Tilnar's page

That I wouldn't have a problem with.

The problem seems to be that most people who want alternate-alignment Paladins is that they (generally, and obviously not in all cases) want all the benefits of being a Paladin without the hardship of being locked into LG or CE alignments with steep codes of conduct. A Paladin is not just a Fighter with some divine flavor, he is a Paladin.

First of all -- I agree with your statement that most people looking for alternate paladins are looking for something other than paladin (and it's a reason I was so happy to see the Vindicator prestige class, allowing someone to "dip" into the divine, and, for that matter, the inquisitor...)

However.... that part, there (the bolded bit), is exactly my problem with the Anti-Paladin (and has been since 1986 or whenever I first got my hands on it).

I agree that CE is the total opposite of LG -- but the anti-paladin isn't the total opposite of the paladin -- the bi-polar (eg, opposite on two axes) opposite of a paladin would be undisciplined , and likely destructive without cause other than its own amusement -- and before people start saying I'm advocating for Chaotic Stupid as the opposite to Lawful Stupid (well, actually, I do believe that, it's just that I don't equate LG with LS, or CE with CS) -- I'd really recommend people go read up the description of CE societies in the bestiary (say, Ogre behaviour), or the little note on the "nature of goblinoid evil" in the bugbear description.... or even the contrasts in the descriptions of devils and demons.... or consider the fact that non-lawfuls aren't considered to be disciplined enough to be monks...

I would argue that the "true" opposite of the paladin (both axes) would be some sort of assassin.

However, the fluff (and flavour) of the anti-paladin is not that -- the anti-paladin is not the opposite -- rather, it's the dark reflection of the paladin (or, if you prefer, the paladin of evil), and is just as dedicated to his cause and drawing its strength from the same dedicated focus to its goals -- and at the end of the day.... that's not chaotic behaviour. The very notion of a chaotic creature being bound to a code of conduct seems to miss the whole point of what it means to be chaotic.

Hence, a lot of people (me included) feel that the "real" antipaladin (which is still a somewhat silly name, historical or no, and I thought so as a teenager in the 80s), should be LE - because then you get the dark reflection -- something with the same edge and focus (that comes from Lawful), but dedicated to evil.

Velag will buy:
- Belt of Physical Might (Dexterity/Str) +2 (10,000 gp)

- Make up the 500gp shortfall by selling the Cloak of Resistance +1.

Velag will also sell Klepy's old Mithril Shirt and Kuhri +1 to pay for Badbait's gear (since they didn't start with stuff and in the original rules we were supposed to give 'em 2,400gp of gear stuff)

Because the alchemist is, essentially, throwing elemental explosives around. Any other party member could have the same attack with an Alchemist's Fire flask (or holy water, acid, or other splash weapon).

The only (real) difference here is that the alchemist's splash weapon scales up with levels... but, at the same time, it's their primary class feature (and makes up for the fact that their infusions only affect a single target -- which makes things like infusions of haste way less spiffy).

However, dragons are very intelligent (certainly by CR 20), and capable of magic use, and more than capable of casting Protection from Energy, which pretty much ends the alchemist's threat.

Beyond that, deflection, luck and dodge bonuses apply to touch AC.
Anything providing any cover-like ability creates an instant miss chance. And, really, if the alchemist blasts the dragon after a warning, why wouldn't the dragon blast the alchemist back. That tends to be the sort of thing that is well, well in the Dragon's favour.

Maena speaks quietly, allowing a softness into her voice for probably the first time, "You are right, Kiley. His later actions, no matter how likely, do not make it right."

Her voice grows harsher and her icy tone returns as she finishes, "It is his past actions that do. He murdered that man and his loyal dog, and now, this 'thing', as you call it, seeks justice for itself and its murdered master. A justice that is well deserved."

This is where it's fun to be the LN Asmodean. ;) Being killed by the angry skeleton of your own murder victim sounds just and fair.

You have 2 full-round options (the DC 20 escape artist check or the DC 25 str check) -- but you can also just shred the net's 5 hp and 0 hardness. (After all, a sunder action is just an attack -- and that's against an item that's being moved/wielded). So if you net the greatsword guy who's got a BAB of +7, he'll chop his way free with the +7 attack and then 5' step and hit you with the +2 attack (since you had to be within 10' to throw the net). [Str 14 will guarantee it, since min damage is 2d6+3]

I doubt WotC wants to have a 5e OGL Pathfinder 2e to contend with, especially as 4e is losing market share to a competitor based on the "outdated"and abandoned 3.X platform--just think what a 5e Pathfinder would do to their fledgling 5e sales.

First of all, I don't know why Paizo (or anyone) would bother re-releasing a supported ruleset. It would be a bad business decision to do so, considering the other product still exists and is actively being supported, came first, and has rather powerful branding advantage -- people would likely react negatively to what would likely be called a money-grab. Especially since, again, the business model of Paizo is to produce content, and an OGL would let them do just that for 5e.

So, your (repeated, and likely baseless) concern probably wouldn't be an issue until WotC releases a restricted 6e.

You're linking 4e's (relative) failure to the existence of Pathfinder, whereas I (and many) would argue that Pathfinder exists because of 4e's failure to engage many of the old playerbase. (And I, like many, bought the 4e books, played a few times, didn't care for it and sold them). Basically, you've got your cause and effect backwards.

I, personally, would not have been dragged kicking and screaming into 4ed had Paizo not released PF, I would just have kept playing 3.5 (and/or other, smaller systems) and patiently waited to see if 5e, when it came (which I would have expected eventually [though not this soon] considering most of my friends also felt that while 4e could be fun, it was not the same game [which, it wasn't -- look at all the new mechanics], and certainly not our favourite game).

Don't get me wrong - while the clean-up done to make Pathfinder (and the follow-up books) was a nice (and useful) evolution of the 3.5 rules -- Paizo could just have easily not done that and continued to publish 3.5 adventures and settings materials, and I would have bought them.

Plus, I would point out that Paizo gives away the rulebooks for free (in fact, they had to, since the product is derived from the OGL) via the PRD -- and they're doing quite well for themselves.

So, really, blaming "open gaming" for the failure of 4e seems a little off.

Especially since one of the reasons for the OGL in the first place (admitted quite readily in articles about it by those involved in its creation) was to drive other (smaller) companies out of the market by taking over -- the point of the free D20 ruleset was to make it so that D20 was the default RPG system out there (for all types of settings) -- and, to some extent, it did a very good job of it... (The only reason many of the competitive systems from that time are still around have been because of fans taking over and the lower cost of digital print and print on demand) ...in fact, some would argue (though I won't, because I wasn't there) that one of the reasons they moved to close the system was because they thought that they'd succeeded in that goal and everyone would have to follow -- forgetting that (a) we already own the books and so every new edition must still compete with the older ones, and (b) the SRD was out there on the internet and couldn't be taken back -- meaning so nobody really needed to buy a new rulebook anymore.

Tilnar wrote:

As such, a LN character in a corrupt city would very likely become a vigilante in order to bring law and order to the chaos (à la Punisher).

He would, but I can't even imagine calling Punisher less than LE. He isn't interested in saving lives, and he only really does so incidentally. He kills criminals because he hates them, because he enjoys killing, and because he needs a war to fight in. He's cruel for cruelty's sake, because he enjoys it.

He's the perfect example of how Evil characters can be heroes too, and how an Evil character can fight for the side of Good.

Here, I think it depends on how you qualify that (and, for that matter, what "version" of the Punisher we're talking based on who's writing him) -- Frank has shown many times a respect for life and goodness of innocents -- for instance, he won't fire through a human shield to hit an "evildoer" behind (around, sure, but not through) - whereas an LE would just accept the collateral damage and go with it.

Tilnar wrote:

(Heck, an LG probably would, too, but by less... dramatic [read: lethal]... means.)

I'm still in the camp that doesn't see much moral difference between evildoers meeting their death at the end of a blade, rather than at the end of a rope. You tell me how a Paladin could fix a corrupt government like that without bloodshed-- how they can rehabilitate the evil guards without the government's support and how they can keep the city from hiring more guards just like them-- and I'll concede that a Good character would have looked for a non-lethal solution here.

Well, not everything is a capital offense, for one thing. An LN vigilante would break in and kill and/or torture the guilty -- basically they'd exact punishment for the guilty. An LG would capture and gift-wrap with evidence, for example, forcing the hand of the corrupt government by exposing the corruption. In the end, there may be blood on his blade, but chopping down the corrupt isn't his first choice, especially not for, as I said, non-capital offenses.

I'm not Good, by any stretch of the imagination, but I just don't see how a Good person could have come to any other conclusion; I don't see how a Good person could condemn someone for doing something that obviously and desperately needed to be done.

Because, to an LG, the ends do not justify the means. Because, quite simply, that way lies evil. Taking short-cuts and bypassing what is right is the neutral's way -- you believe in good, but it's just so darned hard to live up to.

Exctracts are EXACTLY like potions, as stated in the APG. I can't find this rule of drawing and drinking as a total standard action, unless it's in a faq, in which case link please :).

Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formuale list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

Bolded part, right there in the text.

I'm pretty sure that hasn't changed since the first printing of the APG -- I think it matches what I have in my paper copy.

While I see a lot of arguments against the concept I don't see too many taking a viewpoint of the evolution of an actual fantasy world.

Actually, you do, you just seem to be skipping over all of them that talk about Hallowing the graveyards (Wonderful spell, and lasts forever!) As I said earlier, a graveyard in a world like that would be where you want to put your dead so they don't come back.

Magic could easily (and I would assume far more cheaply than we can technologically) make a 'Cremation Cabinet" that could disintegrate a dead body put into it that would last entire ages without requiring fuel or expense past initial construction and that could have a limitation constructed in of only affecting unliving matter placed inside it.

I still think it would be something most societies would adopt. While you cannot stamp out all undead if you eliminate the vast maojority of usuable bodies you certainly curtail their ability to exist.

Well, disintegrate is a very expensive spell, but sure, like a nuclear power plant, it may be all up-front costs and then cheap to operate afterward... however... You know what's cheaper than that?

Casting Hallow. Once. Done. Taa-daa. Now, you bury something, it doesn't come back, it's like the anti-pet Semetary.

Also: You can visit the grave (a plus), and you can see the thing going into the Hallowed ground, rather than hoping that the pile of dust they gave you wasn't just the left over coals from last night's stew and that the creepy guy who works with the dead all day isn't actually a necromancer gathering remains.

At least, that's how I see it.

Tilnar wrote:

Just for the record, affinity slots went away when we strayed from 3.5 and into PF. (Yay!)

Yes, but....

If you use the custom magic item rules without any GM discretion, you can get a ring of permenant shield that gives you +4 AC and immunity to magic missles for 2000 gold(level 1 spell, level 1 caster, continuous effect). The formulas are guidelines, not rules.

Hold up - I'm not arguing for a strict 100% allowance of spells to magic items (as per your example), what I'm saying is that there's no reason you can't make (for the same cost) a Periapt of Wisdom instead of a Headband - since there is no longer such a thing as item affinity.

And, yes, obviously it's all up to GM approval -- I was only saying that the silly "That effect must be on feet, or you pay 150% for it" thing is no longer part of the rules.

Just for the record, affinity slots went away when we strayed from 3.5 and into PF. (Yay!)

I think my biggest issue has always been with the planetouched races, such as teh tiefling and the Oread. It's always a human with these bloodlines. Why? I don't think it's impossible for a Celestial to get it on with an elf or a gnome instead of a human, yet the descriptions clearly indicate all these chreatures as human with "a little bit extra".

Big +1 to that -- I mean, it's fine to make it that humans are the only ones who can crossbreed with other humanoid races (more or less, Orogs, Mogrelmen and Ogrekin notwithstanding), but when we're dealing with shape-shifting celestial/infernal/abyssal, whatever -- why on earth wouldn't there be such things? (I mean, I would think that there'd be more Oread-ian dwarves than humans) I always thought that all forms of Planetouched *should* be templates that you put over the base race -- and so I'm very (very) supportive of that kind of approach being used here.

Greetings, Fellows.

I am Anadyr Larcin, Arcane Duelist, and I grew up here in Korvosa.

I would love to see a new copy of the core rulebook which is both well-organized and deals with some of the FAQ/Errata sort of things that have come up -- I fully agree that the core PF book, as written, kind of assumes their players are familiar with 3.5 - which was fine for people like me, but less good for people like some of my players.

I'd pay money for that.

Hi Ara --

Here's my 2 cents -- remember this is opinion only (even if there's a few years of playing experience in which I made that opinion - I also had different players).

First up, according to the rules, a "standard" encounter for your party *should* be CR 1/2 - about 200XP. Your guys should be able to handle a bunch of those in a day without depleting themselves too badly. However, single foes are rarely challenges because a party (even with 2 members) get more actions and can do fun things like flanking. That's why a single orc (who can be double-teamed) is less of a challenge for a party of 2 or more than 2 kobolds would be, even though the 2 kobolds are worth the same XP. However, I would also point out that Orcs aren't CR 1/2 - they're 1/3. At 200XP, you can afford a single Hobgoblin. (or a creature with 1 pc level)

However, as the GM table indicates -- you can scale up the challenge by going up the list. Now, to be fair, you're in a slightly weird position because the scaling wasn't really designed for a party with an APL of 1/2, but the same rules hold (more or less). I'd say treat 300XP as the usual APL+1 (Challenging), 400XP as +2 (Hard) and avoid the whole idea of "epic" until your guys get some levels. Also, remember that swarming works both ways -- so 400XP worth of kobolds will have a strong advantage over your guys unless they can bottleneck them in a hallway or something.

In terms of making them more likely to survive, I would recommend a higher point-buy than usual (25 is probably a good idea) at character generation -- and then it's a matter of what they're playing class wise -- because that's going to control what they can face. For instance, two fighters are good at dealing damage, but can't do much when they start taking damage. A single damage-inflicting trap could really ruin their adventuring day. I might also recommend encouraging one of them to play something like a druid or summoner to get an extra body into combat.

Beyond that - I would make them follow the standard starting rules - and then you can feed them a few bonuses as part of the RP/set-up for the job. For instance, if the town smith is implicated, he could find a Masterwork weapon. If the priests are, he could give them a potion or two, or maybe a partially-depleted wand of CLW (assuming someone can use it).

One good "starting" idea - especially for a small group - is to have the party "rescue" a captured support-character with levels. For instance, if you find a L2 or L3 bard who was ambushed at night by goblins who now want to eat him - well, he won't have his gear anymore - so he's not going to be super-helpful in combat, but he can inspire and cast buffs/heals. This gives them a friendly NPC contact for later, also - and the bard might, for instance, be the one who ids any items they find.

However, you asked about "fun" encounters, so I'll give you a few ideas of relatively-low CR things that can be fun (and offer more variety than "Oh, look, kobolds again!").

- The skeleton and Zombie templates can be applied to anything that used to be alive - this includes small-size and tiny-sized animals. This lets you fill your encounter budget pretty darn well and can be creative. (Also, if you have a cleric, swarm them with a few rounds of 1/2 or 1 hd skeletons and watch him smile as he channels them into ash). [You could then have a skeletal champion controlling the lesser undead, or a low-level priest/adept as the "boss" in the area]

- Putting Mites in a cave (instead of Goblins or Kobolds) is usually a nice switch, but still very level-appropriate - they're low CR on their own and weak - sort of like kobolds, but also have a wee bit of Damage Resistance (which tends to surprise people) -- and intelligent, so their leader could have a level or two (ranger with a gnome hate, for instance, would be very appropriate).

- Animals and some of the magical beasts are taken as "pets" by intelligent creatures - and the Young Creature template can really help you out here by nerfing something into a level-appropriate encounter.
For instance, for the "big" fight at the end, you could use your 400XP to give a CR1 hobgoblin (L2 fighter, instead of L1 base) a "pet" that's a Young Dire Bat or Cave Fisher.

Ultimately, the sky's the limit -- just remember that there's only 2 of your guys and to try to avoid letting them get swarmed.

Personally I'd buy a .pdf of a 'rules compendium' if, unlike the WotC version, it actually answered all of these impasses. That's one reason I'd like Howie to make & maintain a list of these things.

Seconded -- Especially if they're somewhat ignoring the errata/FAQs in favour of new products and thus new revenue streams.

Gang Up- You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.(APG)

Gang Up isn't a teamwork feat - which makes it even snazzier -- you need Combat Expertise and what not, but you don't need anything from your allies.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

So you're doubling up on the bonuses.

Only if you assume all social interactions are diplomacy.

Which is almost 100% of the problem here, and always has been.

I felt that he was trying to take away one of my roles as the GM - controlling the level and abundance of magic items and money for the PC's

But you do still control that - you control the amount of money they have. Anything he crafts he needs to have the resources to make, and since magic items sell for half value, he can't really profit at doing this. The only thing this does is let the party members (if they have sufficient time) control the types of magic items they get.

For instance, the party finds a +2 Small shortsword. Noone in the party is small. They sell it for half value. The party mage spends 4-8 days (depending on the DC he wants) making a +2 Medium Longsword for the paladin. (Or himself a +2 Medium Dagger, etc.). Actually, they'd be losing a bit of money because of the need to pay for a masterwork item to work from.

I agree with the OP, otherwise the world would simply be awash in magic items. Our solution was even stronger than his: +5 on the caster level requirements for all item creation feats. So you can take scribe scroll at 6th level, craft wondrous item at 9th.

Wow, so Wizards can't make any scrolls (despite the free feat) until they're big enough to cast Fireball? Does your game have a lot more sorcerers?