Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

WWWW's page

654 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 654 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Speaking as someone deeply involved in natural farming methods, using the term 'organic' to describe something which occurs naturally is a bit of a misnomer.

Organic can either mean 'meets organic certifications' (which is usually still incredibly forced, artificially structured agriculture) or 'contains carbon' neither of which genuinely describe a natural process.

/endrant

I suppose that if you took it to mean organic as in food or organic as in chemistry then it would not work as well. Personally I was assuming that people were using the definition "characteristic of, relating to, or derived from living matter/living organisms" when they said organic.


zagnabbit wrote:
WWWW wrote:
swoosh wrote:
I'm not quite sure how it's more organic. Simpler, sure, since you just roll a few dice. Frustrating, possibly, if you're looking to play a monk but only roll over twelve once. But organic? I don't really see it.

It's more organic in the way that in real life you get a random assortment of ability and some people are just better at things then others. So, like real life, you may be unsuited for the jobs you like and thus are either forced to take one you dislike or suck at the one you like. This more accurately represents the drudgery and desperation that we organic beings experience.

Plus if you throw together 3d6 in order with stat requirements on certain classes and old school meat grinder campaigns you get something more organic in that it is kind of like natural selection.

In modern D&D, character death is viewed as a failure on the part of the DM. Very different than the old days where surviving to "Name Level" was actually a big deal.

I think Organic is an apt term in that rolling stats is the beginning of character creation instead of having a concept as the beginning and generating stats is like buying equipment.

Yeah, the choice of term is reasonably apt in framing the idea of organic growth versus planned construction, natural versus artificial, etc.


swoosh wrote:
I'm not quite sure how it's more organic. Simpler, sure, since you just roll a few dice. Frustrating, possibly, if you're looking to play a monk but only roll over twelve once. But organic? I don't really see it.

It's more organic in the way that in real life you get a random assortment of ability and some people are just better at things then others. So, like real life, you may be unsuited for the jobs you like and thus are either forced to take one you dislike or suck at the one you like. This more accurately represents the drudgery and desperation that we organic beings experience.

Plus if you throw together 3d6 in order with stat requirements on certain classes and old school meat grinder campaigns you get something more organic in that it is kind of like natural selection.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
EDIT: also, I am seriously starting to want UMD removed from the game. It's kind of an interesting option, but at this point everybody's just waving it around saying 'I can use magic too I don't need real class features' and it's getting really f*+!ing old.

Yeah, that's why we had the commoner test back in the day. Admittedly "commoner test" is somewhat of a misnomer given the way class skills shook out but it's a sufficiently evocative name that one generally forgives the imprecision.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
EDIT 2: am I the only one whose starting to get the impression some of the people posting in these threads want UMD as a skill removed from the game and to let anybody use wands/scrolls freely? So many posters seem to assume burning skill points in UMD is automatic.

Well you can hardly blame them. Spells are just so good that everyone wants spells, even the "non-magic" classes.


Khrysaor wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.
So why didn't the wizard that threw up the AMF not use one of those spells long before using a strategy to stop other casters from affecting him? Why is one side supposed to be so smart that they can use some spells and the guy who cast the AMF just standing there doing nothing because he had no intelligence to think up this strategy? Everyone loves to argue for the stupid guy standing in the AMF waiting to die.

Because antimagic field uses the same level slots as planar binding?


Right, so I am going to say that you should stick with the system that you know best. Familiarity allows you to spend less time trying not to forget the minor differences and what not and more time on playing the game. Also the more familiar system will probably lend itself to better improvising which can be very important at times. If there is anything from the other game that you like the systems are similar enough that you can probably modify it over.


shallowsoul wrote:
WWWW wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

And?

Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.

Nah, of course you get something extra by saving resources. If you are using refreshing resources you get extra encounters in a day or whatever the refresh period is. If you are using non-refreshing consumables you get extra gold or whatever currency you used to acquire the consumables.

LOL!

Not really because in order for these other classes to be viable in a standard adventuring day, they need the 5 minute work day.

As opposed to the 4 minute work day that occurs when the one party member consumes more resources. I think you will find that the former situation has an extra minute which would fall under the "anything extra" that you get.


shallowsoul wrote:

And?

Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.

Nah, of course you get something extra by saving resources. If you are using refreshing resources you get extra encounters in a day or whatever the refresh period is. If you are using non-refreshing consumables you get extra gold or whatever currency you used to acquire the consumables.


Karyouonigami wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.
I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters

No, that was a complete list and thus does not contain any of the spell casting classes that are not the paladin and ranger. If I was unclear and that has led you to mistakenly take paladin and ranger to mean all spellcasting classes in the game then I apologize.


Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.

That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
So, lets assume that the mouse-cord thing wasn't a joke and move on to the rest of the point. They didn't take anything away from high level martials. They took away something from a cord that any 0 level commoner had access to. Gunslingers can still TWF with double-barreled pistols, they just need a Glove of Storing or the Gun Twirling feat now. The weapon cord errata literally had nothing to do with high level martials, it had to do with the relative expedience of leather cords.

Wasn't the whole thing originally about gunslingers and free action reloading.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I think it would be helpful if the game actually told you, "the best-trained human person on Earth would be level X, and anything beyond that is superhuman beyond what any real person in Earth's history has attained."

Yeah, that would probably help since it strikes at the heart of the matter. You know, the whole unrealistic abilities measure that is more restrictive then the rules themselves are. If you can remove that aforementioned preconceived notion then it would seem like one could make good extraordinary abilities without as much backlash so the Ex/Su divide wouldn't really be a big deal.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

With all due respect to Sean's stated goal here, I suspect that his proposal would only make things worse with respect to giving martials "nice things." Maybe I'm being too cynical, but here's my logic:

If we're dealing with designers who state that "Martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas." Sedentary designers who wrap a mouse cord around their arm, drop the mouse, try to catch it on the bounce, and declare, "The use of weapon cords by highly-skilled martials is totally unrealistic." Designers who, in describing their home games, describe casters very pointedly NOT using 90% of the narrative power the rules grant them. These people are NOT going to start giving fighters meaningful class features based on the lack of a descriptor tag.

That leaves us with 3rd party designers and players. As it stands, people like me will say, "You know, if a fighter had enough tactical awareness and experience, he should be able to deduce which mirror image is the real caster, and which enemies are illusory, and where an invisible opponent is actually located and how to be sure to hit said opponent. Let's make it a fighter-only feat, Tactical Acumen, and give it an {Ex} tag." People might or might not accept it, but there's a certain kind of logic to it. Get rid of the tag, and people look at it and say, "That's true seeing. It's magic. Fighters shouldn't be able to do that." And there goes a perfectly useful ability.

I would have to agree that removing the distinction could quite reasonably make things worse. While people will still probably claim that "it's magic" based on the whole "realism" standard, even when something is classed as an extraordinary ability, at least in that case you can point at the definition of extraordinary abilities. With the distinction removed there is not even that. So if anything I would say you are not being cynical enough.


DrDeth wrote:

Roos, you know I respect your views. But there's 18 classes now, more very soon. Why not ONE with no magical abilities? Just one? In our RotRL campaign, @ 13th level, the straight fighter is far and away the most dangerous. Many, many players like and want a straight vanilla fighter. Leave that one class alone, but yes- MOAR supernatural stuff as options for the rest! Even flight. Even Dimension Door.

Trogdar- I agree, a "anti-magic/blank" fighter archetype is sorely needed. One who is very resistant to magic.

Right, when you say no magical abilities do you mean no magical abilities or no unrealistic abilities as those are rather not the same thing?


137ben wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Wait, huh. You know, that's a change I had not actually noticed that pathfinder made. In 3.5 extraordinary abilities, "do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics." So there wasn't really anything keeping EX abilities from doing whatever; tome of battle or what have you.

That's still in pathfinder

CRB wrote:
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

Well, I guess that's what I get for going just by people's quotes instead of checking the sources.

Anyway, that seems to mean the real problem is that people have a preconceived standard that is even more limiting then what is actually allowed in the rules. What you probably need is to change that preconception as removing the distinction between Ex and Su doesn't really give characters permission to do more things then extraordinary abilities already do on their own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, huh. You know, that's a change I had not actually noticed that pathfinder made. In 3.5 extraordinary abilities, "do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics." So there wasn't really anything keeping EX abilities from doing whatever; tome of battle or what have you.


Taube wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.
And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.

Honestly, this is really more of an argument against the rogue class being perfectly fine then anything. If a class is so weak that by its very existence it leads to ruining people's fun, rogue players or otherwise, that sounds like a problem.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

I think the point of it being so good is that a natural 1 on UMD means you can't attempt with items like wands for 24 hours now.

Hmm, after checking it would seem that one must both roll a natural 1 and fail to activate the device. If we are talking about +19 on UMD versus a DC 20 wand then that isn't really a problem since a roll of 1 succeeds.


Yeah, bad choice of words on my part. Less "where is this coming from" as in book title and page number and more as in if Marthkus considers this the core competence of the rogue class playstyle then why was more of a point not made about it earlier.


Hmm, wheres this skill mastery thing coming from. If this is such an integral part of the rogue then it needs to be taken into account with regards to the playstyle differences. It would make me think that rather then the rogue being just about less bookkeeping it is about doing less things at the table.


Marthkus wrote:
The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.

Hmm, so how does the all day factor playstyle take into account the other party members. Are we considering a party that will fight all day all day, will go through as may encounters as the wizard has relevant spells, or some other measure.

And then, once we know what the all day factor is, the all day factor can be important to effectiveness. It will determine whether or not we have to consider changes in effectiveness for those characters using daily refreshing resources versus those that expend no resources in some cases and use not refreshing gold in others depending on the number and difficulty of the encounters.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.
If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently.

Are we still ignoring the all day factor? If we are then is it just that rogues take less bookkeeping? It looks to me like it boils down to that from the transferable points of the analogy I outlined but perhaps there is some other factor I am missing.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.

If you really don't get what I am saying, then you are stating that you think Paladins and fighters play the same way, but the paladin just does it better.

No, of course paladins and fighters don't play the same way. Paladins and fighters differ in many specifics, such as the bonuses they get to saves. However since the paladin and fighter are not the focus of the discussion I am ignoring the specifics of the classes and trying to find those more broad parts of the analogy that are transferable to the classes being discussed.

The three things that stand out to me as analogous are that one can go all day while the other can not, that one can burn not refreshing gold while the other burns daily refreshing resources, and that one can not use resources in certain areas while the other can use daily refreshing resources to meet or exceed the other in those areas. The first point I have dismissed due to previous statements you made but I can add it back into the consideration if you want.

If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.

Yes so for that the UMD comes with other advantages that isn't always wasting gold.

For example using the wizards staves for him doesn't burn any gold, since staves are renewable. Using the items that drop that no one else can use doesn't explicitly use up resources either. It allow the party to use those resources when they couldn't.

The analogy doesn't completely apply because it is too simple to fully express everything, but should outline the fundamental difference in play.

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different.

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.
Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold.

The difficulties of encounters fluctuate.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

I am not really sure what that has to do with anything. Either you do need to use resources or you don't. If that is the strict divide between playstyles then that detail is kind of super important since it, you know, actually allows for the two playstyles to be differentiated.


Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.

Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold and so forth.


Marthkus wrote:

I don't really consider going all day a rogue advantage either.

I was just pointed out how the alchemist had to burn resources to keep up, which is a different play style.

Oh, you mean that you are talking about a different playstyle then the previous example of a rogue using consumable items. Sorry, I was assuming that you were talking about one single playstyle and not several mutually exclusive ones.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.
In all of my time playing RPGs I'd never seen the world stop for the PCs to catch a breath. NEVER.

I don't really see that either, but the can go all day with half the party out of spells thing has to come from somewhere.

Edit: Well unless you mean that your groups can never regain spell slots because they never are able to carve out a sufficiently long time for the spellcasters. But I don't really see that either.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
You really have to use that alchemy to make use of the sneak attack since you lack skill mastery.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill of difference, and ignoring dozens of way in which the rogue is outclassed here.

You're relying on appeals to vague, meaningless an ephemeral unprovable concepts like "style" so that you can't be disproved. Its evading a conversation, not having one.

Quote:

Really, without skill mastery, you can't mimic a high level rogue's play style without a loose interpretation of the taking 10 rules.

who cares if you can take 10 when the alchemist has a +20?

The importance of not spending resources is a myth. It doesn't matter if you can go all day, every day. As soon as the cleric or wizard are out of resources, EVERYONE is stopping.

Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.


Marthkus wrote:
I'm sorry but isn't the stealth check and the perception DC the EXACT SAME THING.

Nah, the DC for a task can be modified by conditions. For example perception DCs have +1 per 10 feet of distance which would give a different number then the aforementioned stealth check. The idea that the DC of the perception check can never be modified is not really that good of an argument.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
It does bring up the good point that it's the summon monster line and the like that should be the real TPK machines. It summons creatures and makes them fight for you for free; you can't even offer a more favorable deal like asking for help assaulting a bastion of evil/good or going 1 for 2 on the wishes or something. But, worst of all, you can't just kill off the creature later since it is summoned. If it dies that just makes things worse since now it takes an extra 24 hours to reform which would only make it more angry.

Summons are temporary a instants of an existing monster. The actual monster is not affected by the spell.

At least that is how JJ runs it.

Uh, good for him I guess, but that doesn't really resolve things for anyone else.


Anzyr wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Considering the caster is telling it what to do and then killing it off as an effortless afterthought.... going to have to go with the caster is controlling the power.

That's what all sith think.

EDIT: Killing off that which comes back. Oh no, you gave the demon/devil a vacation!

Not how calling works Marthkus, please read the rules.

It does bring up the good point that it's the summon monster line and the like that should be the real TPK machines. It summons creatures and makes them fight for you for free; you can't even offer a more favorable deal like asking for help assaulting a bastion of evil/good or going 1 for 2 on the wishes or something. But, worst of all, you can't just kill off the creature later since it is summoned. If it dies that just makes things worse since now it takes an extra 24 hours to reform which would only make it more angry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

@andreww: CRB devil? I suppose you mean Bestiary I devils?

It only takes 1 lawyer to let 7 other devils in.

---

Don't get me wrong. Planar Binding is a powerful spell, with the potential to hand you temporary minions with "stuff you're not supposed to have" according to your current level.

But if you start drawing the attention of unsavoury planes, you have no right to cry foul if that makes your life more "interesting".

I love XP and treasure that comes to me. Where do I sign up? Free +5 Inherent bonus to stats as a sign up bonus, oh wow what a bargain.

Nah, don't be silly. As we all know, whenever an adventuring party bothers any outsider (planar bound or otherwise) the DM is obligated to TPK the party with an appropriately themed encounter. I mean, what kind of self respecting outsider is going to let live adventurers that have wrecked years of work when they slaughtered a cult or something.


Blakmane wrote:
shadowkras wrote:
I wont let a spell trump a skill rule. Skills > specific spells.

It's a condition, not a spell. That's like saying if you have a climb speed you still have to take climb checks.

Bill Dunn wrote:
The mistake you are making is adding the invisibility bonus twice

Invisibility works independently from stealth. Let's put it this way. What is the perception DC to notice an invisible, mobile wizard who isn't trying to stealth? By your interpretation that's DC 0.

It is a fair assumption to make that the +20 mentioned in the stealth rules takes into account the 'stealth +20' part of the table. That's still an explicit modifier to the base DC 20 perception. You're reading it as setting the DC to 20 + stealth... which makes no sense given the broader context of the table.

Hmm, let me see if I understand you. Your argument is that a modifier to the DC of a perception check is very much not the same thing as a bonus on a stealth check. Thus invisibility grants an effective +40/60 since the stealth rules apply +20/40 to the check and the perception rules apply a separate +20 modifier to the DC when trying to look at invisible creatures or objects. Is that about what you mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Uh, that creature is very dead. What exactly is it going to do? Or are you going with "It doesn't say Dead creatures can't take actions"?

I assume he means that it will anger the dead creature's friends who will then kill you. Clearly in his games the party can not kill, injure, capture, or otherwise hinder any creature without performing a thorough background check. Whoops, that guard you just killed was actually the Lich Lord's great grandson; you die. Oh no, that kobold was the Dragon King's favorite chess partner; you die. Dang, that rat was the escaped pet of the high priestess's daughter; you die.


chaoseffect wrote:
anlashok wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Wait... that term seems kinda familiar. Don't we usually use that to describe strategies that wizards and other casters employ in order to conquer an encounter through a crippling status effect rather than direct damage? Hmm.

No no this is completely different. Antagonize is only single target.

Quote:
The antagonize feat used to allow someone like a Barbarian to lock a wizard into charging him for two rounds. That's two rounds the Wizard wasn't doing anything constructive. He runs up to the Barbarian, and takes a swing. Guess what? It's now the Barbarians turn and here comes the RAGESMASHSMASHSMASH *Dead Wizard*
I'm just not sure why that's so much worse than the wizard doing the same thing.
Probably because skill DCs are trivial for anyone who even tries to focus on them, and it completely shuts down an enemy.

Yeah skill checks are rather boostable such that if not for the fact that it would totally be a TPK I might have considered an encounter with that feat on some slightly focused minions to ping pong the whole party around a big room for a while or something. But, you know, party wipes aren't preferable.


chaoseffect wrote:
WWWW wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
But if you remove the alignment system restrictions and a strict adherence to the "class name and paragraph say this so that is what it must be" mindset you are pretty much there. If you see the classes as nothing but flavorless build platforms (which some people may disagree with, but I've always been in the "flavor is up to you" camp) then there is no issue besides you as a player deciding if your concept is feasible based on the mechanics of the platform you chose.
Ah, I see what you mean. When you say classless system you mean that the classes are the points that you use to build your character. But that works with or without the alignment system so I don't see how the two are related.
The issue is that flavor aside, the rules still arbitrarily restrict some classes behind an alignment wall. I really have no issue with the concept of having an alignment system, but when it interferes with mechanical choices for no good reason it annoys me.

You could just as easily use an alignment wall to restrict some skills, or paths, or professions, or whatever you want to call the things you spend points on in your classless system.


chaoseffect wrote:
But if you remove the alignment system restrictions and a strict adherence to the "class name and paragraph say this so that is what it must be" mindset you are pretty much there. If you see the classes as nothing but flavorless build platforms (which some people may disagree with, but I've always been in the "flavor is up to you" camp) then there is no issue besides you as a player deciding if your concept is feasible based on the mechanics of the platform you chose.

Ah, I see what you mean. When you say classless system you mean that the classes are the points that you use to build your character. But that works with or without the alignment system so I don't see how the two are related.


pres man wrote:
WWWW wrote:
How do you go from alignment being really bad to classless system. I suppose I could have been missing the alignment restriction on wizard and rogue all these years but that seems unlikely.
chaoseffect was describing a desire to play a non-lawful rogue like character but with paladin like abilities. Obviously the easiest way to do something like that is to have a system where players choose what abilities best suit their character concept instead of playing a system where those choices have been made by the game designers. Just removing alignments isn't going to make the paladin class a good "Robin Hood" build platform.

And barbarian works better. Well I suppose you are right, the barbarian has 2 more skill points per level.


Jaçinto wrote:
Alignment restrictions on rogue was AD&D (thief). Had to be non-lawful. They took it out when WOTC bought it.

Which breaks backwards compatibility thus making the connection even more tenuous.


pres man wrote:
WWWW wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
WWWW wrote:
pres man wrote:
You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.
You're right. The fact that the paladin class is completely extraneous, as demonstrated in that example, clearly means it should just be removed and replaced with the barbarian class. The page savings can be used on a new core class.
Well my point was that the paladin flavor can exist independently of the paladin mechanics, so why must they be so inexplicably tangled in regards to the actual paladin class? Why can't I be a lovable rogue, Robin Hood type character who steals from the rich and gives to the poor but also happens to have Divine Grace and can Smite true evil when he sees it?
Backwards compatibility.
Yup, that's it basically. Seems more like people would like a classless system where they can pick and choose abilities as appropriate to their concept. Maybe that will be how PF 2.0 will be.

How do you go from alignment being really bad to classless system. I suppose I could have been missing the alignment restriction on wizard and rogue all these years but that seems unlikely.


chaoseffect wrote:
WWWW wrote:
pres man wrote:
You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.
You're right. The fact that the paladin class is completely extraneous, as demonstrated in that example, clearly means it should just be removed and replaced with the barbarian class. The page savings can be used on a new core class.
Well my point was that the paladin flavor can exist independently of the paladin mechanics, so why must they be so inexplicably tangled in regards to the actual paladin class? Why can't I be a lovable rogue, Robin Hood type character who steals from the rich and gives to the poor but also happens to have Divine Grace and can Smite true evil when he sees it?

Backwards compatibility.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Lol, I am actually interested in the new d&d coming out, and we will see what they will do with alignment.

On alignment in pf, even if you delete it entirely from your games, it will never truly leave. It is not so easily extinguished because you mighty gamer complained on a forum.

I doubt anyone is really trying to remove the possibility of the concept of alignment from existence. That rather well can't be done without making it impossible to ever be thought of again and that is much too difficult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.

You're right. The fact that the paladin class is completely extraneous, as demonstrated in that example, clearly means it should just be removed and replaced with the barbarian class. The page savings can be used on a new core class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dennis Deadsky wrote:

This is a silly discussion. The proposal for unlimited healing is utter cheese. From the above comments, many players seem to feel entitled to unlimited healing between fights. This sense of entitlement is a bad thing that should be painfully squashed by the GM.

Nah, this is DM entitlement if anything given that they are presumably the ones asking for things to be officially changed from the original wording.


pres man wrote:
WWWW wrote:
apparently you don't either given that you can shift the definitions you use on a whim

This seems a strange conclusion to draw. Let me give you a comparison.

I joined a group playing PF. Now for some reason this group had decided that you couldn't move through an ally's square during combat, even if you were nowhere near any foes even. The only exception was if you were using spring attack, because some FAQ or developers post somewhere said you could spring up and stand in ally's square, attack from that square, and then move away with spring attack.

Now to me, these rules were mind boggling. Yet I accepted them as the house-rules being used and adapted to deal with them. The fact that I could adapt to these crazy interpretations in no way indicated my disinterest in the proper rules involving movement.

Likewise, if a group has, what I consider, a strange interpretation of a specific alignment, I will adapt to their version. It doesn't mean I think their interpretation is superior, or I don't care about where the lines are drawn for alignments, it means I am willing to adapt to the group I game with. As some have suggested, just because you don't like X aspects of a game doesn't mean you can't enjoy Y+Z aspects. Now I don't try to make everyone at the table lives annoying by griping and moaning about rules they want...

Fine, replace "care about" with "care enough about" and there you go.

So anyway, do you have anything to say about any of the other stuff, or was it just that slight difference in wording.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
No. Why would you change the way you roleplay the character?

I have no idea since I generally think alignment is something best ignored.

pres man wrote:

Well this is pretty vague so it is hard to answer completely.

I get that you are trying to show that if the words change and you still play the same, then the words didn't matter. True, the words themselves don't matter, what matters is what they define. You could call lawful-neutral-chaotic, douche-lame-cool, but if they are defined the same way, then being douche-good still indicates a lawful-good mindset.

What this situation tells me is that the player, the GM, and the group didn't clearly outline exactly where the lines should be drawn for the alignments. The problem appears to be that the definitions of the GM don't match the definitions of the player. It doesn't appear that GM and player disagree about the mindset itself, merely where that mindset resides.

So let's say the player thinks the mindset is indicative of a lawful neutral alignment, but a GM thinks it is a lawful good alignment. Now if those discussions were done, as they should be, at the time of character creation, the player could have accurately placed the alignment as Lawful Good, and no shift in the name would have had to occur.

So the issue is poor communication, not the alignment system.

As to the issue of whether I would change the way I play the character. Assuming that there is absolution no issue with the new alignment (as opposed to say I shift to Lawful Evil for eating meat, i.e. taking pleasure in harming "innocent sentient beings", by my vegan GM and Evil alignments are not allowed). Then I would keep playing the character consistently and...

Nah, this isn't about how alignment is an arbitrary shorthand. I feel that it is so obvious that I don't think there is a need to demonstrate it.

Rather we can talk about how the fact that alignment is an arbitrary shorthand that means different things to different people is actively harmful.

The first is because the system requires an extraordinarily burdensome amount of information to be communicated. Really, there are just too many situations for agreement and in depth understanding to be made for all of them before the game starts. I mean, alignment stuff comes up in all sorts of places, betraying the party, not betraying the party, caring about family members, casting mind control spells, seducing barmaids, talking to villains instead of attacking, going undercover, casting a fireball spell indoors, etc. And it's different for everyone so you really have to go over everything to be sure and that just doesn't work.

Also, there is the problem of actually understanding how stuff works. I have had discussions on minutia of the alignment of things that has gone on and on and even then no understanding was reached. And that's just me and one other person; kicking that up by 3 or 4 makes things vastly more complicated. I mean, just look at this thread for examples of disagreement about the super basic and foundational consideration of whether alignment is prescriptive or descriptive.

Now, of course, these problems with the alignment system only occur if the people care about the alignment of their characters. I don't (and apparently you don't either given that you can shift the definitions you use on a whim) since I consider alignment an arbitrary mishmash. However there are people that do care and for them that means that alignment puts on unnecessarily burdensome restrictions. Just for starters, if the group has differing definitions of alignment that puts friction in place for no reason. And if there's an alignment change scenario, well now they are stuck with either changing their rollplaying to get back to where they want to be or must suffer under the dissonance of having an alignment they consider wrong.

And, as you bring up characters with mechanical reason to care about alignment, the whole thing can't always be ignored so easily. Now the alignment system can end up forcing people to compromise one part of their character for another, play the DM mind reading game, or whatever and that's terrible.

The worst part about all this is that it is a trap for new players. You and I are experienced and can probably generally ignore or work around the pitfalls and restrictions of the alignment system. But new players won't necessarily have that experience available to them.


Here is something to consider. In a game you are playing the DM thinks that your character's alignment is inaccurate. You think that your character's alignment is accurate. The DM changes your character's alignment to a new one that, in his opinion, is a better match. Do you change the way you rollplay the character?

Edit: Let's assume that the character is not one that cares about alignment in character so as to avoid confusion.

1 to 50 of 654 << 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.