I am running Jade Reagent for 2 different groups. its really interesting the different ways different groups play the same basic scenario.
Missing Suishen, however, is really hard work. ^^
with one group we had a great time finding suisen. I even tossed in a little extra creating reactions when the magus picked up suisen while holding his black blade.
with the other goup I literally had to stop the game the game and say You guys need to get that... its kind of important.
first they refused to go that direction focusing entirely on the trolls.
Second they entered suisens room and noticed the flame coming from the well, one person looked down and saw (a burning stick or bar wedged in the well. one even cast detect magic and saw "an extremely brilliant aura"
...... they shrugged their shoulders and walked away....
I said, "as your walking away the flaming grows brighter as if trying to get your attention"
they continued to leave
I said, OMG what are you guys doing? seriously, thats suisen, its the reason your here."
they then began to complain about how I should be more clear about what they need to focus on.
I would laugh but we have had a similar argument in every single book.
this is the same group that after speaking to Ukshalla in the bar wandered around for the rest of the session. at the end of the day they were like... so what are we supposed to be doing?
i said "dont you guys need basically a guide and the sword?"
"and didnt you speak to the woman in the bar who asked you to help save her boss the great guide, Ulf"
"yes, but we thought she was just some whore"
I had to just walk away.
an empty wooden boat generally floats. its the weight of cargo that brings it down.
having said that...
is as basic to the game as "roll initiative"
personally... I am not that mad at the GM.
though I would have probably said something like "if you search it you have about a 95% chance of dieing" if he goes for It I am not going to spend 30 mins RPing a futile search I will just say OK I am rolling a % and you die on 95 or lower. still want to do it?
note... I would not do this to be a mean person or to exert my authority as the GM or anything like that.
I would be doing it because the player is basically hogging the spotlite for the entire duration. the other players are pretty much sitting there waiting for this guy to go through the motions searching a ship that the GM knows has nothing on it. so sure. if he wants to waste his characters life let him... but dont let him derail the game to do it.
thats just my off the cuff take.
3.5 is better than Pathfinder because there is no difference between a wizard and a rogue in... wait what?
Tact, the entirety of your post comes own to this....
I can't agree with you, at all, that charming is the 'least' of the options.
which is fine, your entitled to you oppinion, it does not make you a horrible person (much ^_^), I just happen to not agree.
read this only if my reasons matter to you:
In all of your real world examples I would not beat information out of any one but I would also not charm, drug, threaten or by any other method FORCE to give the directions.
Our fundamental difference is that you seem to feel that charm person (or a similar effect) to change their thoughts or actions is a harmless and reasonable action.
I absolutely feel that forcing a person to be nice, even using something as gentle as charm person, is an assault.
In your real world examples the people had reasons for not giving directions or helping you. Who are you to say those reasons are not valid? If a guy does not trust you because your an outsider dont you think that forcing his mind into being friendly toward you completely validates his NOT trusting you? What if, unbeknownst to you, talking to you gets him killed? Extreme example I know... but I have seen it happen, literally, physically, SEEN IT HAPPEN!
Once again, outside of causing harm a person has a right to not do what you want them to do, forcing them to do so even through something as gentle as a charm person spell is an assault, any assault is wrong to varying degrees.
Note: it may help you understand my POV to understand that I actually think Charm Person is even worse than Dominate.
In my view if you dominate me into doing something I dont like at least I can think back on it and say 'I had no choice it was forced on me'. But if you charm me into doing something I dont like I will forever be tormented by the idea that when I did that thing I actually LIKED what I was doing. The idea that charm person takes away even my ability to hate what is happening to me is terrifying.
I like how you ever so obviously ignored everything in my comments that makes me sound like a reasonable human being. I very clearly and on more than one post stated that I believe that a person has a right think and act as they chose as long as they do not cause harm, incite others to cause harm, or through intentional inaction allow others to come to harm. I also said you could not FORCE their change of opinion but you have every right to convince them to change their opinion as in through debate, education or some other direct and honest maner.
Your post is blatantly if not intentionally false. You don't have to agree worth me but doing your best to vilify through fallacy does not make your opinion more right.
Supreme, I appreciate your point, but I hope you see why I oppose using alignment in this debate. Mixing objective and subjective always leads to confusion and frustration.
Tact, Im sorry if I am not being clear enough. instead of wall of text i will try to keep it short. ... ok medium.
the commoner on the issue of the commoner I understand that you believe the average commoner especially in that bar situation would basically feel that the charm person would be more acceptable than the torture. I understand, I get it, I respect that opinion and will take it into account if such a situation comes up. please accept that as my understanding and respect for that answer. Im not debating this part.
charming mean people In this situation I totally understand your view but let me restate your point as I think I understand it.
If i understand correctly your saying: Because people have a responsibility to help each other, particularly if doing so does not impact them negatively in any way, if a person refuses to help another purely for selfish or immoral reasons like racism they are doing something wrong. Furthermore if you have a method such as a relatively harmless spell that makes a person less wrong without harming them than there is nothing wrong with doing so.
correct me if I am misunderstanding your point.
If I have the gist of it correct here is my answer.
I understand what your saying... I simply disagree.
I dont believe that you have any right, in fact I think its downright wrong, to force any one to change their opinion in any way even if its a harmless method for a harmless purpose. You have every right to try to convince the person to change their opinion, but you cant FORCE it.
Tact let me be clear, a person doesnt have to like me, doesnt have to agree with me, can think I am less than human, can do a lot of WRONG things. As long as they are not actively trying to harm me, cause others to harm me or through intentional inaction allowing me to come to harm I will fight and die for their right to their opinion and to act like a jerk.
Being unable to sway their opinions, how would you suggest morally proceeding?
the simple answer, move on.the more complicated answer, try to sweet talk them, try to reason with them, say F-U and move on. Even if I had the power to magically and with absolutely no harm make him be nice to me I would not do it just for the sake of 'he is a jerk' or 'i don't like his attitude'
so... are we understanding each other?
again, I understand you, I just dont agree. I honestly think this horse is dead and our two opinions could not be more clear.
Please dont throw in a tangent like "but what if you were starving and would die if you cant find food" because that is an entirely different situation.
@Tennengar, the original question was "what do you think the commoner would think" Im not really arguing that issue except to try and get people to address it without complicating it.
but a tangent has grown which is a debate over the morality of the act of charming some one. that is a side debate.
I agree with Ilja whole heartedly.
especially on the matter or randomly charming people in town to make them like you.
your position boils down to, intentionally or not, "It's wrong to use magic to negate hateful prejudice and get along well with neighbors. "It's wrong to use magic to negate hateful prejudice and get along well with neighbors."
The position boils down to, 'It's wrong to use magic to remove my right to have my own opinion.'
The idea is this... if you walk into my neighborhood/town/city I have every right to not like you. It doesn't matter why I dont like you, maybe I am having a bad day, maybe yesterday a group of new comers kicked my dog, or maybe I am just a racist. I still have every right to not like you, you have the right to try and convince me that my opinion is wrong but that right does not include the right to use a mind altering spell/drug/lie or other action in order to force my change of opinion even if all you want to do is ask for directions.
Having said all that the most important point in this entire discussion is this...
But it wasn't just about alignment, it was also (and mostly) about how the rest of society will react towards such behavior.
Remember, the point is not 'Is this evil' the two tangents are 'would people seeing this from the third person consider the act bad/wrong' and if they did 'would they see the act of influencing a person through mental assault as better or worse than influencing a person through physical assault'
People seem to enjoy minimizing the morality of a spell like charm person when viewed in the third person... but I wonder how they would think of it in direct relation to themselves.
Think of that person at work or school or whatever that you find totally disagreeable, you dont like anything about that person, they are dirty, argumentative, have political, social and cultural beliefs absolutely opposed to your own, the two of you have TRIED to be civil but its just not going to happen.
That person walks up to you and blows a powder in your face (or says some magic words) suddenly your realize that everything was a miss understanding, that person is not horrible you were just being too negative, they ask you to eat okra and you think why not even though you totally absolutely hate okra because it gives you the poops for 3 days. They ask you to borrow your car and you say 'sure buddy' even though you dont ever let any one drive that car because its very new and very expensive not to mention insurance does not cover other drivers. They ask you to tell them your deepest darkest most shameful secret and although you would not tell anyone one under any circumstances a few convincing "you can tell me, Im your friend" later and you start spilling the story about what you did with your dog Spanky last winter. After all that you cook them dinner, clean their house, wash their feet and proclaim your eternal friendship.
then you go home and the powder (spell) fades off and your clear headed again. How do you feel about that?
Now, they didn't make you do anything EVIL. they didn't make you kill anyone, break the law or even betray any one you love. You were not their slave, you were free to do as you chose, but you didnt WANT to, you didnt WANT to resist, you just wanted to please your wonderfully charismatic best friend.
As your sitting in your chair with a rumbling in your stomach from the okra you ate earlier, do you think to yourself... well I guess its ok, I would have done all of that if they had bought me a beer and chatted for a bit.
To be honest the above scenario, while totally biased, is totally valid under the rules of charm person. To be perfectly honest I would consider the above scenario more EVIL than domination... at least with domination I can look back and feel that I had no ability to resist... with charm person I have every freedom except the freedom to NOT LIKE what I am being asked to do.
Dark warrior makes another important point
I made the cost 500 to 1000 because thats not exactly breaking the bank for these characters. does it matter? sure, but is it critical? not at all.
The 500 to 1000 cost is purely a matter of making this a choice as opposed to a hand wave.
If the players pay and ask for information I will probably let them take a diplomacy check, possibly befriend the patrol and gain knowledge about the land and the city they are trying to get to. In fact if all goes well I would probably give them enough chat time to make valid knowledge local checks for the area since at this time they cant make such checks because they have no valid point of reference.
a benefit to not slaughtering by default.
As GM I would reward creativity. I dont think your players are trying to abuse the game they are just trying to think outside the box.
if players are trying to do something like choke the dragon by freezing his lips shut or abuse a spell repeatedly I would not allow it but in this case its more of a one off situation. reward them for game immersion and roll on.
If I get on the Jersey Turn Pike and am charged a fee for traveling on that road is that banditry? If I want to cross the SanFran Bay bridge I have to pay a fee, is that extortion?
In the above cases the fee is small because they want you to pay the fee and use the passage. In this case they DONT want people to pass but if they must they have to pay a proper fee which they hope will discourages future passage.
I can understand if this were a bunch of guys in the hills outside Magnamar just demanding cash. But in this case its their land, the players are not on the normal trade rout that every one uses this is essentially private land, their custom is to not allow people on their land but if the people must cross then they have to be willing to pay a fee (note there is a reason why but the why is not relevant to the story)
If you enter a persons land and don't follow their rules, as long as those rules don't include conducting evil acts, that is at best not-lawful (thought not necessarily chaotic) if you attack people for doing their job when they are not being hostile toward you then that is flat out evil.
its not because its crap. its because players expect something from a spell based on description. they want to imagine whats going on and visualize their effect on the world.
this spell expresses a description that is not in line with its mechanics.
at my table, knowing my players, it would cause lots of confusion and debate which would derail the game.
since I know my players better than you I can make an informed decision on the matter.
right... but one of the primary assumptions of the game is that the characters do not realize that they are ruled by dice, alignment, feats and skill checks.
the commoner does not think, "wow... what ever that guy said he must have rolled a really high diplomacy." He likely thinks something like, "OH! there is magic at play here."
So the question which follows is does he find that magic to be more or less unsavory than the guy getting beat up in the corner.
does he think, "OH! there is magic at play here, what vile arcane powers have twisted that poor fools mind"
or does he think "OH! there is magic at play here, what a clever way to get an honest answer... better than the brute in the corner giving him the knuckles."
Note... what Andrew R is saying is not that charm person buggers the brain. that's not his argument...
his argument, If I understand correctly, is that the commoner would not know the specific details of charm person and how it works and could thus, in his mind, be more terrified by the sight of some one casually using a spell that he thinks messes up another persons mind than he is of a guy who is doing something he easily understands like beating a guy up and demanding answers.
@ tact and everyone. Sorry my post was not ment to be rude. I was not calling any one out or even complaining about people not answering MY question any more. At this point I am truly just looking at the dynamics of ALL of the conversations.
I personally find the question to be very simple but people make it complicated.
If I said "do you like warm tea" some people would say (Yes or No, especially mint"... but others would say "well it depends on if its summer or winter, what kind of tea and exactly what temperature do you mean by WARM" and still others would say "tea is not necessarily hot or warm, many cultures drink tea cold if your asking about cold tea and you warm it up i would probably not like it because you served it wrong"
I am looking for the simple first answer which, to be fair I have received from time to time and I have tried to respond to those. most of the commentary is basically people doing the second or third example and then comment and arguments based on that.
for a few pages I kept trying to get the simple answer because I was trying to get a general consensus of peoples thoughts and felt that all of the tangents and irrelevant add-ons to the conversation were distracting from that... but then I got over it. I noticed that many people do that to many others until you have arguments about rape vs chopping off fingers.
I am still interested in the answers pertinent to my question but I am not stressing about it any more. I only commented the last time because I found it interesting that people were making that jump from 'physical discomfort' to cutting him to bits and pieces.
Anyway... once again. not trying to talk crap. just commenting.
From your description it sounds as though you are trying to tell a story as the GM whilst the frustrated player wants to play in a strategic/tactical game where the GM sets the scene and the characters tell the story.
actually its just the opposite.
I WANT them to play smart, use skills, out think the monsters, hell one of the best battles we ever had ended when one of the players took a flying leap off of a balcony and attacked a flying demon, I made up some on the spot rules and penalties for the action and he succeed spectacularly with a critical hit... we still talk about that moment to this day. But in another group they never bother to try. to be fair some of the players would but one guy kind of dominates the group.
Let me say he is not a horrible player or overly argumentative or anything, he just gets frustrated if presented with something new or unexpected like a troll that is immune to fire damage and if he makes a bad choice or the bad guys use a clever trick he didnt expect he takes it personal as if I as the GM were intentionally trying to get over on him.
The thing is... I know that I have made the same mistakes in the past, I think being a GM has made me a better player, less rules mongery and open to GM improvisation. and so I am not mad at him.. I am just trying to figure out how best to work it out without sitting him down like a kid and having a 'how to play nice' conversation.
once again i know that people are free to play as they chose. but there is a reason that the classes are not called. magic using class, sword using class and holy class.
the names are relevant. they give you one of the basic outlines of the character.
if your a super experienced player its very easy to divorce yourself from the class name and the character story line... but newer players and many other experienced players find it hard to see the BARBARIAN as anything but a muscle bound axe wielding idiot. simply calling the class Rage User or something opens up that imaginative space much more easily.
once again I am NOT saying that the game does not allow imaginative barbarians... I am saying a new name would help facilitate more imaginative characters.
I think the name "BARBARIAN" unfairly limits the barbarian class from a role playing perspective. I mean... by calling it barbarian you almost have to make it some uncivilized wild man, savage, crazy person or otherwise sterio type. Which Barbarian as a class name you get the impression that every one in a barbarian village has to have levels of barbarian class. you also get the impression that no one in the city guard could ever draw on his rage in battle.
So I am looking for new names for the class.
Berzerker fits the class much better than barbarian.
RAGER I like the most. anyone can be a Rager from a savage tribes man to an otherwise calm and collected and educated noble woman who actively dips into her primal self to over come her enemies.
are there any other names that would fit the base class that uses rage powers regardless of the personality or status of the character?
I have considered giving the same houserule.
its always stupid to me that a person can just take a step back and do what ever they want. I mean any one who knows about close combat knows that the most natural action is to keep close and engaged to your opponent. if they step back you step forward. in other words step up is as natural as power attack and neither of them should be feats.
The other reason I like giving step up is because I like encouraging players to work as a team. the caster should not be sitting alone and the melee should not be running off on his own. they should work together and ranged classes should have a back up melee ability.
Having said that before getting upset about such a thing have you considered ways to work in the system? carry a staff or spear as a weapon, make use of fight defensively, your allies can draw out the enemies AoO, or you can draw the enemy into a flanked position with your 5 foot step (remember that staff, dagger or spear that your wielding)
in other words. try not to worry about how you cant play like your used to playing and take a few steps to play in the new system.
its not too hard and could be quite fun.
a level 5 sorcerer does burning hands on some offending street thug.
the target is wearing leathers and cloth.
due to the wording of the spell it seems as if the target would automatically catch fire.
burning hands wrote:
does the catch fire component of the spell mean only non-attended items or does the spell basically cause fire to any target that can burn?
I personally give the target 2 saves, 1 for half damage and 1 to avoid catching on fire. is that reasonable or am i doing it wrong.
so... Bladed Dash.
the description is very openly worded.
-- can it be used with spell combat to allow a level 4 magus to get 30 feet of movement and 2 attacks?
-- is the movement granted by the spell a flat 30 feet or up to one normal move (thus a halfling magus would normally get only 20 feet from blade dash but someone with a normal move of 50 could blade dash 50 feet)
-- can any abilities be used with the blade dash attack (can the caster use trip, disarm, get flanking bonus, make sneak attacks?)
-- can it be used in hazardous terrain like caltrops, rocks or entanglement?
-- if the caster is invisible at the time of casting do they still leave a rainbow trail?
-- can the caster move ANY direction including into the air, over a chasm, or through walls and opponents?
there are probably other questions I am missing. but the general idea is that there is a whole lot of holes in the explanation.
can you help?
couple of questions on how to deal with upcoming possible scenarios.
charge vs expeditious evacuation
would you say the NPC has to have the target square picked out when he readies or can the NPC target the square in response to seeing the charge path?
charge is a single combined action... if the charge path is interupted by an expeditious evacuation prior to the first 30 feet (or distance of first move) would you say the rest of the actions for the round are wasted? (as the charge is now interupted) or would you say that as long as the PC has not moved more than 30 feet he can chose new actions for his standard.
would you require a reflex save to NOT fall in the pit or would you simply allow the player to end the charge?
charge vs create pit
how much leeway would you give the PC for stoping his charge before reaching the sloped portion of the pit (causing a save to not fall in)
(in other words caltrops are on a set of squares. NPC charges (not caring about the caltrops taking the chance he will not be harmed) the NPC has a readied action to cast creat pit in that area as soon as the PC steps into the caltroped squares, caltrops make their attack failing to hit the PC, NPC casts readied pit, PC falls into the pit, should the PC be attacked by the caltrops again? any penalty this time?
no more pits caltrops + fog or obscuring mist, darkness or other vision impairing spells
wondering peoples oppinions on the occational use of non-interactive cut sceens or auto confirm spells and the like.
for example... suppose you have a story that basically hinges on the players running from a monster and more or less taking a certain rout.
I have run many a game in which the level 3 players, ignoring GM advice and basically charge the CR10 dragon thy came across way too early or which was ment as a re-occurring villain they should run from at this level.
I have run other situations where the hook kind of depends on the players being captured or succumbing to a spell like a mass charm or sleep or illusion or some such for the purpose of setting up the next arch of the story.
in both of these cases players choosing to do something unexpected or flat out stupid OR a simple case of players making saves no matter how difficult, can derail the whole path.
so Im wondering peoples opinions on such devices. I think they lead to great story line but others may see them as overly railroady or a sign of poor GMing (if you cant make a plot that does not rely on such plot control you suck.)
what do you think?
our society has real big issues with the most minor things.
"hey! lets go play that game where we immagine outselves to be bad-ass adventurers killing sentient beings and taking their treasure its such a holesome way to.... OMG UNDER-CLEAVAGE!!! DEFILER OF MORALITY!!! BURN YOU HEATHEN BOOKS BURN!!!!"
by the way belle.. no nipples = not nude. remember... its not reality that counts... its the imaginary lines we cross.
In golarion what exactly makes a god a god?
Apsu, Tiamat, Sarenrae, Pharasma and other such deities make sense to me because they have something to do with the mechanics or creation of the universe or have simply been around since basically the beginning.
But others seem to be simply powerful entities, or did something spectacular that imparted on them great power.
at first I thought that the ability to provide domain powers was it... but then it seems as if any sufficiently strong outsider can do this.
Is it simply a matter of power or are there some other abilities and responsibilities related as a base line division between being a god and just being really powerful?
I like to give armor a DR value equal to half its AC bonus specifically against the thing it would overcome.
so full plate cold iron armor would have DR4 against natural attacks from fey or any attack from demons. its a small bonus but gives a reason for special material armors.
I think the player in question has a negative STR and an amazing dex which means using their STR is a pretty big penalty.
I tried to ask the question in an unbiased manor because while I felt one way about it I felt that some people had raised fair points particularly with the bonus type, which i was wrong about it IS untyped but right in that it still does not stack.
I honestly thing that at this point any one who intends to use the double dex interpretation is simply hell bent on using it that way and they are not going to listen to any one. even if the piazo god of rules and fair play chimed in they would say something like "well that's not the way it SHOULD be and will likely argue over it."
so im moving on from this one.
Oh I agree it would need to be done carefully, but really it would be a compilation of the FAQ, later print edition changes, and some revisions.
dont they already do that.
every once in a while they release a new printing of the core books with the latest eratta.
I think the OP is actually asking if Piazo will make a Pathfinder 1.5 or 2.0 which is significantly different than the current game which is at its heart 3.x with its own world and a few different rules.
I like pathfinder and doubt I could go back to 3.x because to me it is a different game but its a valid question.
I think that a future pathfinder version WILL be significantly different than the game system is now. Piazo absorbed quite a few rules and stats that are open to improvement but could not be improved in the first iteration.
weapons and armor lists, the way feats, skills, spells and abilities work. I dont think that they will make a change as extreme as the DnD 4.0 travesty or even as big as the 2.0 to 3.x change. but I am fairly certain that in the coming years pathfinder will, either through erata or version change, evolve into a more uniquely piazo product.
Right wrong or otherwise BOLD LETTERS are such blatant advertising it makes me laugh at everything else you say.
I mean... now I hear the late night TV advertisement guys when I read
For oriental themed PFRPG you've got the Samurai/Ninja classes in Ultimate Combat (<normal letters and a derogatory tone to you dismiss this option), you have the Guides and adventures for Jade Regent (<a subtle shrug and maybe the image of a person who cant possibly cut a tomato without the SUPER NINJA KNIFE), and you have Rite Publishing's Way of the Samurai and the other Kaidan supplements.(BOLD letters and an echoing voice to convince you that this is the awesome must have product that will fix your life, knock off 50 pounds in a month, cut tomatoes like a laser and save your sex life!)
sorry. not saying the product doesn't work. just distracted by the advertisement ^_^ (of which i am helping by bumping the thread but its still fun and funny)
I coup-de-grased a PC last week in the midle of a battle.
because they NPCs were a team, figher and his witch wife along with henchmen. The NPCs had intel about the party and knew who delt the damage and who did the healing.
so when the witch was able to misfortune then slumber the main damage dealer the husband took the opportunity to make sure he didnt get up.
having said that it is a rare thing for me to use such heavy tactics, I actually forgot coup de grace rules and thought it would be easier for him to survive but when he died I didn't take it back i just worked around it. outside forces paid half of the resurrection costs and the witch got away creating a reoccurring NPC that the players are very motivated to take revenge on.
the DM should not be working TOO hard to kill the Players and should actively try to avoid griefing. but death should be a real and present danger for every character and death by bad tactics, unlucky dice or the occasional smarter than average NPCs should be just a part of the game.
besides, in PF recovering from death takes a resurrection and two restorations, not overly difficult to come by but painful enough to keep players on their toes.
interestingly enough there are real world examples of less rigid law enforcement leading to fewer law infractions... or in another way of viewing it parants that were less authoritative raising children which were statistically less inclined to commit certain kinds of crime.
yet individually our minds do not seem to recognize that. its easier for us to see it one way than the other even when the way we see it may not ACTUALLY work as often as we think.
A devil, for example, is a creature literally made of Evil (with a capital E) and Law. An Archon, is a creature made from Law and Good.The devil might also become a new type of archon. ...There is some evidence for this view as erinyeses are in fact fallen angels.
but thats exactly what i am saying. there is NO evil becoming good creature such as a succubus who becomes chaste and joins the angelic ranks.
one can say that angels are literally made of Good with a capital G. so how can they fall? one can also say that if shadow angels or erineys are now EVIL then they could be RE-deamed
its just an interesting thought. how would such a creature be portrayed. how would their abilities change?
what would such a creature look like. fallen angels keep their general form. would a redeemed evil still have bat wings and horns but their claws would turn to hands and they would be surrounded by a glowing light? even a single unique evil, for example a horned devil so awed by sarenraes power that it begs for her forgiveness and tries to emulate her even to the point of becoming truely Good one of her most reliable followers and proof that all enemies posses the possibility of reform.
I have a love hate relationship with "finesse" fighters.
I love them on the surface. and play them even though people hate when i do because i am not damage optimized.
but at this point I cant see way to make them TRULY balanced because IF you were to put all of the combat benefits into DEX then STR becomes the ultimate dump stat as all it will do is determine carrying weight and the climb and swim skills. climb/swim are rarely used and the weight issue can be easily remedied with things like bag of holding or muleback cords.
Everything else, damage, hit bonus, AC, reflex save, and many skills would then all be stacked onto DEX overbalancing the ability score.
so if a truly viable finesse fighter were made it SHOULD be hard to build and should have some penalties.
Step up: is just stupid as a feat, a melee combatant REALLY doesnt know how to stay engaged with an opponent that takes a step back?
Awesome Blow: basically a soccar kick or big swing that hits something small so hard it goes flying. It should not be a feat but rather an ability that any creature can use on a target 2 size categories smaller than them.
Point blank and precise shot should probably be combined into the same feat.
just to name a few
Yes its another alignment thread. this is not however an an attempt to tell people what I think good and evil is. but rather an attempt to remove the positive vs negative connotations from the alignment system.
the current alignment system basically comes from a lawful/good perspective. In other words evil is evil because its not good, chaotic is chaotic because its not Lawful.
i want to eliminate the good guy vs bad guy thought process that comes naturally with lawfull-good vs chaotic-evil and replace them with new names that still represent the same alignment goals.
I have been considering the following changes.
the goal is that instead of viewing this axis as the forces of order vs the sources of disorder. it is more like the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, or in another sense ones view on whether or not the ends justify the means
replace GOOD/EVIL with SOCIALIST/SELFISH
Thus in this system a Paladin would be Dogmatic/Socialist while a goblin would be Pragmatic/Selfish. class based alignment rules would remain the same. Paladins and Monks are Dogmatic because they chose to follow paths of order and regimentation. Barbarians are Pragmatic because they believe that how you do something is never as important as what you achieve.
Though alignments would not have to change the way alignments are played could change greatly. rather than being sadistic evil beasts genetically driven to torture and destroy goblinoids would simply be a race that fully believes in might makes right and largely incapable of putting any kind of social order above their own individual welfare.
Final note. LAW/CHAOS GOOD/EVIL would remain in the game but would be limited to outsiders and gods and special cases. A demon or an archon are entirely different things than a selfish human or dogmatic dwarf. spells like detect law/chaos/good/evil would only ping on targets with a strong connection to these special forces. a cleric would register the alignment of their god in the light of such a spell and normal people would not ping unless they are well and truly evil or good in the eyes of the gods such as a truly virtuous philanthroper or a truly vile rapist.
I think this system will alleviate many of the alignment confusion and would also allow players to play characters the way they truly feel without thinking that to put yourself first means that your obligated to steal from friends and make random rolls in order to make decitions.
I was inspired by reading this article which i recommend to you all. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Al l-About-Alignment
The article is a great explanation of alignment and at one point makes a very important comment.
To be more direct, the situation you presented is missing information.
actually its not. the situation is exactly as simple as I clarified earlier. Characters are walking through the forest, see a bunch of kobolds having a siesta, kills the kobolds on sight. the group has no reason what so ever to feel any unusual anger toward the kobolds other than they are kobolds. never attacked by kobolds, no one mentioned dangerous kobolds in the area, no victims in the area, nothing.
I have decided that I will take the time to clearly state my views on alignment to the group and also take the Paladine aside and tell him about bad dreams or something sent by his deity to warn him away from further questionable acts.
in game another group of NPC adventurers will be heard bragging about helping out some rather friendly kobolds living in the area and receiving a nice reward.
what your describing is a surprise attack. that is not my complaint, I understand being flat footed in the surprise round.
my complaint is against being flat footed simply for loosing the initiative regardless of level or preparation or awareness.
Fair enough. give it to more classes. I simply think the step up feat is too fundamental to spend a full feat on. it should be a basic ability of some classes... or a natural ability for having a BAB greater than 5. or any other reasonable excuse.
as for the flat footed rule.
make up any excuse you want the flat footed due to inaction rule is stupid.
according to RAW two hostile opponents standing 30 feet from each other weapons drawn and clearly prepared to fight roll initiative and the winner runs 30 feet and gets to attack the opponent flat footed. this simply does not make sense.
Flat-Footed more signifies not knowing where an attack is comming from, and so not knowing which directions to dodge and not knowing where to place your drawn shield to block.
Your saying that just because I have not actively attacked you or made some other action I have no idea how to defend myself? winning initiative does not mean you have surprised the opponent and should not mean they are automatically off guard. it should simply mean that you got to attack first.
What if I won the initiative and held my action? why am I still flat footed? Hell... according to RAW, if I walk into a room full of bad guys and say to the GM "I charge in and attack" we then roll initiative and if I lose I am still flat footed to their attacks even though I initiated combat. the rule is an over simplification and I think it should be addressed.
I understand the rule is a nod to rogues but I think it would be better to eliminate this rule entirely except in surprise rounds, then give rogues a special ability that says that the rogue may treat an opponent as flat footed in the first round if the rogue wins the initiative and does not have to move more than a 5 foot step to engage the enemy.
nothing chaps my hide more than the "flat footed till action" rule of initiative.
the idea that even if your looking at some one holding your weapon and ready to fight but because they rolled a higher initiative they can run 30 (or charge 60) and hit you as if you were flat footed and unprepared is so stupid it has caused me to walk out of a game before.
I dont care if its supposed to help rogues and I dont care what kind of random scenario some one who has never been in a fight comes up with to explain it. the reality is that unless its a surprise round of some sort loosing the initiative should not automatically = flat footed.
the problem with this is that it turns strenth into an essentially useless stat.
under normal circumstances
dex effects AC, and hitting at range.
STR effects Melee hitting and Melee damage.
with weapon finess
Dex effects AC, Melee hitting and ranged hitting
STR effects only Melee damage.
with YOUR weapon finess
Dex effects AC, Melee hitting, ranged hitting, AND melee damage.
STR doesnt do much at all.
it makes dex bonuses way too strong.
personally I think that your correct that weapon finesse is a little weak. but I think that the proper way to fix weapon finesse is to have weapon finesse allow you to double your dex bonus to the critical confirmation roll. that way finess fighters tend to get more crit confirmations (which can be very effective) but they are not otherwise overpowered.
Im begginning to find this conversation very interesting.
Do people believe the races must follow a given alignment because that just the way fantasy is (drow, goblins, orcs = evil, Elves = good etc.)
or do we as humans simply find it easier to classify groups as good or evil?
why can humans be good or evil? even dwarvs can be good or evil, but the idea of a good drow or orc is offensive.
Im not trying to call any one here racist or closeminded. just trying to understand why people could so strongly feel uncomfortable about the idea of a non standard 'pick your race'
I think its a great idea.
I am not a fan of black and white entire societies. (in fact half the time i dislike alignment all together)
As the GM the world works the way you say it works. adding little twists like alignment changes, social changes or the like can be fun and are a great foil to metagamers.
I for example play games where there are no female elves (because elf females are essentially dryads and they stay in the heart of the forest)
goblinoids are a magically constructed race and the different types of goblins are different stages of the goblins life (like the Koloss in the Mistborn series)
troll regeneration is not stopped by fire or acid but instead by cold and cold iron
I dont change everything but only because it would be harder to keep track of. but just enough to keep the metagamers guessing.
as the game is now there are not to many benefits to alignment. In fact its generally a good idea to simply go true neutral so as to avoid being detected, smited or otherwise penalized for having an alignment for which your opponent has a bonus attack.
however I think that there should be some other benefit to alignment.
I think that while physical things such as weapons should have an increased bonus vs their opposite. mental effects should have a penalty.
Thus a good weapon deals bonus damage to an evil opponent.
In other words I think characters should receive a +2 bonus to fort and will saves vs opposing alignments. If an evil creature attempts to charm a good one the very goodness of the character helps him resist the evil influence.
There is a growing movement to make alignment less relevant because of the way it is usually just a penalty. I think that adding benefits to alignment would help make it relevance gain.