kyrt-ryder's page

Agreed, cannot stress enough that PLAYERS making the Best (or comparable) items in the Game will prevent the burnout stress that causes so much nerdrage in MMOs like WoW and Rifts, where you spend weeks grinding materials for the damn Best In Slot, only to have it completely useless within two weeks when the next patch rolls in and the instances are handing out welfare epics.

I think we all understand that, no, you're +1 Longsword will have precious little use outside of the first few levels in the game, but at the same point being able to say ".....No. G~%@%!nit, no, this is my Grandfather's sword, I am keeping it!" and going on to enchant it further and further till it becomes a truly epic weapon you are proud to carry into battle not only because of its power, but because of its history too.

I. Would. Kill. to be a PC that can go out and slay monsters, but is just as good when he turns around and starts turning hunks of ore into ingots, then ingots into blades, then those blades into masterwork weaponry. Being able to take other players' orders (I want the dragon-wing hand-guard on this sword please! "Right, no worries!") and being able to craft their desired weapon and hand it back to them for a handful of platinum coins.

Imagine players being able to specialise their crafting? Choose to become a Blacksmith, and then you get the opportunity to make your weapons and armor, with the various skins etc etc ... but then you decide to focus on making Shields! Your focus means your shields grant real, useful numbers to the Shield, decreasing the weight, improving the AC or increasing it's bash damage. Suddenly, you have truly created a niche for yourself in the player-driven market! Heroes seeking the best defence they can find will flock to your stall, brining their crafting materials or bulging coin-purses to have their Shields crafted!

Or Potions and Poisons? Your character decides they have had enough of seeing sickly Heroes stagger into town under the effects of Mummy Rot or Dire Fiendish Spider Venom. Choosing to take your Alchemy skill into a specialisation, your Cure X potions are not only more effective but help with a noticeable benefit to saves to recover from ability score damage, and your anti-venom might not just help prevent the first poison attack from actually affecting the PC but might even counter-poison whatever bit them.

My post wasn't to bash an idea, it was to bash what that idea becomes when followed to it's logical conclusion.

This is going to be a game. It's the G in MMORPG. The immersion crowd harps that we not forget the RP part of it, and seems to disregard the G. Real life immersion doesn't good roleplay make, and can and dare I say should be sacrificed in the greater good of it being a game.

While having to kill animals to harvest a material component in order to make a food item you can consume isn't a bad idea, and is already done in most MMO's with crafting, and can be fun (this is arguable), going to the extreme of having to spend real time hunting, skinning, slaughtering and preparing the deer just to cook it, is not fun, which is why the former is done, rather than the latter. It's the closest without going over, erring on the side of fun.

Game: A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

How then would hunting in an MMO...when it involves slowly stalking an intelligent behaving prey in realtime, not be a game to someone who enjoys it (aka, making it play)? Or, how about the "cooking" of the venison in real time...to someone who enjoys that? Why would these people who enjoy this want an undeveloped cheap mechanic just because you enjoy something else?

This means, if it is not fun to you, don't do it. Many people in RL do not do either of these things, and conversely many people do. I am not advocating either, just defending the position of making things difficult enough that getting good at something will actually be an accomplishment; building something, will actually be an accomplishment. Because these things are the game to those who choose to do them. You may want to go spelunking in dungeons, good for you...I think "they" should develop that choice as an option, so it will be fun for you. If you do not want to hunt or mine, craft or cook because it takes away from your adventuring time, good...that leaves the option open to those who do want to play those roles and do want to focus their time on them.

Most things fall into this logical dismissal filter. Having mounts, building houses, farming, training to fight, making armor...

That's really all I'm trying to say. I said something because it seemed people were trying to one up each other for realisms sake, and eventually would have gotten to my sarcastic example.

It's a game.

As one of the apparent advocates of "realism" I would like to say my defense of realism is not based upon a desire for realism "for realisms sake". It actually only seems so in the face of those who are asking for so much to be handed them...because that is fun evidently. I happen to think getting the "things" is the game, not the having the things, but perhaps this is a reflection of people's priorities in RL. Professionally and academically I design nonlinear systems with specific emergent behaviors in mind. I realize MMO design is probably not at this point...yet. But, it will soon I assure you. To this end, if you stick a bunch of agents in an empty sandbox and expect them to "create" a world, you have to give them a reason to change it in recognizable ways. You have to give the agents reasons we the player would recognize, understand, and utilize; and you have to design the world in such a way that the agents do things we would do in RL, otherwise we will not perceive or comprehend the order that emerges. You have to make them fear traveling during certain times so they will build roads and inns/towns along supply route (hence my request for slow travel, large distances, and real darkness). And, you have to give them a reaon to travel supply lines at all (explaining my request for making resources geographically and temporally limited). If you want these agents to build a realistic economy, you have to have supply and demand (hence my request for very localized economies, player driven limited supply and crafting). A viable economy also survives on services (versus solely commodities, hence my request for realistic mounts that must be captured or raised by someone who enjoys playing that role, stored and cared for by someone who enjoys that role; the fact that you think doing these things would not be fun, illustrates there would be an in-game demand, and the fact that there are games existing to cater to communities who enjoy this type thing illustrates there would be those who would accept your in-game money to do so). If you want realistic building strategies, you have to have realistic reasons to build something (aka, my request for making building things "difficult").

Even making most of the non-realistic content available only to "end-game" players (such as flying mounts or teleporters) is counter-productive. It is these high level players who will have the most ability to change the world. If they do not see a need to build a road to speed up travel on a supply route, it won't get done. If they do not see the need to build an inn along an especially long stretch of road to save people from having to travel at night, it will not get done.

For me, existing is an agent in a world in which things exist for a reason is much more interesting than "because the devs stuck it there". Exploring ruins that were actually made by a player group and later abandoned is much more interesting (trying to figure out the whys). Likewise, I have no interest in realism, my interest is in opportunities. It is my hope that some day, a game will come along that does offer these many opportunities, then if I get bored, I can just change my "profession" or what I do for fun instead of having to switch games (like all of us currently do). In such a game if someone does not like one aspect of the game, they can focus elsewhere.

People do not understand when they come from theme parks, specifically designed to entertain by offering all the rides free...to a sandbox, where the job is theirs to build a ride others can enjoy, and in so doing make enough money to pay the other players for the enjoyment of the rides they have made. Not everyone wants to build a Ferris wheel...in fact, how good would a park be with only Ferris wheels?

I suppose in summary, since I want to play in a rational and causal world (and I must assume people would as well (I quickly realized this assumption is probably incorrect, hence my decreased presence in these forums)), I make requests for design features/rule which I think will result in that type of world.

Anyways, sorry to the community for making this post so long. Just trying to be clear by illustrating my points.

PvP, if well implemented, can be the life-blood of a good MMO. Nothing will sustain a game longer than the presence of a never-ending battle. Content will wear thin after a time, but battle-lust will never fade.

That said, WoW's implementation of "loss-less" or "risk-less" PvP was an enormous mistake, especially after they herded the better PvP'ers into battlegrounds and arenas. World PvP is a great thing. Wars can pop up overnight and rage for days or weeks. If the concept was codified into the game, with something to be won or lost, the pull would be even greater. The idea is to channel griefing and ganking into a part of the game, turning them instead into assassins and berserkers that must be dealt with.

UO dealt with this by adding bounties and ousting murderers out of city life. And IMO, UO had one of the best PvP systems in gaming history. Turn the guilds into kingdoms, and allow war, politics, and trade to emerge between them.

One final note: If you aren't playing an MMO for large-scale social gaming, please find a single-player RPG more suited to you. UO was ruined by players who wanted a super-safe single player experience where they could farm and do basically nothing, while ignoring the largest portion of the game: other players. I pray PFO will not repeat the mistake of destroying PvP in favor of trying to capture those who want to play Recettear Online.

leo1925 wrote:

So the guy who wants to play a waste of space can have his fun but i can't right? you know because my character just died because we were one man and a quarter of the loot short.

Wow the arrogant presumption in this argument is astounding.

Who gave you the right to declare another player's character a waste of space? I don't have to go out on a limb to deduce that if your character died then it was probably your fault. Well unless your GM was specifically gunning for your overly optimized persona. Which could happen if you were disrupting the game over petty build demands. I have seen some GMs who would do so in a heart beat to a disruptive player. Me I wouldn't waste the time and simply uninvite you.

If you can't play well with others then it's NOT the other guy who is the problem.

Now that's some arrogance.

"Just because I decided to play a commoner when the party needed a healer, and you died, DOESN'T mean it's my fault because I have an inalienable right to play whatever I want without having any of my role play decisions questioned."

The situation he's talking about is one in which one player is dragging down the whole group for whatever reason. The rest of the group doesn't have the right to boot him?

At launch, and for the first seven months following, we will cap new paying players at 4,500 per month. Four thousand five hundred new paying players monthly. We expect to keep only about 25% of those players on a long-term basis, so after we factor in attrition of each month's signups, we end up with 16,500 paying players at the end of that seven-month period.

Making a game that starts with 4,500 players and grows to 16,500 players is much, much easier and vastly less expensive than making a game designed to accommodate a million players on day one. We'll be able to focus on a relatively small part of the world at first, expanding it only as we need to.

After the first seven months, we'll raise the limit on new paying players to 12,000 per month. That will remain our goal for the next couple years of Pathfinder Online's life cycle. Factoring in attrition, by the end of the game's third year of operation, we expect to have about 120,000 paying players. For many MMOs, that number would be considered a failure, but because of our lean development strategy, achieving that number of paying customers will mean success for Pathfinder Online.

I'm wondering, how does this restriction interact with the free to play members? The bold paragraph in the middle implies these restrictions are related to the number of players the game can support, which would in turn imply bad things for people who are looking to start free and pay when they decide the game is worthwhile.

I think long term consequences and the relationship between the killer, the killed, and the community is missing from this discussion.

Will it be possible to hunt a killer? To track them? To evade identification as a killer? Will there be counter measures to evasion of identification? Will we be able recover stolen loot? Will killing a low level character in well lit portion of the city reflect badly on the player running that district and require an in game response for the maintenance of status and power? Will there be in game reasons for targeted assassinations of high level leaders? Will a murder in the forest be the end of the story, or the beginning as justice attempts to manifest?

If you haven't died at least once in an MMO you haven't played hard enough or long enough. I usually lose PvP matches because of how I build my toons, but the interaction can still be fun. An artful murder might be fun to watch even if I was the victim in a virtual world. What if you die 100 times over the life of a toon and 1or 2 are from PvP non-consentual kills that makes in game sense? Are you willing to pay that for a richer world? I am, especially of the consequences of that murder can be potentially be undone by my efforts. I think this would have to mean that when you logout your toon stays persistent so the gear and person can be reached. I would like Goblinworks to comment on that if they would, Please.

Consequences require a loss of something, and in virtual world that means time, cash, or both. Mr. Dancey has identified an intent to keep up with griefers, but I believe limiting PvP to people with an investment is an easy thing to do. Maybe free players shouldn't be allowed to initiate PvP until they have a lot of play time into a toon. Maybe no one should.

If death had the consequence of a loss of something associated with play time (level/skill points), then mass retaliation would be a good way to prevent ganking. You might literally be able to delevel a ganker out of existence as sport or even an in game profession.

Two can play that game Anguish, as seen below-

Your inability to comprehend my desire to not have my game interrupted by being killed by you is pretty much the precise reason why I can't tolerate you having the ability to kill me.

Said differently: I humbly submit that those people who insist a game must have non-consensual PvP are precisely those people who should least have access to it.

Said still differently: if you can't have fun without killing me when I don't want to be killed then I don't want to play with you.

Said differently yet again: if the only way you can get your jollies is by ruining mine, we don't game together.

Your inability to comprehend my desire to not have my game interrupted by being unable to enter into a combat with you created by the nature of whatever roleplay events are going on - to have my immersion spoiled by someone who is going to abuse my inability to actually do what my character would do. Mock my honor? Attack my (social-ethical) character? Spread filthy rumors to block my access to PC-run services? 'Kill steal' a quest boss and snag the loot/exp (which, personally, really aren't that big of a deal to me but included for completeness.) All of which is pretty much the precise reason I can't tolerate not having the ability to kill you.

Said differently: I humbly submit that those people who insist a game must prevent non-consensual PvP are precisely those people who should be restrained by it.

Said still differently: if you can't have fun without the risk of recompense for your actions against me, then I don't want to play with you.

Said differently yet again: if the only way you can get your jollies is by ruining mine without so much as giving me the recourse to defend myself, we don't game together.

You present your case pretty well Robert, and I can definitely understand what you're saying. I guess I'm the odd one out when I say I'm looking forward to my preferred Pathfinder Online precisely BECAUSE the 'other guys' have their own people behind them, as opposed to an AI or GM. For me personally, it offers a lot more depth than the alternative (just my perspective of course.)

In response to Scott.

The influx of millions to the themepark came majoritively from everywhere but the MMORPG market. Before the WoW monster, MMORPGs were nothing new and struggled in any attempt to capture a significant market share. If we assume this majority can be your average PC or console gamer, such singleplayer or multiplayer games must by design not penalise players too harshly.

Do these millions of new MMORPG gamers constitute an MMORPG market per se, or the new World of Warcraft or MMMG (Multiplayery Multiplayer Multiplayer Game)? I needn't remind you that the WoW playerbase has to date been largely non-transferable to any other MMORPG game than that of a startling resemblance to WoW. The WoW market is closed for anything but a WoW game, it's identical twin or similar adaptation of a single/multiplayer experience to the MMO genre. Despite short sighted opinion, these two audiences are not remotely the same.

Who are we trying to appeal to Scott? As far as I am concerned, challenging World of Warcraft for any amount of it's playerbase is as would all agree, ill-founded. Not only do such MMORPG attempts to appeal to the WoW player fail in capturing any of the new WoW market, they also alienate the traditional market through attempting to conjoin both the WoW game and the traditional (or different) MMORPG. World of Warcraft Jim goes back to Warcraft and Jerry complains it's too much like Warcraft.

The large majority of the now very large MMORPG market prefer an easier, relatively risk free MMORPG - I totally agree with you. But this is a new MMORPG customer and one which is inaccessible unless you cater to their specific needs whilst accepting a relatively dismal chance of any success.

Taking the above into consideration, the only reason I would agree that they should make the game easier in accommodating to the mass market of MMORPG games is - never. It's why so many fail and I think that Goblinworks would achieve a far greater success in going the route of Eve Online; be it's own product with it's own market and leave the WoW market alone.

In response to Icyshadow - I'm not picking on Scott and he's entitled to an opinion. I'd enjoy these debates more if he expressed his opinions than simply point out every occasion in which someone suggests a feature or mechanic which does not appeal to a massive majority of tens of millions of people. Is aiming a solid product at 500,000 less of a business plan?

AM BARBARIAN wrote:

AMERICA AM DISAPPROVAL.

Would you mind using proper grammar? And please release the caps lock key?

Your shtick is funny in small doses at the right place, but over a longer discussion it is frankly just annoying and makes your posts hard to read.

CASTY AM FREE TO NOT ARGUE WITH BARBARIAN. BARBARIAN HAVE CASTY KNOW BARBARIAN AM WRITING MANY MIGHTYFINE PAPERS FOR ENGINEERING DEGREE, AM GETTING ALL A'S. AM TALKING FINE FOR DELIVERING POINTS TO CASTY SKULL.

P.S. BARBARIAN NOT USE CAPS. BARBARIAN HOLD SHIFT LIKE REAL MAN. PINKIE FINGER ALONE AM STRONGER THAN MOST CASTYS.

I feel like reading the FAQ should be a requirement for coming here. I made the mistake of not doing enough research before I cam here, and it seems like many others do as well.

Maybe in a sticky at the top of the sub-forum?

I could care less about the rule set that an MMO follows. They are not the same and you should not aim for it. Pathfinder is a turn-based tabletop RPG. As a rules set for a TTOP RPG, it works quite well. However, a MMO is not a tabletop RPG. The people who think it should work like that do not get the design issues and probably never will.

I already know that the devs know this – but many of the fans here just don’t get it . Persuade your fans as to why – and with patience, the persuadable will be persuaded. However, some of these fans are NOT persuadable under any circumstances. That’s life. Keep selling them books and they will still be your customers, just not your online players. That’s okay. Let ‘em rant, because that isn’t Pathfinder.

I do see, however, a number of things that CAN work and DO feel like "Pathfinder,” to wit:

1 - Class Abilities: Pathfinder has improved upon and developed a number of class abilities that serve to distinguish the class from others. Those abilities should form a tangible aspect of a class design.

For example, we know what Paladins are. A Pathfinder: Online Paladin should have auras; smite evil, and have the ability to confer those benefits to others. Similarly, we know that a Witch has a familiar, can fly, and can cast hexes like misfortune and deep slumber. Alchemists in Pathfinder throw bombs and can use mutagens to increase their stats and body size. While something like a Vancian based arcane bond is not likely to matter in PF: O, Wizards should be able to throw a weapon and have it return to their hands. They should get some sort of metamagic and should be able to craft magic items. They should get a scorching ray and get multiple numbers of them as they advance (never mind what damage they actually do or how often it can be used) Barbarians are all about rage and DR. Gunslingers are all about guns, deeds, and grit, Ninjas can vanish, etc..

Keep the recognizable iconic abilities of classes and make them do similar sorts of things which are somewhat intuitive and recognizable to a player. The underlying math, lethality and so forth is irrelevant. Let the computer game designers of the MMO be computer game designers of an MMO. Nevertheless, some of the iconic powers of a class need to be represented and unique because that’s what fans expect and that’s what keeps up the verisimilitude of the Pathfinder brand.

2 - Look and Feel: Pathfinder has a distinctive art direction to its characters and many of its monsters. Some of that is going to work well in a computer game -- and some of it is not. Cut the stuff that will not work for polycount and animation reasons and do it without remorse.

But when you get right down to it, Pathfinder is Wayne Reynolds' art style. Make that come to life? You are golden in terms of art direction. Fail to deliver it and you dropped the ball and will alienate customers. Sorry – but in many respects it really IS that simple.

Above all, keep the cartoony look to your characters. There are strong benefits to this. On a technical design basis, it reduces polycount. As we move forward in the next five years, PC Gaming threatens to go off a cliff and the desktop will not be the primary platform for this game. Accordingly, anything that reduces graphical overhead and makes it more laptop friendly is good. Any CTO who tells you what the GPU capabilities are of the expected users of this game 4 years from now is making it up. He doesn’t know. That’s an ENORMOUS tech risk, so the engine and art direction has to be HIGHLY scaleable.

If you went for something like the CANVAS engine for your art style? You would not go wrong in terms of artistic impact (tech/economic feasibility is another matter). Apply the CANVAS engine's style and Wayne Reynolds art and color palettes and tell me you wouldn’t drool to play that game.

On a less technical basis, cartoony designs also serve to make the game look unique. The problem with realistic 3d models , shaders and middleware environmental options all designed to operate within the tech limits of the hardware platform of the day is that it all ends up looking the same, from game to game. Seeing as you are likely to have to use middleware for much of your environmental organic effects, anything that serves to distinguish the look of the game from that produced by others enhances the value. In this case, it also delivers on the expectations of fans – so double down on Wayne Reynolds' iconics and cartoony goblins.

Blizzard made the right call with WoW. Some people hated it and it turned them off -- but you cannot argue with that level of success. I can confirm that there was a significant debate within BioWare as to whether to go cartoony with SW:ToR. BioWare decided to go a little cartoony with their art direction in TOR too -- and it was the right call. Some people complained sure, but some people always complain.

3 - Golarion: At Paizo's current publication rate, it is likely that there will at that time of PF:O's release be more game material written about the world of Golarion than any other fantasy world in the history of RPGs. Even the FR (and that's saying something, damn it).

That is a VAST treasure trove of IP. It's the one thing Paizo brings to the table which it does BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE, in or outside of the computer development field. Do not sacrifice this on anybody's sandbox altar. Dance with the girl that brung ya.

That's what a Pathfinder: Online is to me. It's not rolling a 20, it's not Vancian Magic, longswords which do 1d8 or even magic missiles.

Gimme a Witch that hexes with a fox familiar, a chance to interact with the iconic characters which LOOK like Wayne Reynold's art come to life -- all set in a believable slice of Golarion.

That's a Pathfinder MMO to me.

Elth wrote:

Well the current project leads have already said that they plan to make the consequences of asshattery harsh enough that it wont be worthwhile.

Why allow asshattery in the first place?

This is the part where I start going on about "Hope you like your interactions" again, but if an action is so obnoxious that we're describing it as "asshattery" and outright "evil", why is it a thing that you're allowed to do in the game? It's a game. Ultimately, every thing that you can do in the game is a thing a programmer had to be paid to allow you to do. You don't have to let people do a thing if you don't want to.

Why would you pay someone to allow players to do something that is so terribly obnoxious that you have to punish players for doing it?

Are you kidding? because some of us players actually enjoy feeling threatened at every corner. I love playing in free for all PvP games. I do not gank or grief, I play these games as I would play all of my RPGs, I venture out and explore, I gather resources, I craft, I chop wood, I kill animals for leather and monsters for loot. The whole time I do this, I am spinning my camera around looking into the distance to see if someone is going to creep up on me and attack. I love the adrenaline this brings. You cannot understand this, I get it. But YOU need to understand that there is a lot of players just like me that do not have this satisfaction because players like you have cried so much that it gets removed. Is that clear enough?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Onishi, it's already been made pretty clear that 'double their power level' isn't going to be something you really see in this game, especially once you get past the first week or two of 'serious play' or the first month or two of 'casual play.'

But you will see:

"Geared for killing players and not monsters"
"Grouped on trade routes to kill people as soon as they leave the safe area"
"Camped on the route to the monster lair"
if possible
"camped in the monster lair so they can kill it as soon as it respawn and kill anyone trying to get to it"

I should add "Gate camp" to the dictionary in the other thread.

Wow, all four of these sound like valid RP paths for a story in early medieval Europe.

- Geared for killing people and not animals...aka bandits
- Yeah, if they want to rob people with money (or things they can sell), they hit the trade routes where the nations do not patrol. That is why caravans hired additional guards...what you call a problem, I see as an employment opportunity.
- Camped on the route to the a holy site or other popular site. Once again, this is the reason for groups such as the Knights Templars.
- Camped in a monster lair? Yeah...that is how you hunt something when it is not in its den, you stake out the den.

I fail to see the problem with any of these actions. In fact, by doing these, they are RPing whether they realize they are RPing or not. And, I think the error with someone repeatedly doing the last one is a fault of the AI, not the players. AI that repeatedly gets killed in a given spot should migrate.

Sadly...everything I've read and heard suggests to me that this game will basically a fantasy version of EVE online...which unfortunately holds no interest for me.

]

In my perfect world, Pathfinder Online will be to EVE Online what World of Warcraft was to EverQuest. That is, the game that came after the game that solved a lot of hard problems but left a path for development towards accessibility and fun.

As someone who not only played through the transition from EQ to WoW, but spent countless hours doing analysis of both games from a business perspective, I have a tremendous appreciation for what Blizzard accomplished. They did not make a "clone", they made an evolutionary step that changed the way people interacted with theme park MMO content.

I think there's an opportunity to do something similar for sand box MMOs too.

To answer the original question, my goal is to attract people who value the idea of an open world, persistent sandbox where the primary drivers of the experience are other players and their interactions. This is not going to be a game that has a big focus on solo play - although there will certainly be ways to play the game as a Lone Wolf. This is not going to be a game where the objective is to gear up the "perfect" party to solve a theme park puzzle - you'll have specialized characters aplenty, but no "best" option for being an adventurer.

I want to give players a rich set of tools and allow them to creatively use them to create a sword & sorcery world of exploration, development, adventure, and domination. And that's the audience I'm hoping to attract.

As I said before, it's in everyone's best interest that we bring Beginner Box players who want to expand their game beyond that box into the full Pathfinder RPG as quickly as possible, because that opens doors to literally hundreds of fascinating adventures, sourcebooks, and rulebooks, plus Pathfinder Society organized play, a very large network of players, and a host of third-party and even 3.5 and 3.0 materials they can use in their game.

It's one thing to give them support that *eases* that transition, but giving them reasons to *delay* that transition would be a mistake.

There's a reason this is called the Beginner Box and not, say, the Basic Game.

This is all the spells in the Pathfinder SRD Spell database that have a casting time of 1 immediate action.

Seems pretty logical to me that falling is a non-action. The standard action happens at the same time you start falling.

With the upcoming release of the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet, I'd like to know what the best options on the market now are for reading Paizo PDFs. I'd really like to get a mobile device that can handle them well, so I can use it at my table when I GM. I have two things that I care about:

1. Function - can it open and display the PDFs in a readable format? I'd like one that won't have any trouble with the bigger and fancier books, like the Bestiaries and the Core Rule Book. Also, it would be good to have one that I can also use to get to the PRD on the Internet.

2. Price - cheaper is better. An iPad is beyond my means. Since PDFs and a little bit of light Internet usage are the only functions I care about, is there something cheaper that would handle those functions fine?

So can I get what I want in an eReader, or do I need to pay a little more to get a tablet? Or would a cheap laptop be a better option? I'd love to get recommendations for specific models.

I hear the term munchkin a lot. What does it mean to you? This is not Pun-Pun. Look at it this way: You can wear a gauntlet, wield a weapon with that hand, attack with it, drop it, then attack with the gauntlet. Insert claw instead of gauntlet, and that should work as well, right?

Yes, staves are an easier case, and in fact I loved making them before they died an agonizing death in PF (IMHO). In fact, that whole paragraph titled "Multiple SIMILAR Abilities" on p. 549 is pretty easy to apply. But I'm talking mostly about the lack of specificity in the "Multiple DIFFERENT Abilities" paragraph directly below that. "Abilities such as attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar..." There is so much gray area here (are saves and AC similar, i.e., protective, or different? are two different type of save or AC bonus similar to each other? etc.), and this paragraph being more clear is where my example of reverse engineering the Robe of Archmagi could be much easier to apply.

I agree they died by fire in Pathfinder. Staffs suck these days. They're more trouble than they're worth. I have yet to have a player who wanted a staff in Pathfinder, or who didn't desire to immediately sell a PF-style staff for something else. So I swapped back to 3.x staffs and use x/day staffs as well (because they're really cool and don't break verisimilitude*).

*: Normal staffs with x/- charges break verisimilitude because they are generally excellent examples of long lost magical tools of incredible power and utility, and yet they burn out, so finding them kind of sucks as they probably have few charges, or feels placed there by the GM because they have many charges meaning they were rarely used. This is why I prefer x/day charges, such as 5/day so you can draw charges from the staff to do cool stuff without going overboard, while making sure the staff is a lasting investment. Same for wands.

Maybe someone can further clarify, or feels like working through the ArchMagi Robe example? Not that I would expect anyone to enjoy that, but hey, I'll check for it just in case.

Give me a moment, and I'll try to get it in my next post.

The monk wins initiative.

Yes, monk never lose initiative. They have the highest Dexterity in the game because they aren't MAD, they can take improved initiative and reactionary, they have a scorpion familiar, they add half their level to initiative, they roll initiative twice and keep the highest, and they can act while surprised.

That's far more efficient than any caster ever.

...And then they out-tumble everyone because the DC to tumble a melee character isn't very high, they go in position because every caster is visible, identifiable and standing on the ground, they hit because no caster has a good AC, they stun because no caster has high Fort, they stay one round to make a flurry of blow because the caster's buddy are always far away from their own caster, and they tumble away because tumble some melee character is easy.

That's a far more reliable strategy than Blindness/quickened Blindness/Sound burst/quickened Sound burst/any anti-caster spell, I guess.

.
...
.....

I just read all of that. I am, quite frankly, shocked that this actually went on for 170 posts, and in that space no one once asked why the TWF penalties to attack existed in the first place. I.e. to prevent TWF from becoming objectively superior to other options while still providing some sort of TWF benefit. The case of the axe and scimitar does not unbalance anything. I would feel, as a GM, quite the burro should I insist on applying TWF penalties to someone only taking their iterative attacks and no further benefit. Switching weapons, I'm afraid, only rarely provides any mechanical benefit.

My ruling: penalty only applies when getting additional benefits of TWF, such as extra attack, TW Defense, TW Rend, etc.

All other solutions are needlessly complicated and introduce too many exceptions. As evidenced by this thread. I cannot stand by the decisions of a DM that goes out of his/her way 1) to prevent people from acting like Conan with a sword and axe in hand, 2) to prevent the swashbuckler from kicking someone as part of their iterative attack just because they want to, 3) to prevent people from making any sort of thrown weapon build whatsoever.

DONE.

i don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval european.

you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.

Multiclassing is like the golden goose of roleplaying, or I could say as much. As Blackborn seems to think that multiclassing caters to meta-gamers, I think the opposite. I think it caters to roleplayers. The notion of "Class" is an entirely metagame concept of its own.

Multiclassing means you break out of the mold of a single class. For example, a friend of mind wanted to create a crane-clan samurai duelist who wore little armor, mostly walked around in a robe, had a killer-awesome iaijutsu technique, and was quick and skilled with weapons. This was for a Rokugan game we were running. I helped him represent that character mechanically.

The character basically was built using Barbarian 2 / Rogue 3 / Fighter X. The Barbarian provided the speed (+10 ft movement, uncanny dodge), the determined samurai spirit (AKA - rage) and so forth. Sneak attack filled in for his Iaijutsu technique, and Evasion and Rogue talents allowed him to go with the quick and nimble theme further. Fighter mostly rounded him out with combat feats and specializing in his dueling weapon.

Since he wanted his character to fight something like Rurouni Kenshin, he wanted a way to represent his character moving so quickly that he was hard to spot with your eyes before his sword met you. This was emulated via the Cloak Dance feat which he would use to gain concealment, and use Stealth to "fade from view". Enemies could remark with comments such as "Where did he go!?" or "Did you see where he went!?" or "Damnit, how can he be so fast!?". He would then strike them from being hidden, and get his weapon damage + sneak attack, representing his pinpoint blinding fast strike.

Also, I think most players should have an idea as to what they want to play, and how they want to play it. I've seen someone try to do the whole "organic" growth deal, and generally it caused them to multiclass like crazy and be wildly ineffective as they tried to decide the path their character was forming as they went. That's how one guy I played with ended up with a rogue 5 / wizard 1 / cleric 3 / ranger 2 / assassin 4. Before the end of the game, he lamented as to what a fool he was, and how he was bad at everything.

But, he wasn't really. I taught him how to make use of all those weird little quirks and abilities to be something decent. But I myself tend to have a fair idea as to where I want to take my character as I go.

But yeah, classes are entirely a metagame concept, and not-multiclassing makes you a bad roleplayer!*

*: This is hyperbole to illustrate the silliness of these sorts of statements.

Laurefindel wrote:

I didn't see Cirno's reply as a confirmation that Paladin can be of all alignment.

He said they should not suffer mechanically. Meaning no lose of powers. How is this not allowing any Al or any actions?

Pay very close attention...

a paladin must be LG and must obey the code. Or he is not a paladin.

Think very hard on this. Very, very hard. When you realize that he's no longer a Paladin in spirit, then you will realize that he is something different. Then you will realize that if he is a Paladin in spirit, it doesn't matter what class the character is, he is a Paladin.

The water is blue because it reflects the sky, and the sky is blue because it reflects the water. *sageface*

Ashiel wrote:

As written, clerics cannot fall. They have no code of conduct to grossly violate. The only thing that can cause a cleric to fall, by the rules, is for the cleric to shift to an alignment that is no longer incompatible with his current deity. That's a fact.

This is not a fact. They can fall.The rules does not say switching Al, but "cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god". This is not as codified as a paladins code as there are just to many gods for this, however by the rules you can fall just as easily. And suffer the very same mechanical drawl-backs from doing so.

Actually, no they don't. That's the funny thing. See, firstly, their class says they must grossly violate their code of conduct before they actually lose their abilities. We're talking grossly, as in total, complete, flagrant, extreme. Meanwhile, clerics don't even HAVE a code of conduct. You could create one, but it's a house rule. So not only do they not have a code of conduct, but they even have a note saying that if they did, then they have to basically f*** up beyond all reason before they lose their powers. And like you said, they can just become a cleric of something else.

So no, yeah, factually, there is no code of conduct for clerics of any alignment of any deity unless it is a supplemental thing. It doesn't even have sample codes or anything. They just don't exist without house rules. If they do, please show me the core rulebook page number, or link me to the PRD. Thanks.

Ashiel wrote:

Likewise, his question is legitimate. What does it add to the Paladin? Nothing. It adds absolutely nothing to the Paladin, just like it added absolutely nothing to anyone in previous editions where changing your alignment came with terrible penalties. It doesn't help roleplaying, and it doesn't help you tell a good story

Again I disagree. a paladin must be LG and must obey the code. Or he is not a paladin. Allowing him to keep his powers (unlike a druid or a cleric) would mean he is either an arcane based class or can be any Al and have many different codes , just like a cleric and he only keeps them by switching teams( like the cleric).

Again, paladins are not clerics , they are not in every flavor, they are not LN jedi. They are like a druid and a cleric in that they can be stripped of power. They are one of the classes that do not own the power they wield.

First, Jedi are Lawful Good. Sometimes that Lawful gets in the way of the Good, and sometimes that Good gets in the way of the Lawful. There are also gray Jedi which are usually Neutral Good or Neutral or Lawful Neutral, and then you have dark Jedi or Sith which are generally Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil. All of them can use the force and fling shiny sticks, but how they interact with each other, their world, and the story is much different. Now that that is out of the way...

The the Paladin isn't a set of abilities. It's an ideal. A concept. It is the spirit to roleplay a character that is knightly, virtuous, and noble. It doesn't matter what your abilities are if you're playing like that. You're getting upset over semantics. You're upset because a player is playing a class called "Paladin" and you're afraid if they aren't punished for playing it the way you say it shouldn't be played, then they will do that. Are you afraid of them getting their abilities, or do you dislike the fact they tarnish the ideal of Paladin?

'Cause if you're like me, it's the latter. I'm not super into players grossly violating the concept of Paladin. But the fact is, you could do the concept of Paladin with any class. I could play a cleric and be a Paladin. Could I fill the archtype of the class? Damn skippy. Am I doing it because I want to roleplay a Paladin? Damn skippy. Am I somehow less Paladin-like because I don't have levels in a metagame class? Heck no!

Heck if you really wanted to, you could build a Paladin using levels in the NPC classes Warrior and Adept! Would it be a really watered down (mechanically speaking) Paladin? Sure. Could it still be a Paladin? You betcha!

You have also yet to show how the current rule hurt Roleplay. You don't seem to think they hurt Druid or cleric role play, yet only paladins as they must be LG does it "hurt"

I've already shown how they hurt roleplaying. Professor Cirno has also shown it. It hampers actually telling a good story. It also removes any actual temptation from entering into the mix, because you really only have 3 options. Either A) the player plans to play a fallen Paladin because of the roleplay opportunities and gets nerfed, or B) the GM keeps trying to catch 22 the Paladin to force him to lose his powers, or C) your player is a moron.

I showed how you literally cannot emulate the finest example of a Paladin and a Paladin's fall that I have seen. I explained why you cannot have a slow and meaningful corruption. I have shown that the mechanic is pretty lame and useless, as instead of adding any sort of interest, intensity, or drama to the mix, it instead is like flipping the power off, and then paying to have it turned back on.

Which means if anyone actually wants to, y'know, roleplay a Paladin as being a difficult road to walk, and having to deal with things as they come, instead of a 1 dimensional fool, you have to play a different class.

Example
We build a "Paladin" using a Cleric. We could also do it with Fighter or Ranger, but Cleric fits the easiest since they get some martial, some magical, some armor, and are strong vs demons, undead, etc.

Scene 1: Inside the Tent after a Battle
The Paladin has a grim look on his face. One of his friends, another Paladin, his mentor even, walks up.
Mentor: "Son, what's wrong? You look like something is troubling you."
Paladin: "Master Dalsa...when we overtook the orc encampment, and I saw the bodies of their victims hanging up and used for target practice, I lost it. When the leader, who openly admitted that it was his doing, threw his sword at his feet and surrendered...I saw all those people hanging up, and I snapped. I beat him half to death, and hung him on his own hooks to die. Even Valen didn't say a word for an hour after, and she mocks the order for its mercy. I just...I just don't know."
Mentor: "Look Dravik...being a Paladin is not an easy life. We are, after all, just mortals striving to do what is right. We have hearts, and we have souls. The fact you felt so strongly for those people, that your heart cried out for vengeance, is a testament to the goodness inside you. Yet that cry must be tempered with control, my boy. Emotion without a pure heart is like a tidal wave. Strong, and yet dangerous to everyone around it. We must set an example. We are but men, but we must strive to be more, because that is what is needed of us."
Paladin: "Thank you...master Dalsa. I don't know what I'd do without you sometimes. It's really hard sometimes, to live up to what is expected of us."
Mentor: "It is hard to live up to what we expect from ourselves, my boy. But that is why it is worth living. The right thing is rarely the easy thing. Now come, we must go meet with the others and plan the next move in the campaign against the orc warlords. May the Bright Knight look to us, and lead us through battles both physical and spiritual, in the name of the Holy Valkyrie and the Son of Suns, amen. "

Scene 2 - Meeting A Wayward "Paladin"
After dealing with the orc warlords, and becoming stronger in his faith, Davik heads to the northern wastes to confront Lord Mauglorn the Desecrator at the Frozen River, but finds a wayward Paladin who has been led astray. The wayward Paladin is Chaotic Neutral.

Ex-Paladin: "Fools, you have wandered this far to stop us!? Can't you see that Mauglorn is right!? Look at how corrupt the government of Arcadia has become! Look at how the order's pride blinds them to the truth! They spout fairy tales and hymns but know nothing of the real world! They would talk about honor and mercy while the whole damn world burns to the ground around them! We not me pal! Lord Mauglorn is going to change the world and bring about a new order!"
Paladin: "Ceveros! Put your weapon down. It doesn't have to come to this! We can don't have to fight!"
Ex-Paladin: "Fool! All your preaching of not-fighting! You have no idea what it is like to be filled with rage! You do not know the horrors I have witnessed! Many by the very people we sought to protect! You wouldn't know when it was time to fight!"
Paladin: "You're wrong Ceveros! I've felt that rage too! I have watched the indignities, the travesties, and heard the laments of the innocents in a corrupt world. Mauglorn doesn't want to save the world, he wants to destroy it! Can't you see that the order that he promises to bring is going to be hell on earth? He will crush out the small flame of true goodness here with absolute order and tyranny!"
Ex-Paladin: "Shut up! You are weak! I know all of your tricks, and yet I'm not afraid to fight dirty! Come Saladash, we ride!" *he summons a Chaotic Neutral Celestial Warhorse and mounts it with his lance*
...
Sometime later after a fight with the party, Ceveros has suffered some pretty serious wounds, and is lying on the ground semi-unconscious, and unable to move.
Ex-Paladin: "Heh...you did it. You really think you can stop Mauglorn don't you?"
Paladin: "To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm going to try though."
Ex-Paladin: "Why?"
Paladin: "Because if I don't, no one else will."
Ex-Paladin: "Still caught up in that stupid code, I see."
Paladin: "Your flattery is too kind. I wish I could say I was doing it because of the code. That'd be more honorable."
Ex-Paladin: "Why then? Why do you fight?"
Paladin: "Because of my sister. Because of those people you spoke of. The look in the eyes of those who couldn't help themselves. What kind of man would I be if I sat by and turned my eyes?"
Ex-Paladin: "...No...no Davik...it is not you that honors the code...it is the code that honors you..."

Scene 3 - Davik and the party face against Mauglorn's Army
It has been many weeks since the battle at the Frozen River. Mauglorn evaded the group due to being delayed by Ceveros. After the fight, Ceveros wandered away, and has not been seen since. Now, Davik and his friends are surrounded by the evil minions of Mauglorn, and things look dire.

Just then, a powerful crashing sound can be heard coming from the east. Lo and behold, Ceveros leads a charge of mounted knights against the fiends, with Master Dalsa and the Silver Brigade close behind him. Into the breach they ride, smashing into the flanks of Mauglorn's forces.

Mauglorn: "Ceveros!? Why are you here!? I thought you were dead!"
Ceveros: "I was dead! Then someone called me back from the edge of the abyss I had fallen into! Now, I've come to do what I should have done to start with - aid in tearing you apart!"
Master Dalsa: "Davik, it is good to see you! We had thought you had been lost at the shadow gate, until Ceveros came and told us where you were at. It is good to see you boy!"
Davik: "Likewise, master."

*huge super battle occurs, and Mauglorn escapes into the high peaks to his fortress tower*

Ceveros: "Davik, go after Mauglorn! We shall keep the fiends at bay! Go forth, and I shall see you when you return!"

*Davik and the party chase Mauglorn for the climactic finale*

Example 2
This time we shall use the Paladin class for all instances.

Scene 1 - Tent after Battle
As scene 1 with the cleric except...
Ex-Paladin: "I fubared master. I lost all my Paladin powers, which means I stuffed up big time."
Mentor: "Don't worry. We brought a priest along. You can simply insert 500 gold pieces into the slot and all is right again."
Ex-Paladin: "But I feel great guilt...what about the teachings?"
Mentor: "The teachings are so you will feel guilt, so that you can get your atonement, silly boy."

Scene 2 - The Wayward Paladin
As Scene 2 with cleric except...
Ex-Paladin: "I am a fool! I have pretty much admitted that I'm wrong because I stopped being right the moment I couldn't summon Saladash my horsie. I shall now throw my self upon your blade, as I'm probably no more than a speed bump in your path to whatever you Paladins do these days."

Scene 3 - Battle vs Mauglorn's Army
As scene 3 with cleric except...
Ceveros doesn't find redemption because expected to lose for being lame, and then never bothered to go spend some pocket change to get sanctified again, or maybe the priests turned him down. Nobody shows up. Party is massacred.

Ok, it's Hyperbole, but you get the idea.

To me its not about role play, its about players wanting the paladin powers...

Why? I mean, some of them are pretty good, but Anti-Paladins/Blackguards pretty much get the same powers only re-fluffed. In 3.x, Paladins didn't even have cool powers. It's not like in 1E and 2E where Paladin was literally a Fighter on steroids (but they also had a much harsher XP progression, so maybe it doesn't matter so much).

Ashiel wrote:

joeyfixit wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?

How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?

I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.

Whereas I see the skill ranks as being a boost to the roleplaying. If a player came up with a lie, but didn't have a great delivery, but rolled a 25, yeah, I'll give it to him. The character is a better liar than the player. If the player comes up with a great lie and sells it, then rolls a 1... wait, why did I make him roll to begin with?

If an Inquisitor has a +23 to hit with a repeating crossbow, but can't tell me which enemy he wants to shoot because he can't make up his mind, he doesn't get to roll damage. Period.

Likewise, if a bard can't tell me ANYTHING for a lie, or a lie so unconvincing that it's ludicrous, I'm not going to let him roll. He has to sit on the bench with the Inquisitor while the game goes on around them.

So basically, you love metagaming and not roleplaying. Gotcha.

Forcing face characters to act out the occasional social encounter is metagaming?

Shenanigans.

And I rest my case. You should have to force anything. If you're forcing something on it, then yeah, shenanigans. You dun goofed. Welcome to sucky-GMsville, population: "????".

Why not, oh, I dunno, actually encourage roleplaying through positive encouragement. If you're so amazingly set on acting stuff how, why not lead the way with your NPCs? Either he'll catch on or he won't feel comfortable. The game is about having fun, not forcing people to do stuff they don't feel comfortable doing. Just because the dice fall a certain way doesn't mean roleplaying suddenly stops anymore than rolling attack rolls means you should describe combat less vividly.

Player A: "Um...I'll...try to convince...that guard...to let us pass."
GM: "Ok! As you approach the guard, he glances in your direction momentarily before focusing in on you as you approach. He asks, what can I do for you, citizen? in a burly voice. So how would you like to go about getting the guard to let you pass?"
Player A: "Um...I dunno...maybe try to create a diversion...or something?"
GM: "Well, perhaps you might be able to convince him that there was a suspicious person elsewhere. Or, maybe since you know the name of the big bad, you could try to pass yourself off as an old friend of his, or something else."
Player A: "Hmm, actually, I like the idea of pretending to be his friend. I'm going to try that." *rolls his Bluff for a 24*
GM: "When you introduce yourself to the guard, you drop the name of Vinkerson. You mention that you met him at a social gathering some time ago, and you received an invitation to be an investor in his next project. The guard is a bit skeptical at first, but you at least seem sincere and calm enough to not appear to be lying. The guard makes a bit of small talk as you go. So you must be one of those ironlords from the south. Are these guys, he says pointing to the rest of the party, your bodyguards?"
Player A: "Oh...uh, yeah, my bodyguards. Um, you can never be too careful after-all. Especially, um...being an...Ironlord was it? What's an Iron Lord?"
GM: "It's kind of like a cattle baron, or oil tycoon, except they own and control lots of iron mines and such."
Player A: "Oh, oh, ok, yeah that sounds good. I'm pretending to be an ironlord!"

Sometime Later, the party is trying to wheel and deal in a trade city to secure something plot relevant. This time the player is trying to pretend he has a bit more clout than he actually does.

Player A: "Yeah...uh, I'll tell them I'm an ironlord, like last time. And...what do you think guys? Maybe that we want to pay off the...uhh...thieves' guild to stop raiding the caravans to place-place?"
Player B: "That sounds pretty good. We could use the signet ring we got from that badguy, and perhaps throw in some gold or something to make it look right?"
Player A: "Yeah, how about that silver statue we got from the orcs?"
GM: "That might work."
Player A: "Ok, well, I'll tell him I am an ironlord from the south, and...uhhh, show him my signet ring...but not like in his face or anything weird like that..."
GM: "You mean casually make sure it's noticeable."
Player A: "Yeah, that. Ok, and...uhhh...I'll sit the silver statue on the table and say it's...a gift or something...for good will, maybe?"
GM: "Sounds pretty good. Gimme a Bluff check to see if he buys it. The signet ring helps you out a bit so I'm going to drop a +2 bonus on your check. Then I need a Diplomacy roll, and the gift also helps with that a bit, 'cause it makes you seem more important and it's a good offer."
Player A: "Awesome, here goes!" *rolls a 23 and a 25*
GM: "Ok, the man looks at you while running his finger around the edge of his wine glass with one hand, and stroking the hair of one of his servant girls with the other. You seem to be a man of wealth, he says. I like that. But why should I give the order to hold up on the raids against the southern caravans, merely because you ask? Perhaps you have something that could make it worth my while? he suggests. You're pretty sure that he would probably call off the raids if you were to give him some sort of cut under the table. Paying him off. You know the raids cost him as well if they fail, and a sure thing is a better deal."
Player A: "Hmmm...so...can I haggle?"
GM: "Of course."
Player A: "Um, how about 10 gold per month?"
GM: "You would know that he's been stealing easily a hundred times that each week. Ideally he'd probably want half as much. He might settle for lower, but 10 gp would probably just irritate him or at best be found as an amusing jest before your real offer."
Player A: "Um, ok, then maybe 200?"
GM: "Let's say that every 100 gp you want to lower it by, the Diplomacy DC increases by +2. However, you might be able to sense his motives to get an idea as to how low he would go."
Player A: "Hmmm, okay, well I'm going to try that." *rolls Sense Motive vs the Merchant Lord's bluff, and rolls a 12.*
GM: "Doug, your character is standing right next to Sam's. You can roll a Sense Motive as well."
Player B: *rolls Sense Motive and gets a 32*
GM: "Very nice roll. While Sam's character can't see past the merchant's poker face, you could advise him. You're pretty sure that, given the cost of actually fencing the stolen goods, he'd probably accept around 350 and call it even."
Player A: "Well Mr. Merchant Lord, I think you...are...ummm, a man of great...umm...what's that word for clever with deals or something?"
GM: "Uhh...savvy?"
Player A: "Yeah, that. I think you're a real savvy guy. You understand the..um, value of money. How does 300 gold sound?"
GM: "He smirks, amused by the fact you didn't begin with a pitiful amount. He suggests No I don't think so, it is too little. 450. he says, trying to haggle you up. However, with Doug's character advising you, you are confident he will accept lower and is just testing the waters."
Player A: "Hmmm, well I have to make some profit. Or else I might as well not ship stuff at all, right? So then we...both don't make money, right? Uhhh...that sounded good, right?"
GM: "Oh yes, keep going."
Player A: "So...let's do it 350 for you to ignore the caravans from Ravenport, and make sure they're safe in your lands, and we both make good."
GM: "Hmmm, I hadn't thought about suggesting he protect them in his lands. I guess that makes sense, because if he's not raiding them and you're not shipping them, he makes no money. Good plan! He says you are a shrewd businessman, but one who knows the value of a good deal. Very well, your trade shall go unhindered as long as I get my cut. I'll throw in an extra 50 XP per level for you guys, since you went a bit above and beyond."
Players: "Awesome!"

Much later...

Player A: "Look my good knight, we're are the heroes from Ravenport, and the ones who ended the raids on the trade caravans a month ago. You must let us pass, because we must reach Daggerdale in time to intercept the Duke before he is crowned the new Reagent of the land, and inform the people that her ladyship is still alive and on her way from Watercrest."
Player B: "............"
GM: Just smiles.

Minor Creation. Unliving vegetable matter (no I'm not talking corn zombies here as much fun as that could be), we want crop dust. Lots of it, inside the tower. Then use Spark.

You know what scratch that -- hire a level 1 flunky wizard as an apprentice and have him cast spark on the dust.

Have you ever seen a dust explosion? Nasty stuff, don't be near it. Oh and write a letter to your apprentice's parents when you are done -- it makes you seem like not such a bad guy when you use those little touches.

If you're a character whose first priority was personal potency, you weren't paladin material to begin with, so the mechanics of paladin falling are irrelevant. If you first priority is anything other than personal potency, all the prospect of losing your paladin powers does is raise how seductively evil has to act to successfully appeal to your other priorities.

The paladin stands in the jail cell. He pulls and snarls at the chains that bind him to the wall, knowing that even now, above him, the headsman is preparing the block. Not for him, but for another - an innocent he swore to protect. And here he was, down here, unable to assist.

Quietly, seductively, a voice whispers into his ear. "Give it up," it says. "It's so easy. Give in to me. Forsake your vows and swear off your god, and I will give you strength one hundred fold. You can save that precious boy above."

He sees it. Visions flash by his eyes - he sees himself yanking the chains off the wall. Storming up the steps and freeing the boy, escaping this jail. Or better yet, casting down the corrupt judges that put him in here, and implementing a new system of justice and mercy. No more headsman's block. No more whips.

The paladin raises his head and tilts it to the side to face the devil calmly, before replying:

"No, see, if I did that, I'd fall, and I'd basically lose all my class abilities. I mean, it would be just weaknesses all over the place, I'd be pretty useless. Look your deal is nice and all but the mechanics are pretty clear that taking you on your offer would just make me weaker."

Lincoln Hills wrote:

(Anybody else find it odd that there's no prestige class on the Chaotic Good end of the spectrum that welcomes Paladins who fell into chaos rather than evil? Not that I'm advocating more prestige classes! Because I'm not.)

I don't. I really really extremely dislike the concept of Chaotic Good Paladins. (it's that whole Paladin powers without restriction that kind of bites my craw) It's a smack in the face of players who go the mile to run good Lawful Good Paladins to award players for failing to hold the line on both sides of the alignment.

I disagree with this. As a general rule, I'm fine with LG, NG, and CG Paladins. I feel that players should go the effort to run an LG because they want to, not because it's the only way to run a Paladin. Plus, I have a hard time buying why only Lawful deities would want Paladins. I don't see a logical reason why an NG or CG version wouldn't exist. It makes no sense to me.

I feel the same about Anti-Paladins.

Most of the classes are pretty good, there are some exceptions. Monks should simply be given what they basically have: a Full BAB, TWF, and double slice with unarmed strikes and monk weapons.

Rogues should be given actual precision, as well as precision-based damage, and I think skills need a few more neat tricks, akin to the skill tricks of 3.5. I also think the rogue should be able to pick a second good save. The rogue talents are a little weak, in general, and some of them don't make much sense.

Fighters should have good will saves and a few more snazzy moves based on what weapon they picked.

I would like to see a higher-level version of Prestidigitation. I love that spell.

I used to yell about Paizo making Monster Vault-style tokens a few months ago. Heck, I even made a thread about it. Figures.

You know what? Screw you, tokens. You fail. You fail at life itself. You're unbalanced and irrelevant, like a Commner next to a GodWizard. Pawns are GodWizards. I want Pawns. I want Paizo to make lots of Pawns. Pawns good, even better than Prawns or Paws.

Pawns. Me wants me Pawnsies.

hatred

No. Just no.

There is no common ground between us, and no way to even attempt discussion.

Screw Sun Tzu or Hannibal, if we're going for figures from the past, I'm going for Darth Vader.

Every spell IS a different weapon. You have to configure the magical energy in a completely different way. You can't break a HE round down and turn it into a WP round in the middle of combat. When you run out of the little bombs, you can't just make the big ones smaller.

The sorcerer has a whole case of C4. He can mold it into whatever he wants to as the situation develops, but it only has so many different uses. Once you don't have enough C4 to make the big bangs, you have to settle for the little ones.

That Seoni's chest isn't magically augmented.

I will never understand why some people insist that monsters and PC's should follow the same rules.

And I will never understand why some people can't understand that. *shrug*

Urizen wrote:

And Hook Mountain Massacre wasn't adult themed?

Paizo are not required to adhere to the terms of that license to publish Pathfinder branded items. This is because the choice of how close to the wind they want to sail is solely in their hands. They can't allow other people wanting to use the Pathfinder logo the same level of freedom.

I don't disagree with you; it is their license and product that they can deem to do as fit if companies may wish to be compatible with it and thus comply accordingly. They reserve the right to be the curator of the standards they want to protect the integrity of the brand and to ensure that it does not become tarnished. Product identity. I get it.

Saying that, I'm merely pointing out the irony.

Orc rape and gratuitous violence is alright, but some succubus showing a little skin isn't? It's as silly as the whole farcical media brouhaha over the Janet Jackson nipple slip during Super Bowl halftimes, but during prime-time television viewing, we can expect people being tortured and killed in various manners of violence - and apparently that's okay.

And before anyone wants to fire back with some argumentum ad hominem or a Chewbacca defense (or point out that what is said textually is different from what is shown visually), it is an observable concession that Paizo takes more of a liberal position with regard to their politics (mind you, that is more of a reflection on the staff who speaks up versus the company in general, so I'm aware of the distinction) and in their manner of moderation in comparison to other RPG social community bulletin boards that caters to similar audiences.

I sincerely doubt that the boys from SGG was going to release a product that went all F.A.T.A.L. on us. If anything; all this (undue?) attention to the project will probably spur more attention to see what the fuss was about and clamor for pieces of the original product to be released w/o the Pathfinder Compatibility License -- a free web enhancement if it could be called. Hey, controversy creates $ale$, right? If that's the case, it couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys. :)

I'm not changing my buying habits (note the subscriber status) or decrying 'Paizo iz ebil' or anything; I'm not one of those trolls who seem to come here purely for the detraction of threadcrapping on PF's 'brokenedness' w/o offering a solution or their own product to counter it and put their money where their mouths are. I'm simply stating my opinion on what I view to be an inconsistency. Demonstrate some practices to back up those enforced standards. C'est la vie.

P.S. It does make me wonder when we see the hardcover anniversary edition of ROTR, will that section in the AP be omitted or toned down -or- will it be retained in its original scope of the story arc?

P.P.S. And since Owen's a good guy, this is all I'm going to say on the topic.