|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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:
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. :(
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.
Ya know, I may be one of the few 80s gamers who did not like the Dragonlance books. At all.
I am not from the 80s, well I was born in them, but I strongly dislike Dragonlance novels.
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.
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:
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.
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.
The black raven wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:
Everything above quoted for Truth.
There are good power gamers and bad power gamers. The good ones practice a bit of restraint and tact, which goes a long way: They don't give unsolicited advice -- although oftentimes a "You seem unhappy, Bob, anything I can help with?" question will result in Bob asking for charop advice. And then there's that fine line between giving enough advice to make Bob happy, and giving too much advice and coming off as a control freak. Which can be hard to see, even for those without Aspergers. :/
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
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:
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.)
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.
Oh my gosh, why does every god need a gish?!
Simon Legrande wrote:
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. :)
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. ;)
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. ;)
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.
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.
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. ;)
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
2- Everyone rolls a set of stats and you can pick the set you wish to use from among everyones sets. This IS even fairer than point buy and is perhaps the fairest method I have ever seen.
I agree; if ya have to roll, use the potluck method!
Letting everyone roll a set of stats is most fun because it gives everyone more options -- the monk player can take the set of straight-14s, while the wizard player can take the set with the 3 and the 18. In big groups, the potluck method is likely to result in very high stats all around, so the DM might want to have each player only roll a single score or two.
Oh and don't forget to write those scores down, in the event of new PCs joining later on!
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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."
On a side note, I just ran across an ENworld thread in which a bunch of fans are dogpiling a 5e DM for wanting to eliminate the hard cap on ability scores. A desire that I sympathize with, even if it has obvious balance implications.* I would have expected more replies with constructive ideas to eliminate the cap and maintain balance, or at least a few more "Yeah, rulings not rules!"
But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)
*How balanced 5e is to begin with remains to be seen...
But I guess your right in that if somethings are ingrained with the system and if it's harder to remove / rewrite then it's easier to just play something else. Perhaps 5E's mechanics are simpler to remove than previous editions?
5e fans seem to think so, but that's actually one of the 5e 'features' that I'm confused about. Old school DMs like to tout 'easy to house rule' as a feature of old school games, which I find equally baffling. I find it easy to house rule any and all editions, 4e a bit more so than the others due to its transparency. I haven't read thru 5e yet, but I know I'd have to do quite a bit of house ruling to make it personally DMable. Perhaps not as much house ruling as I did for 3.x, but far more than I need to do for 4e.
So I don't know if I'm missing some subtle quirk of 5e that makes it super easy to house rule, or if this is just a marketing slogan that's being regurgitated by its fans.
In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just...
Not to speak for Auxmaulous, but for me it's a matter of quantity of house rules rather than difficulty of individual house rules. For example, making 3.x play the way I want requires a lot of house rules, while making TSR D&D play the way I want requires...well, I don't think that's possible because I'd end up literally rewriting the entire game.
PS: Thanks for your rundown of 5e 4e-isms!
It's funny how fans of each edition all look at 5e and say "Where's my slice of the pie?" The fans who're happy with 5e all seem to take it as its own beast, which I think is the best way to look at any new edition.
There are bits of 4e in there, like the shield spell being reactive, but ya really gotta look. :(
Somewhat the same here. I'll play anything at least once if a friend is running it, but which edition and what level we're starting at suggests my attitude regarding chargen and the game.
Playing low level TSR D&D? I know not to take the game too seriously, and I won't bother thinking about my character's personality until and if he survives a few levels. Beer 'n' pretzels game.
Playing low level 3.x? Again, don't bother thinking about characterization. Instead, brush up on my system mastery!
Playing mid+ level? Might be worth thinking about personality and character history, but there will still be plenty of arbitrarium to mentally prepare for.
Playing 4e? Probably worth showing up to game day with a full character, and chances are good that I'll want to stay for more than one session.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Git 'er dooone!
pres man wrote:
To the issue of the bless weapon spell, easiest solution would be to use the align weapon spell in its place. The more complicated solution would be to rewrite the spell to have it apply appropriate to the particular exemplar.
I've already tweaked an entire class; I don't mind tweaking a few spells. ;)
Thank you. I got the term "extreme alignment" in the intelligent weapons section of the Core Rulebook. You'll see that TN weapons can choose an "extreme alignment", LG, LE, CG, CE as a chosen type of enemy.
Wow, I guess 'extreme' is a pretty pervasive term. I wonder if there's some old D&D source that we're [subconsciously] drawing on, or if the term is just that intuitive.
In any case, I added the TN option to the exemplar write-up. :)
I guess great minds really do think alike, Arcanemuses. ;)
Thinking about the four non-neutral alignments again -- LG, LE, CG, CE -- I can't help but think there must be a better catch-all term for them than 'extreme.' (Which was my own first impulse, as well.)
I mean, a chaotic evil dude isn't necessarily extreme -- he isn't by default any more chaotic than the chaotic neutral guy over there, or more evil than the neutral evil gal over here. He just happens to be both chaotic and evil.
Perhaps a better term for those who wholly reject neutrality would be 'imbalanced.' Or maybe that'd be too reminiscent of game balance flame wars? ;)
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?
Bumping the thread once before I start a different thread to ask after analogues for: