!

:)

Well, I was using it in the cosmic sense not the mechanics sense. I don't really care one bit about mechanical balance. Some things are just better than others.

I could be wrong, but I think 137ben is poking fun at people who seem to see red when they hear 'the b word,' by drawing a ridiculous connection between two completely unrelated uses of the word. ;)


For those genuinely curious about why some of us drop the LG restriction and the Code, I wrote a blog post just for you. :)

Caimbuel wrote:
What does said non-LG paladinish bring to the table? Most of 3.0 and 3.5's attempts IMO were powergamer additions with little to no fluff, just crunch.

Role playing options. Like I said, the traditional paladin is much too narrow. ;)

Bandw2 wrote:
in all seriousness aren't clerics the holy warriors of every god? paladins do their own lawful good thing.

Clerics are the gishes of every god. Big difference. ;)


WPharolin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


if I remember wasn't there a distinction between TN and NN at one point?
Not that I recall. But the name (and definition) has flip flopped enough, I could be mistaken. Originally, there were only three alignments. Which, might as well have been dwarf, elf, and other for all they were worth.

I thought that all 'civilized' races are Lawful (or at least Neutral) under the three-alignment paradigm?

Anyhow, no, I'm 99% certain that NN has never even been an official term. There's always been a divide within TN, though: the animalistic kind of neutrality that results from being completely unable to make moral/ethical decisions, and the sentient kind of neutrality that results from the lack of strong action/belief on behalf of L, C, G, or E. Basically there's Joe Schmoe TN, and there's Joe's Dog Fido TN.


Kage_no_Oukami wrote:
I admittedly don't have the long experience as many on the boards but I've always wondered why it was no stretch of imagination for every deity/alignment to have clerics but the holy/unholy warrior was alignment restricted.

Good point! If the cleric and every class were as cookie-cutter as the paladin -- "a cleric must remain NG and heal everyone in need," "a barbarian who strays from CN or knowingly follows a civilized law loses the ability to rage," ect. -- at least the paladin wouldn't stick out like it does.

Anyway, yeah, the cleric was the precedent I originally used when I dropped the paladin's LG restriction and code.

Kage_no_Oukami wrote:
This is what I've been toying around with for my campaign; lifting the LG and CE restrictions of the paladin and anti-paladin but requiring they be the exact alignment of their deity. I see these classes as holy warriors--the hand of their deity on the Material plane. A person may choose to be a priest or cleric, but paladins are called so their alignments and ideals (code of conduct) should mirror their deities.

From one DM to another, you'll never look back. ;)

Caimbuel wrote:
EDIT:I am still part of that group that likes the Paladin being a prestige class, but MEH, that is another discussion

Yeah, the traditional paladin concept is way too specific to be a base class. :)


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.


thejeff wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)
The hard cap on stats is very important because Bounded Accuracy means enemy AC's, attack bonuses, saves, etc never get stupidly high like in previous editions of D&D. Everything in the game, from the balance of light armor vs heavy armor to monsters to skill DCs rests on the assumption that PCs won't have a super-high score in any single key stat (like Dex or their casting stat). They then give you several opportunities for large stat increases as you level up (gaining as many as 14 stat points for a Fighter by lvl 20), secure in the knowledge that even with +14 stat points, they'll either need to be spread around to less important stats once your key stat is quickly maxed out, or you'll exchange them for feats. If you remove the cap and you can hit 30+ in your key stat, it completely throws everything off balance, and then there will be complaints about how light armor is way better than heavy armor and how ACs are too low on monsters, etc.
Personally, I think that house ruling a game before even playing it is a pretty bad idea. Play a few games, preferably at a range of levels, and see if your initial assumptions are actually problems. Get enough experience with that particular version to see what the consequences of rules changes are likely to be.

Well I guess I'm just more adventurous when it comes to house rules. Like Auxmaulous says, if some rule is just plain offensive to my sensibilities, I'd rather house rule it right out of the gate. If problems arise as a result, I'll deal with them as they come up. I can already think of a couple of ways to remove the cap without obviously breaking anything. (Again, something might break anyway, but I could cross that bridge when I got to it.)

For me personally, though, the stat cap is the least of my issues with 5e. So it's a moot point for me -- I won't be DMing or even buying 5e.


Yup, I've known gamers like that. I think I was one of those gamers at one point. Sometimes players play the same character over and over again because campaigns fizzle and die, so they never get to really play out the archetype they want.

But assuming that's not the case, Hama, I think the best way to shake players out of the same-old-same-old is...by talking to them. You're an honest guy -- tell them you're tired of DMing the same characters over and over again. To get their feet wet, run a one-off adventure in which they're not allowed to play the race or class that they're accustomed to. Tell the joker he has to play a serious character just this once. If nothing else, you'll get a game day or two of refreshing characters.

They might end up going back to their old standby carbon-copy characters afterward, but rolling stats could easily end up with the same results. For example, the rogue player might end up with a slightly different set of stats, but he'll probably still play a rogue. His highest stat'll still be Dex, followed by Int, or whatever his usual priorities are. Different numbers, same character.


Space Crimes wrote:
Just from the mechanics Paladin is a class that uses an alignment to be especially effective in combat against the opposite alignment on that axis. Neutral doesn't really have an opposite the way alignment is visualized in the books so you'll have to think your way around that. To answer the question someone could write a campaign setting where 'Paladin' just stands for training to destroy evil creatures regardless of your own attitude so you could be neutral. Or another one where there is a real threat to the state of the universe because of aberrations that eat reality or something on a weird third alignment axis that the otherwise neutral character opposes.

I agree, the true neutral paladin is a conceptual stretch, and I've never had a player ask to be one.

FWIW though, I think that the 'anti-extremism' TN paladin is an acceptable concept within the context of the game's symmetrical sheme of morality. I think 'extremist' is somewhat of a misnomer for those who simply happen to be both lawful and good, or whatever, but oh well.

Space Crimes wrote:
Also, I think it's so weird that so many see neutral as either too apathetic to adventure or having an insane obsession with balance to the point of attacking everyone at some point. So many complaints about alignment restrictions and neutral gets put in the smallest box?

Agreed again. I think the disconnect comes partly from the 2e druid class, which has a TN requirement and is described as "Will periodically switch sides so that good nor evil nor law nor chaos ever becomes dominant."

I'm not sure where the apathetic image of TN comes from though.


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.


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. ;)


Arcanemuses wrote:

Aeonic Paladin

I made THIS ^^^ a while back. I hope it helps :)

Linkified that for ya. ;)

@ renegadeshepherd: I just recently wrote up an all-inclusive paladin-alike class that Pres Man and others on the homebrew forum put together:

The Exemplar


137ben wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
There's approximately one million homebrewed classes posted for holy warriors of every or any alignment, and none of them have gained traction.

If it hasn't gained any traction then why do you think people keep making and using them? Isn't the fact that so many people saw fit to go through the trouble of writing neutral paladins to use in their games is proof that the concept does have traction?

@OP: I've heard that D&D:Next is supposed to have paladins of every alignment. That's something you can look into once it comes out.

Yup. 4e and now 5e has dropped the LG restriction -- in 5e's case, despite a strong nostalgia factor.

PF hasn't dropped the restriction because it's a retroclone of the last D&D edition that did have it, and PF is still in its first edition. I wouldn't at all be surprised if PF 2e dropped the restriction, though.


Xzaral wrote:
I watched the first episode of SAO II. It's a series I'm kind of hesitant about. I thought the first arc was good and liked the story. But the second arc, while it had a few things I liked, it also had a few too many I didn't. The end villain being a tad too creeping me out being one. I'm going to give it a chance though.

Not going to spoiler anything, but that villain felt to me like one of those villains who was written to be really heinous, but then rated-PGified due to network censorship.


Pan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

That variance in player preference should ameliorate the cookie-cutter-ness, I would have thought.

I wonder if those groups who continually see all the same stats are dominated by one or two gurus with strong views about what stat allocations are 'best'. I know my group will tend to bow to the expertise of whoever has the deepest rules knowledge of our current system.

I am curious too. despite having a chargen session, I dont even know what the other players stat allocation is in our recently started Jade Regent. To think of it I went through kingmaker, Carrion Crown, half of serpent skull as either GM or player and couldnt tell you the stat allocation of the players other than my own if my life depeneded on it. What I can tell you is the race/class and personality of each PC. /shrug

Yup, same experience here. Character =/= stats, so I don't remember the particular numbers.

One of the guys I introduced to the hobby didn't want anything below a 10 from day 1. Had no reason to fear that I was going to be firing at any 'achilles heel,' he just didn't like seeing negatives on his character sheet.


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!


Hama wrote:
Any thoughts?

I'm of the opinion that stats don't make the character.

Players can get themselves into mental ruts -- particularly we who post on gamer forums and are aware of charop mentalities like "I must have a 20 in my prime stat!" But I'd rather get out of that rut by finding/writing some random chargen tables -- random personality traits, random parentage, random quirks, random appearance, etc..

Roll a few random traits, and then work out how they all fit together!


Andrew R wrote:
If you make cookie cutter characters then it is your choice. If you roll but put them in the same order what is the difference aside from hoping to get higher numbers?

The difference is that you usually have to kamikaze a few PCs before getting those higher numbers. ;)


Well, I would hope that the villains make viable villains. ;)


Discovered Sidonia on Netflix, and I'm really liking it so far. I like the transhuman touches, though I don't know what the deal is with the bear chef, or why there's only one character of the third gender.

I also had an epiphany while watching the first few episodes: anime/manga is the only genre I can think of that includes protagonists who manage to be both bad-boy risk-takers and nervously oblivious doofuses.

Hm...


Keldarth wrote:
Hama said wrote:
Well, his parents are to blame. So what if he's autistic?
As the father of an autistic 3-year old boy, I find the sheer amount of ignorance and callousness in this statement overwhelming.

Tactlessness is pretty much Hama's MO, regardless of topic. :/

What got my goat at the time was that the parents made no visible effort to get my side of the story. The father has anger issues; I think the mother is capable of greater insight than she showed, but she's also an advocate for autism and probably accustomed to insensitive people as you are. She probably assumed the worst, and sprung directly into defend-my-child mode.

Nowadays I mostly just feel bad for their whole family. In addition to the hardship of raising an autistic son, they're unhappily married -- and Catholic, so likely to remain so. And my friend -- I don't really know if she still qualifies, because I haven't talked to her in several years -- she struggles with depression. Working a low-wage job and remaining dependent on her parents can't help that problem.

Oh, and as the grand finale of this whole fiasco, I may have unwittingly broken her heart -- you don't have to be autistic to be oblivious to social cues!

Nimon wrote:
Though I am curious what form of "extreme" autism the individual had that he was able to function in the game that long. When I think "Extreme" autism I think Rain Man, it sounds more like this guy just had aspergers or some lesser ASD.

I'm not overly knowledgable about autism, so 'extreme' might be the wrong word. All I really know is the kid is a wiz at math and memorization, and has this thing that his mother described to me as 'prognosia.' Which means that he can recognize voices, and even mimic them like the dude from Police Academy, but he's face-blind. Apparently he has an aunt who doesn't look anything like his mother, but since they have similar voices he has a lot of trouble telling them apart.


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!


Digitalelf wrote:
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
I sort of always liked the approach Alternity took to sci-fi games

Same here... Alternity is one of my favorite sci-fi games.

I also liked his contributions to Planescape...

Though he's only listed as a PS proofreader, I'm going to go ahead and say that anyone involved with both Planescape and 4e is someone I'd like to shake hands with. Mind you, I don't idolize people, so in regular fan language that translates as a teenage girl shrieking about her favorite boy band.


One of my players, and a friend to boot, had a younger brother who wanted to try D&D. Very smart math-wise and a good head for rules, but utterly lacking in social awareness and tact. (He has a fairly extreme form of autism.)

It worked out well enough for a few months, but then he got paranoid. He became convinced that I was out to get his characters, and eventually started threatening me. Autistic or not, I don't DM under those circumstances, so I booted him. Which enraged his parents, and resulted in his sister dropping out of the group due to family drama.

So I resolved things as best I could, but boy do I regret inviting that kid to our game in the first place. Never again will I think "Well if this player doesn't work out, I can always just boot him."

1 to 50 of 3,133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.