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

johnlocke90's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,421 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Fleet of foot.

You aren't sniping, so all swift of shadow does is reduce stealth penalty while moving by 5.

The thing about stealth checks is that its really easy to boost your stealth to huge levels(invisibility+silence for instance).

Movespeed on the other hand is huge. 30 feet means you are walking as fast as your other party members, so if you guys have to flee combat, you won't fall behind.

If you are walking from town to town, you don't need to be carried. Very useful.


There isn't anything you can do about being magic jarred(even the trapped in your own body thing isn't really in the rules).

All you can do is wait for the possession to end and hope that the possessor is nice enough to not just kill your character before the effect ends.


I don't know if making fighters last all day long is the best way to approach it. Pathfinder is a team game so even if you make the fighter last all day, he still needs the rest of the party.

It would be useful if you planned on having the party face lots of combat per day, but many campaigns don't have that.


Tell the paladin player ahead of time that there will be unwinnable encounters. Make it clear that what happens to his character is up to him, but that he shouldn't drag the party members into it without discussing it OOC with them.

Don't argue over whether his actions are in line with the paladin code. Nobody benefits from that argument.


Monks and druids avoid it because "lawful" and "chaotic" are even more vague term than "good". Good luck trying to figure out when a druid is being too lawful to stay neutral good.

"I think new players have more problems with how they perceive alignment than how they deal with alignment requirements."

The problem is that players perceive alignments differently and this difference can cause someone to lose their class powers.

" PCs, especially new PCs routinely follow Murder-Hobo logic when it comes to how they deal with things regardless of their alignment and so tend to see Lawful Good as a straight jacket then a definition of their character. "

Well for a Paladin, it really is. Its not even a question of if he wants to do the right thing, its almost always in his own interests to do the right thing. Because his power is tied up in it.

For instance, imagine that the paladin and his chaotic wizard friend are debating law and chaos. If the Paladin convinces the wizard, everything is fine. If the wizard convinces the Paladin, the Paladin players needs to reroll because his character lost most of his powers.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
For the Full Plate remark, I've known games where the GM gives very high 1st level gold because the campaign was unfair so he wanted to balance out the High CR with Higher quality equipment. Rangers are alright, I'll admit that rangers can be much more effective, but the favored enemy is a weakness as well as a strength because I know people who build more effective casters than melee expecting to always fight favored enemy which is not a class problem just like people building skill trick pony fighters which takes away from the class. Also my argument that the campaign is more important than the class isn't to say that class isn't important, it just says that you can make fighters that can fight better at low level and get through more of the campaign are often more effective than arcane casters that have spells all over the place which takes away from your class. Also when I talk about two weapon vs tank I mean two different characters, not one that is really versatile. I'm saying that sometimes a fighter is equal to or even greater than a caster. Also the fact that you can take a level of fighter and give any class automatic proficiencies and a combat feat that can be used to increase martial efficiency for whatever martial class, even ranger if taken at the right level. And as for your elves and gnomes killing dragons and demons, do you really think that its hard to belive? Because elves and gnomes are often used for the spellcasters and rangers that you like so much. I want to know why fighters are given a bad rap because they aren't as magical as wizards or as versatile as summoners. Also for paladins, their saves aren't the problems I hear about them, I hear its that they are terrible at doing some of the things like tricking that others need

They get a bad rap because while they are very good at hitting things and not getting hit, a large portion of the game doesn't depend on +hit and AC.

If you compare them to other weapon users, those classes are almost as good at those things while being much better at everything else.

For instance, a ranger gets good fort and reflex plus his class features benefit from wisdom. He has 4 more skill points per level and he has spells that are useful out of combat.

He does get fewer feats, but he is allowed to skip prereq feats and doesn't need to invest into skill points or boosting his saves.


Jason Rice wrote:
Haste has already been nerfed. Doing any more makes it worthless, in my opinion. Or at least nerfing it more makes it a 2nd level spell. To see the original version, see 3rd ed (not 3.5).

Even if you removed everything except for the extra attack at full BAB, it would still be a really strong spell, because it would make your party members do over 60 percent more damage up until level 11.

Look at it this way. A fighter casting haste with UMD on only himself is going to do more damage by round 3 than if he had attacked. And thats a pretty terrible scenario for the spell.

If you have three fighters, one of them could cast haste and do nothing for the rest of the fight. The group would still do more damage than if all three had full round attacked.


Quatar wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I think it's worth noting that something is always going the be the " best option" for a given level.

That's not true.

There might well be a "best option" for a certain build, or a certain party combination, or a certain situation.

But if one spell is a "best option" almost regardless of all circumstances, with maybe the exception of a few (Haste isn't so great in an all-caster party for example) then it might be too strong.

I'm not sure I'd call Haste the best spell. It certainly is for some groups, but I also don't think it's really overpowered.
I could understand moving it up one level though without destroying it.

The thing about haste is that it scales really well with level. If your party has at least 2 people who full round attack, then haste should be your first spell in any serious fight. This holds true up until they can buy the boots that give them haste as a free action.

Look at it this way, haste will make your party members do about 80 percent more damage, if you have two people who do damage, then that wizard casting haste is doing 1.6 times as much damage as either of your full round attackers. And thats every round.


I agree. Haste is a massive increase to party damage. People say "its only one extra attack", but that attack happens at your full attack bonus plus the attack bonus from haste.

A level 6 character with a 2H weapon is looking at about 80 percent more damage when hasted. The +1 to hit combined with an extra attack at your FULL bonus is massive. And when you cast that on the entire party, it makes encounters much easier.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I'm sorry if i insulted people with that creativity remark, but its angering that fighters are called useless when several times they have saved entire parties from TPK.

Nobody has said fighters are useless. Even a commoner isn't useless. We have said that there are better classes. I will agree that a magus is a bad example for comparision.

I think a ranger would be a better example. Rangers are significantly better with a sword and shield because they get extremely good bonus feats. They get shield master 5 levels earlier than a fighter. Two weapon fighting without the dex requirements and a pet that is good for soaking up damage and deals consistent damage regardless of how defensive the ranger is.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-master-combat---final


Malwing wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Malwing wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.

I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.

I would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.

Paladins could easily be reflavored to be the armed branch of a particular god. That would give them more flexibility in alignment(on par with Cleric).

I would also like to see alignment violations handled through role play rather than automatically losing class features. Instead, if the Paladin or Cleric starts acting against his chosen deity's interest, the consequences would be up to the GM and based on roleplay.

A GM strip massive portions of a characters power away based on something as vague as alignment isn't fun. It creates bad feeling between the players.

Anything in the rules that can seriously harm a character should be clearly defined.

I'm more in favor of Paladins not being as alignment flexible as a cleric because the thematic differences begin to blur. It's already possible to build a battle-cleric just being a martial divine warrior makes it harder to justify his existence. But I do believe the theory that the Paladin had alignment restrictions because it's alignment was as much of a source of power as the deity it represents or almost fully in the cases where it has no deity, so I really like the idea of paladins having sets of canned abilities based on their alignment. It differenciates them from clerics as not simply divine warriors but Paragons of multiple deities virtues...

I understand what you're saying, but the number one priority should be encouraging cooperation and teamwork between the people playing the game. Thematic concerns are much less important. Putting vague requirements on how a character can act can create conflict between party members and the paladin and between the paladin and the GM.

A more experienced group may know how to deal with this, but a group that is new to the game won't.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
To get around the I'm not getting hit then take the feat that makes things attack you or just annoy them with attacks. Fighters can help by blocking of enemies and fighters can provide assistance with high SR characters. You need to build a team based on what you know or think is in the dungeon. I agree that if you think its full of rats then AOE spells are great. But if a party of clerics and wizards opens the door to a CR9 encounter without a fighter tank to block off the baddies then you are dead. Also if you don't like fighters having few social skills then use things like rogues and bards as skill trick ponies. thats all a bards good for in plenty of things anyway. fighters are not there to negotiate with foreign lands, they are there to defend they're cause and to challenge foes at all levels, not just high levels but low levels too. The main "problem" you have with fighters is that you can't be creative enough too make them effective. There was on fighter I heard about that at 15th level was doing like 200000 damage, more than the 20th level mage. also, for a magus tank, you have to be high level for good armour and have to always have defensive spells which dilutes the purpose of a magus which is to be able to blend martial attacks with damaging spells.

Sure, tank fighter works okay at blocking off a doorway against melee opponents so long as none of his allies are also melee.

But if the encounter happens in an open area, the enemies are ranged, or your friends are melee then the monsters aren't going to go after you. They will target your companions.


Malwing wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.

I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.

I would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.

Paladins could easily be reflavored to be the armed branch of a particular god. That would give them more flexibility in alignment(on par with Cleric).

I would also like to see alignment violations handled through role play rather than automatically losing class features. Instead, if the Paladin or Cleric starts acting against his chosen deity's interest, the consequences would be up to the GM and based on roleplay.

A GM strip massive portions of a characters power away based on something as vague as alignment isn't fun. It creates bad feeling between the players.

Anything in the rules that can seriously harm a character should be clearly defined.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
deuxhero wrote:
The biggest problem is prehaps that while fighters can fight, so can every other PC class (supposed to anyways), but most classes can do something else out of combat.

But every other class runs out of steam. The problem with the balance at the moment is that fighters are not on-par with everyone else because they took unlimited uses into account when they balanced them.

Make a fighter on par in combat with a full caster and have their lack of out-combat be compensated by never running out of combat steam.

This is a team game and even if your fighter can fight all day, he will need to do so without his companions. There are a few scenarios where the GM forces you to go through a bunch of encounters in one day, but thats not the norm.

Stealth has a similar problem. Sure, the rogue is amazing at stealthing ahead, but its useless for combat because you need your team and sir clankz a lot will alert all the enemies to your party anyway.


Craig Frankum wrote:

Only retort in a similar reply to the way I was replied to earlier.

In 3.5, your 'judge' character was a Lawful character. Alignment wise, I'm finding it hard to understand his argue on why he took the 'law' into his own hand and portrayed himself as judge and executioner.

The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.


Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.

I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.


Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:


While it's true that players rarely intentionally violate their code, there is a strong tendency for players to interpret their code so that they can do whatever the h*ll they like. "I'm chaotic good, which means it's ok for me to torture bad people because my chaoticness means I have a personal view of what's good and I'm not willing to abide by the generally accepted view that torture is evil." (I have a real chip on my shoulder about chaotic good).

Which is to say that moral codes have a tendency to create conflict between a player and the GM. When I GM, I don't enforce alignment requirements and I have not had the game suffer for it. If they want to write their personal code of honor, thats fine. If they break it, their are RP consequences for their character.


ShadowyFox wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
In my opinion, enforcing consequences on people for code violations rarely goes well. Players almost never intentionally violate their code, so will perceive the ruling as unfair. Its a problem I have with mandatory moral codes.

The moral code here is mandatory & proving to be the problem. Probably, for the future, it would be best to tell the cavalier player "Hey, you're about to break your edict."

That would probably prevent or stem these problems in the future.

I think thats a better idea, but it removes agency from the player.

The player is confronted with a difficult moral decision(IE, how to handle a group of unconscious bandits) and after he thinks it through and makes a decision, the GM tells him he loses class features if he does that, which is frustrating for a player.

In practice, the code becomes a list of things the character is incapable of doing, because any time he about to violate the code, the GM warns him.


ShadowyFox wrote:
Jason Rice wrote:
So to the OP: you have my opinion, but ultimately its your table. If you don't like it, make it clear to the player, without being vindictive or retaliatory. Ultimately, EVERYONE is there to have fun, and being extra harsh on a player to teach them some lesson or another (like throwing extra, unplanned encounters at them to show them how much they messed up) is wrong. It destroys the fun.
True, you don't want to be vindictive, but there needs to be consequences for a character that actually ignores part of his rules. If a paladin ignores his code, then there's nothing wrong with throwing undead and evil enemies so that he sees, IC, that there are consequences for his actions.

In my opinion, enforcing consequences on people for code violations rarely goes well. Players almost never intentionally violate their code, so will perceive the ruling as unfair. Its a problem I have with mandatory moral codes.


Declindgrunt wrote:

scroll of disintegrate soonest a cast can make it is 10th lvl it does 2d6 per caster lvl so 20d6 at that point and if they hit 0 hps from it they turn to dust. oh hey thats a pesy giant/troll/ annoying adversary bye bye

here a link for the spell
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/disintegrate

edit: the scroll costs 1800 gold if made by a sorcerer, 1650 gold if made by a cleric/druid/wizard, and 2400 gold if made by a bard, as for the base class's the book doesn't say.

The problem is that its a really easy fort save and any giant or troll is going to make it.


Fighter can be easy if he just wants to hit things with a 2 handed weapon so long as he knows about power attack. If he wants to do something different, it gets very complicated with the huge array of possible feats.

Rogues problem is that the way they are designed, you think you are doing a lot more than you actually are. A new rogue player is going to think he is doing tons of damage rolling his fistful of sneak attack die, when he really isn't. He is going to think he should max dex, put some points into int and probably dump strength. He also suffers from being very dependent on a specific set of feats and items. The rogue even gets some trap talents that actually hurt his damage.

These classes are easy to play, but hard to build. A poorly optimized rogue or fighter is going to be awful. And it can be difficult to fix later down the line.


Bran Towerfall wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
What he should do is grab each turn but not maintain the grapple. Then his opponents will always be grappled on their turn.

ok,

what would be his(direbear) tactical advantage of grabbing him?

ty for replying

The enemy has the grappled condition on his turn. Which means no two handed weapons, no running away, probably impossible to spell cast.

Also, the bear can choose to treat the grab grapple as a normal grapple. Meaning next turn he can maintain the grapple normally and pin the enemy. Which means they cant do anything to the bear.


What he should do is grab each turn but not maintain the grapple. Then his opponents will always be grappled on their turn.


One thing to keep in mind is that your hit die don't change when you res. So a 1 hit die hobo isn't going to rise as one of the stronger undead. So its gated by how strong you were in life.


Vorpal Laugh wrote:
Instead of taxing adventures, a country could require them to have a charter and pay an annual fee. The relative cost and difficulty of obtaining the charter can help contrast different places feelings about adventures. One place might require you to belong to a state run "guild" and submit to magical tracking and a magical interrogation. Another might require every member to register with a magistrate, another has a fee, but rarely checks if you renewed.

Personally I have always found this idea kind of silly. It implies that "adventuring" is a profession and that its so common that each country has developed an entire branch of government around them.

Adventurer is a very vague title which includes a lot of things.


carn wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


1.) It makes no sense. Wizards don't rely on their spell books in combat. In addition, the enemy can loot and sell the book after the battle is done. If the enemy targets my spell book, it should only be when he knows he is dead anyway and wants to spite me.

2. A wizards spell book should be hidden on his person unless he is using it. It isn't going to be easy to target when it is concealed. Once he has a portable hole, it will be hidden in there.

1) If im an evil overlord comanding hordes of underlings (who effectively just achieve giving the PCs enough XP to level up, so they can face me), it makes tons of sense to tell them to target the spell book of the wizard. The underlings are to weaken the PCs. A high level wizard might be weakened less by being killed than by loss of spellbook, because he is cheaper to revive than rewriting his spellbook.

2) A strong wooden door has hardness 5, hp 20. Such doors would offer a somewhat decent protection (meaning you survive with only a few pieces missing) against a hand grenade exploding on the other side. Yet the fireball blows through the door via heat, meaning it heats in the short time it explodes to several hundred degrees. The only reason the posessions of a wizard in place of the door not being heated to several hundred degrees (which would incinerate any paper at once) is thats its a game of fun and not realism. So realistically destroying an enemy spellbook hidden on person would be trivial for a lev 5 caster. The only reason therefore that the evil overlords do not rountinely try to destroy the spellbook is that they cheat by metagaming and therefore know that for some bizarre reason heavy wooden doors are destroyed by lev 10 fireballs via heat, but the wizards poossesions are never heater by nearby fireballs.

1. Its even cheaper to just repair the spell book(free actually) with a second level spell. Although honestly, this Big Bad seems to be metagaming super hard. It would be a better idea to keep his underlings alive and to have his entire forces go after the PCs than to send them out over the course of multiple days in small waves to "weaken" the PCs.

http://paizo.com/prd/spells/makeWhole.html

2. Well this applies to all items, not just spell books. Otherwise, we would see parties losing most of their inventory every time an enemy wizard cast fireball. And I figure the enemy wizard figured this out the first time he cast fireball on someone.


Mike Franke wrote:
Soemthing else I always think about paladins...regular humans think about right and wrong but also easy and hard. A paladin only thinks about right and wrong. That does not mean that a paladin can not pick between easy and hard as long as both are "right" but this often makes it appear to others that Paladins only pick the hard way.

Whats really hard is when your party wants to do something wrong and then you have to fight them.


Another idea: Leadership and animate dead to maximize your followers. Then set up a lumber mill.

Your group will serve as the muscle to protect the mill and deal with any wild life that tries to fight back.


I like the Control Winds Control Weather bomb.

1. Either level up to 9 on a druid or get some other way to use control winds.

2. Wait till the wind is severe, or creating a severe wind with control weather.

3. Cast control winds to create a 360 foot radius tornado. You will utterly destroy everything in that area.

4. For optional fun, take the metamagic feat that increases the radius of the windstorm.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/control-winds
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/control-weather


BigNorseWolf wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


Killing someone doesn't ensure they won't harm another living thing though. I mean, now they are on the abyss and will either fuel demons or become a demon themselves.

at least this way you're offing them before they gain levels and turn into bigger demons upon arrival.

True, I think the ideal solution is to convert them into a soul gem and destroy the gem(but for some reason only evil people are allowed to do this).

The only good solution is to kill them then venture into the abyss and kill them permantently, which is supposedly less evil than giving them a quick clean death.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lanith wrote:
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.
Yes, it can be good if the person you have bound and helpless actually deserves execution. Some truly horrible people (ie, the villains) commit acts of such despicable depravity that they do not deserve to live. Speeding their trip to the afterlife and its just rewards and ensuring that they will never harm another living thing again is a valid way of doing good. Its only a problem for lawful good in areas where the act would be unlawful for them (or would be against the regulations of whatever code they're following: paladins are stuck with both)

Killing someone doesn't ensure they won't harm another living thing though. I mean, now they are on the abyss and will either fuel demons or become a demon themselves.


Stormfriend wrote:
Leathert wrote:

The fact that you know the authorities are somewhat corrupt doesn't mean that the characters do. Sure, in some countries of Golarion, it probably common knowledge, for example a good character would have a hard time in Nidal. But in the "better" countries you cannot automatically assume that handing criminals over to authorities is worse than killing them outright. A lawful character especially is supposed to do that. If the authorities kill them because of their crimes, well, that is law in action, they got punished for what they did. You cannot take the law in your own hands every time just because you think it might be a more merciful death, not in every country. Especially if you have any knowledge of religion and planes and you know what's waiting for the dead bad guys afterwards.

I'm talking about non-monstrous humanoids here mostly, and assuming you're not in the middle of nowhere, where it would be mightly difficult to get the villains to authorities.

We're not debating what's lawful, but what's good. They're completely different things. In many ways being lawful is easier, which is probably why there are so many lawful stupid paladins out there.

So here's a question: if you capture an evil cultist and the options are: hand him over to the authorities who will torture and kill him, and then his soul will go somewhere really nasty; execute him cleanly but his soul will go somewhere really nasty; or let him go so he can kill other people, what do you do?

To make it worse, when you kill an evil cultist, he now becomes fuel for demons.


Shifty wrote:

Accepting that the CE and NE characters still dont have anything to do with CN...

The best you have is that a CN wizard is against killing children?
Somehow he's magically anti-social and anti-establishment, running his own fundamentalist agenda, and yet only manifests this against NPC's and never against the party - even if they turn around tomorrow and do something completely at odds with his disestablimentarianism?

That sounds like totally non-metagamey and completely legit.

Eh any jerk PC should focus his jerkness on NPCs. It isn't fun for the group. The rule of fun trumps all.


David knott 242 wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Torture is not really effective.

Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

I would note this act as a mark, and after a few marks, I would begin an alignment shift, one step, towards evil.

Torture is effective when the information can be verified. Because in that case saying something false won't stop the torture.

But at some point the torturer must ask the victim something that he doesn't already know the answer to, if he is torturing somebody for information. If the torturer aleady knows the answers to all of the questions he asks, then he is just being a sadistic jerk. Otherwise, his only clue as to the torture victim's reliability in answering the key question is how many lies he has already caught him in.

One possibility to consider, if the torture is brutal enough, is that the torturer might actually manage to kill the victim before he says anything useful. The torturer and his associates can take a severe hit to their reputations if that happens often enough.

I would encourage more mental than physical means of intimidation if possible. One of my favorites is to have a summoner's eidolon mention that it has not eaten in several days, with the implication that it is thinking of eating the prisoner being questioned (when the real reason is that the eidolon is an outsider with no physical need for food).

Could you please show me a proof for this? You would make al ot of money if you could show than P=NP.


Compare it to other means of electricity resistance. Way too cheap for what you get.


Revan wrote:

My basic philosophy is this: for Paladins to exist, the basic premise must be true that evil is never necessary. It can be easier. It can be tempting. But in a universe where paladins are chosen by the gods and endowed with holy power so long as they are unswervingly righteous, it must be fundamentally possible to be unswervingly righteous and still succeed--or else the gods are malevolent.

.

In Pathfinder, gods aren't omnipotent. On the contrary, Pathfinder lore has the gods slowly losing ground to the abyss.


no


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Maybe I'm the only guy that feels this way, but after a few levels of treating my PC like a real person with friends, enemies, goals and worries, I'm not usually worried about the power balance between PCs - I'm more focused on the power balance between my team and the villains. Is a 16th-level wizard villain a bigger threat to my team than a 20th-level fighter villain? Sure, I reckon so - he can come at us in more unexpected ways. Good thing my wizard buddy has me to cover his back against the "send 20,000 Uruk-Hai to their front door" angle while he worries about the more esoteric possibilities... Is he more flexible, more powerful than me? Sure, if he has a few hours to think it over and make an educated guess as to what's in store. Doesn't matter; point is that the people out there don't get to choose which of us to fight; they're gonna fight all of us.

I think the wizard would be much better off against the 20k Uruk-Hai than a fighter.

High level fighters main strength is that they can do ridiculous DPR and end most enemies with a full round attack.


Fender_Brawnanvil wrote:

So i have been thinking about trying out a arcane casting class but cant figure out which on to try so i just want to hear opinions and pros and cons.

Thanks

At low levels, they are pretty even, but I think power creep has made the wizard ridiculous at higher levels.

Once you start getting spells with durations longer than a day, I think the wizard pulls ahead. For instance, Animate Dead and contingency both cost the sorcerer a spell known.

Also, at higher levels the wizard afford to leave low level spell slots open and in a few minutes minute(with the Arcane discovery), he can prepare spells to solve any problem that isn't time sensitive.

On my old wizard, I had probably 20-30 low level spells known that could solve a wide variety of puzzles the GM put forth.

Just look through the list of low level spells and see how many could potentially be useful on a rare occassion. At higher levels, you can cheaply know all of those spells.


LazarX wrote:
Haladir wrote:
I just don't get why so many GMs seem to want to screw with paladins like this. (Other than simply being a jerk, of course.)

Because being a jerk like this is seen by some to be "cool" and "edgy", it goes with our generational cynicism about morality, and authority in general.

People who take on the roles of Paladins tend to irritate those who don't believe in the concepts of inherent good or authority, and have learned to affect an almost reflexive skepticism of any who do. It's kind of like the "Skeptical of the Innocent" trope. In their minds people like this are either lying, or self delusional, and so the aim becomes in proving those suspicions right.

I don't think thats fair. I think that the Paladin code screams "plot hook" at GMs.

I mean, if you have a wizard who loves to fly, you provide opportunities for aerial combat. If you have a grappling fighter, you provide challenges where grappling can shine. So, if you have someone with a moral code, you should challenge them on that.

The problem is its rarely fun to be challenged on your code.


Dwarfakin wrote:

think the Joker from the Dark Knight. A madman that wants the one that stands for justice and law to break and crumble. To fall in the way of chaos. The way the world was first intended. The world was not created with laws and morals. It just was, until people started to impliment law and order. He is trying to break influential people to cause society to crumble. Hence he kidnapped the noble's son. As well as any other hostages he may or may not have.

The paladin has built a church to his deity in the major city that they are in. The rest of the party has done some influential things but were low key about it. Therefor they do not have the reputation that the pally has. which is why he was singled out a bit more than the rest of the party although the rest of the PCs were tested.

It kinda sounds like your 3 CN players would be more likely to side with the villian than the bad guy.


Helic wrote:
Dwarfakin wrote:

Ok so a lot of people don't like my scenario. Well lets see what we can do to fix it. And hey i might like yours better than mine. So the the BBEG evil guy will be testing the PCs as individuals. They rest of the party isn't in real danger at the time of the test. So i ask you internet peers, i want a moral challenge for a paladin that isn't going throw the entire internet into a frenzy.

So internet, challenge accepted?

It's called a Crisis of Faith. If the Paladin is worthy of all his sparkly holy powers, he'll keep acting like a Paladin even if he doesn't have sparkly holy powers. So his god(s) take them away to test his worthiness.

The Setup: BBEG summons powerful Celestial representative of Paladin's deity and makes the accusation that the Paladin is unworthy of his holy powers because of X, Y and Z (hanging out with 3 CN adventurers is a good start). Why are the heavens supporting this jerk and persecuting the BBEG?

Inscrutable Celestial Being decides to test the Paladin by removing his powers and setting him a difficult (possibly fatal given his being stripped of powers) task. Make sure the Celestial Being is capable of Raise Dead or similar, because whether or not the Paladin succeeds (or even lives) is not relevant, only that the Paladin proceeds to do good and law in the course of this test. The Paladin does NOT receive any warning or information as to why his powers stop working, his powers just stop working, suddenly he's a nerfed Fighter. But look, some Evil and Injustice to fight! (A decent KS: Religion roll probably would hint that Paladins and Clerics have run into this problem before, though most Paladins don't have buckets of KS: Religion).

So, if Paladin says "Screw this, how am I supposed to win when I've got no sparkly Holy powers?", he's basically failed the test...but!

This isn't where you permanently remove his powers, this is where Inscrutable Celestial Being appears and informs him that is was indeed a test and yes, he failed it, and he'll...

Paladin without his powers is pretty boring to play. He just becomes an NPC warrior without bonus feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squee Stagskull wrote:

Just a curiosity thing from surfing the forums:

Why is it that everyone on the forums loves making paladins fall for anything, but any GM that dares to target a wizard's spellbook is treated like a dirtbag? Looking at the CRB, the paladin's Code of Conduct and the wizard's Spellbook look quite similar - if you're gonna treat one as fluff, shouldn't they both be? And if it's a balance thing, aren't wizards one of the most powerful classes in the game?

Note that this isn't a complaint about either class, I don't really care which is more fun or more powerful, it's just a question about the mentality of forum posters.

1.) It makes no sense. Wizards don't rely on their spell books in combat. In addition, the enemy can loot and sell the book after the battle is done. If the enemy targets my spell book, it should only be when he knows he is dead anyway and wants to spite me.

2. A wizards spell book should be hidden on his person unless he is using it. It isn't going to be easy to target when it is concealed. Once he has a portable hole, it will be hidden in there.

3. A paladin is severely weakened in combat by losing all his class features. THe Paladin either is hindered by his code or loses most of his fighting power.


cmastah wrote:

I wanted to run a heroic campaign (set in a dark world, I personally am interested in heroic characters in dark settings)

From a players perspective, playing a heroic character in a dark setting typically sucks. It might be fun for a story teller, but as a player you are basically a masochist, fighting enemies with a big handicap.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Torture is not really effective.

Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

I would note this act as a mark, and after a few marks, I would begin an alignment shift, one step, towards evil.

Torture is effective when the information can be verified. Because in that case saying something false won't stop the torture.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Take 10 and 20 have not been removed.

I want to approach him with a solid argument, and good examples, as to why this is a horrible houserule.

Being passive-aggressive is usually the worst choice, every time.

I intend to avoid it, except as a last resort.

Well, if take 10 and 20 ares still in, then i see no problem. Keep in mind, you can take 10 unless you are in danger. And its plausible to say that in a dangerous situation you will screw up something easy 5 percent of the time.

Auto success is obviously flawed and I am sure you could convince him to do away with that though.


Icyshadow wrote:

Yeah, the existence of the Paladin code (and the interpretations of it) make the problem that much worse.

I still wonder how much backlash would it cause if DMs started making a habit of forcing Clerics to change alignment from single deeds.

"Your Cleric of Sarenrae did one Evil deed*, now she's True Neutral and loses all her powers!!" - I know I wouldn't play with a DM like that for long.

* = Said deed was not giving a coin to a beggar.

The thing is, being lawful good isn't enough for a Paladin. He could still be lawful good and lose his class features because the code states that any violation causes a fall.

I think its badly written and am very willing to houserule it if someone wants to play a paladin in my game. I think a tabletops biggest advantage is freedom, and hate to limit it for my players.


Mikaze wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
princeimrahil wrote:
roguerouge wrote:


I take it that murdering the child, then casting resurrection later is not an option? Because that would be, what, wrong?

Well, in a word... YES! Do you want to know why? It's that word that you use in the first sentence: "murdering."

Jeez.

Why exactly? In the real world we don't have resurrection, so our real world views of killing and death don't apply. What happens to someone when they are dead is pretty vague(probably to leave room for DMs), but there is no evidence that any longlasting damage is done aside from the negative level.

Based on the available material, killing and then resurrecting someone(plus restoring negative levels) is no different than knocking someone unconscious

The trauma of being murdered is really just the tip of the iceberg of problems that still exist with this route. There's also no guarantee he'll come back, as raisings can be refused(and keep in mind this would be a child dealing with the soul-scarring trauma of being murdered by someone he might very well would have looked up to).

Is it more traumatic then going to Hell though? If you explain it to him, I think the kid would understand what you are doing(Even if he didnt like it) and would agree to do it.

I know that if I were given the options "Go to hell, where you will have to fight/make deals with devils and possible have your soul stuck there" or "Get murdered and come back a few weeks later" I would go with the second.


princeimrahil wrote:
roguerouge wrote:


I take it that murdering the child, then casting resurrection later is not an option? Because that would be, what, wrong?

Well, in a word... YES! Do you want to know why? It's that word that you use in the first sentence: "murdering."

Jeez.

Why exactly? In the real world we don't have resurrection, so our real world views of killing and death don't apply. What happens to someone when they are dead is pretty vague(probably to leave room for DMs), but there is no evidence that any longlasting damage is done aside from the negative level.

Based on the available material, killing and then resurrecting someone(plus restoring negative levels) is no different than knocking someone unconscious


Dwarfakin wrote:
So i have a plan for my PCs to go tracking down a crazy evil mad person for the sake of the good of the world. I plan on having a scenario where the Paladin is forced to commit an evil act, or have himself, and the rest of the PCs cast into a swirling red abyss (portal) that leads to Hell. (Mind you there are other options for the paladin to take but they will be difficult to spot) Is this a bit too cruel as a GM, am i playing my BBEG too evil, or am I doing it baby bear style and be just right.

In my opinion, Paladins are the worst class to pose with moral dilemma because they typically lose no matter what.

A lawful good warrior faced with this decision is going to make the choice and roleplay out how his character feels about this. The Paladin is distracted from the dilemma by the fact that he might lose all his class features.

1 to 50 of 1,421 << 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.