meatrace's page

I didn't use true strike because it was generally a waste of time...

what he said ^^^

I sure am glad they cleaned up the grappling rules and changed them so that everyone can understand them clearly.
Oh wait...

DocRoc wrote:

Quite a bit, but I really don't think it works "perfectly."

Vancian casting is not the enemy.

Sure it is. It's always been a stupid, cumbersome system. I just don't play casters enough to care, generally. When I want to achieve things without swinging a club around I play psions, because they're like casters that aren't a drag.

YAY Psionics!

The Paladin can agitate for Goodland to intervene. He can go questing within Eviland to alleviate the Peasant's suffering. He can set up grain caravans. He can work within the leeway of the law to help the peasantry .

Meanwhile meartace's party, by participating with the less savory elements perpetuates the evil elements of the land through tacit support rather than opposing it.

Not people I'd Adventure with.

Ooh, setting up grain caravans. That sounds like a heck of an adventure. I'd rather be fighting the evil in one form of another. Meanwhile MY party reappropriates funds from the evil nation to set about its downfall. Sounds more proactive.

Besides I assumed that it was implicit in the supposition that the "easy" way out is somehow not available i.e. trying to help the poor downtrodden mooks of evilland by traditional means. The paladin is welcome to try, by himself, while everyone else in the world seeks a more pragmatic means to the end. Even a NG character could give two squats about the law of Evilland and would set about its destruction, but the paladin, hamstrung by his adherence to a code, would rather see little done of note, or at least not participate meaningfully in the wrath these evil bastards deserve!

So, a new tangent.

Suppose a paladin grows up in the happy kingdom of Goodland. The king is just, the laws are fair, and everyone is Lawful Good.

Then he goes on a road trip to the neighboring kingdom of Evilland. Here there are horrible laws. Laws that allow murder and rape and theft and other vile acts. But everyone here follows the law to the letter, including the king and all the law officials. Zero corruption. Everything is exactly Lawful Evil.

The paladin sees the common folk suffering under these laws and the abuses of their daily lives. His compassionate heart goes out to them and he wants to end their suffering.

What can he do to save them?

And no, no cheap answer like "pack their bags and relocate them to Goodland - there are laws preventing emmigration out of Evilland and there are legally appointed border patrols will catch and kill them, all according to law, so he cannot even suggest or hint that they leave the country.

So what can the paladin do?

Probably nothing. This is when the rest of the party says "toodle-loo" and has a fun weekend of raping and pillaging before heading back to goodland to fence the goods, using that money to finance a war against evil land in the name of justice. The paladin just cries in a corner.

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

Yep, that's pretty much what I said too.

"Corrupt" by its very definition is unlawful. If the corrupt legal officials are following the law, then they are not corrupt at all.

Ah, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word corrupt (since it does imply law breaking). Unjust might have been a better choice.

Even if everything those in power are doing is legal, I don't think that (necessarily) makes opposing them unlawful, even opposing them violently, if their actions are unjust or actively harmful to those under their power. In my opinion Lawful vs. Chaotic isn't about always following the law as written or always opposing it, it's more nuanced than that.

It's hard to say, isn't it, without contradicting yourself...

"Unjust" also means "unlawful".

You're mostly right. Being Chaotic is not "always opposing" the law. But being Lawful is "always following the law as written" when the law is just and the lawmakers and enforcers are just too.

When the justice breaks down, either within the laws themselves or within the enforcement of the law, that's where the paladin gains ground on opposing the law rather than following it.

I'm sorry I have to jump back in here, and I hate to disagree with a tarrasque, but justice and law are two separate concepts, however often entwined they may be. Justice is really just society's word for people getting what they deserve, and in the above case (knight enslaver) he clearly does not. Someone killing him in a dark alley would indeed be Justice but nonetheless unlawful. There are tons of perfectly unjust laws in the real world and I imagine in a fantasy world as well. A paladin, I would argue, has nonetheless to follow those unjust laws or again he might as well be NG. In a situation where he must follow his conscience or his lord on which side does he err? What situation does that put him in with his god?

Let's examine for instance frontier law. Horse rustlin is punishable by hanging. That hardly seems a balanced equation and is, rightly so, thought now to be an injustice. Perfectly "lawful" though. Bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people in any system of laws or justice. Saying that the law provides justice is discounting the idea of LE or a LE state where injustice, inequity, cruelty and likely enslavement are written into the law.

But then you could always argue that the idea of Law isn't necessarily man-made law but rather a state of being, of discipline and determination, a code, and a Lawful character has no compunction to follow "laws" but rather to follow his own guidelines. Though, in the case of a paladin, I'd also argue that his guidelines are not necessarily arrived upon internally but dictated by a deity. This is the point of view I often take when playing lawful characters, that you simply have a personal code that informs your behavior and is separate from your conscience.

As someone who used to attend this show every year, I highly recommend it if you are in the area.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Yeah are you from WI too? I live in Madison myself and attended GenCon every year from 1996 to the last year in Milwaukee.

Hey Paizo! Bring big gaming back to Milwaukee! :P

How about an absolutely pointless but nonetheless epic death?

A few years ago, while playing in a 3.5 Dark Sun game (best game evar!) we finished up one leg of our epic adventure and after barely surviving the fight with the BBEG we are essentially treated to a "cinematic". The DM narrates the scene of the city almost falling to ruins before us as we all run down the streets to escape. He then randomly has someone roll a reflex save. The rogue fails...on a natural one. He is crushed by a wall. There's no reason for him to have died, we should have healed up but we just didn't think about it; we thought the adventure was OVER!!!

The Black Bard wrote:

Shameless self-promotion of my long standing use of a "point scale" for alignments, ranging 1-5, with 1 being the default value for "often", 2 for "usually", and 3 for "always". 0 or no entry for anything with a neutral component. Add to this that mortal creatures rarely ever exceed 3, and that 4 and 5 of any alignment could be considered by real world terms to be psychopathic. Outsiders usually start at 3, and progress further based on their interaction or lack therof with mortals/differing alignment creatures.

Red Dragon C3E3
Pit Fiend L4E4
Average Human N
Average Human Paladin L2G2
Goblin NE2

What you've done there, mathematically, is taken a two-dimensional alignment graph and turned it into a three-dimensional graph.

Interesting idea.

it's still just 2 dimensional, the alignments are just quantified now. like coordinates. someone pegged chaotic evil would be C5E5.

Me, I won't download it or buy it because I AM NOT IN THERE!

BIG OLD ANGRY TARRASQUE R O A R

I used to argue with a friend of mine (who now works for WotC on 4th ed and miniatures) that wizards should have made a colossal Tarrasque fig. I'd happily plop down 75 bucks for one of those, nicely sculpted!

So far my favorite trick in this thread was removing all SR from energy damage. I like that a lot, and it is very easy to rationalize.

But after that, I'm not sure what's next.

I think that might actually put them over as far as power level, though I do think this thought is on the right track. Honestly I'd like to see SR function more like DR rather than just a "spell AC" which means all or nothing. I know we already have energy resistance for that, and I know I'm not offering up any alternatives at this time, but I think the all or nothing philosophy of SR is the crux of the high level caster (of any ilk)'s problems and changing this mechanic would leave me much more open to other methods of spell mitigation (as was discussed at length by you in another thread).

I am a huge fan of the monk 2/psychic warrior N build, using the Tashalatora feat. Hits like three trucks tied together by loose twine.

Tashalatora? Please educate me.

I created a custom prestige class (that I unfortunately do not have on the computer with which I make this post or I would put it in spoiler) that merged what I thought where the overlapping points of monk and psywar and the cooler powers. Speed of Thought + Mental Leap + Up the Walls make for a very interesting monk. A monk with Psionic Lion's Charge can be pretty deadly as well. I called it Jade Fist as to work in my setting but it wasn't world specific. That monastic order was founded by Githzerai :O.

Technically, actually, standstill was core as it was in the OGL\SRD. It may no longer be core, but that would mean that psionics are also no longer core, which would be an absolutely terrible loss of one of the few well-balanced components of 3.5. :: worries ::

Ahh, a fellow psionics lover.

You have made a friend for life!

Also, monks rule! I don't know, I see their main problem is lack of BAB. I played a monk into epic levels and he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn compared to the orc barbar tank. When I created my own game world I had 3 monastic orders, one dedicated to the divine, one arcane, and one psionic. I believe that, dispite the feeling in 3.5 that monk was something you never wanted to multiclass with, the monk/caster prestige classes were usually the best way to go or at least the most fun.

I wish this idea was written into the core of the class but alas that would mean psionics as core which I fear even Paizo hasn't the testicular fortitude to follow through with.

meatrace wrote:

good idea bringing in debates from other threads *sigh*

Can I use this as an opportunity to mention once again that monks are total crap?

^_^

aww...I really like monks though. one of my favorite characters ever was a monk/psychic warrior named Auer. he moved at like freaking mach 5 and had an AC somewhere in the 50s. of course he was virtually useless in combat...BUT HE WAS FUN and nigh invincible.

i wouldn't say "total crap" i would say "an interesting idea but not good enough at any one thing to warrant playing unless for roleplay reasons and too differently flavored to rationally fit in a medieval fantasy world".

but uh...*ahem* spell failure chance you say? *scratches chin*

We're getting off topic here, folks. :)

Meatrace, I respect your right to your opinion. I'm not going to hold your nose to the grindstone and try to convince you. :)

And for the record, "what is a paladin?" is one of the oldest debates in the book. So's alignment discussions, one of which Jason shut down not a day ago. And so are fighter versus wizard. While it's nice to sit back and have some popcorn over it, could we do that in another thread? :) I went a little OT, myself, but this is taking it a bit far--I really am here for the stories!

Well the topic reads "paladins are lawful stupid" thus I'd argue that I'm one of the few on topic :P.

But I'm through here, do continue. *zips mouth*

meatrace wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

All this talk has almost convinced me to have my fighter in my local Legacy of Fire game go paladin. He worships Sarenrae already, but he's NG. Need to find some justification and motivation for an alignment shift. I don't want to give up my khopesh though...

meatrace wrote:

Montalve wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I agree with the title of this thread, not its contents.

I've been Pallyrolled.

well..

a paladin is whatever his player plays it :P

if its lawful stupid you then knows whose fault is

Everyone who has ever played a paladin?

Overlooked most of the thread, huh?

Here's the story referenced in the OP's quote:

** spoiler omitted **...

That story is an excellent example of a lawful stupid paladin. Instead of changing HIS ways, which has been shown to be utterly unpragmatic (is that a word?)and undoable without a morally questionable wizard running around cleaning up after his holier than thou self, he instead insists on locking up likely the only person between himself and harm. To his credit he stands by her at defense, but man that sounds like a LOUSY campaign to me.

That paladin is no friend to that wizard. IMO a decent person would have understood, found her actions revelatory, changed his ways as WELL as mentored the wizard and helped them redeem themselves. Instead he has her locked up: Lawful Stupid.

He did understand but had his duty. He forgave her but duty demanded he do what he must. That was not lawful stupid that was good role playing.

Sorry man but you just do not get the paladin at all

I think my problem is that I DO get the paladin. They're just not anyone I'd ever want to adventure with. Give it up! You won't convert me :P

Um, no?

To answer your small point, in OD&D, and 1e. Can't speak to 2e, skipped it all together.

There's a lot I like about 3x, frankly. My only beef is how the dynamic changed between fighters (and other "melee" types) and spell casters. 3x completely flipped the script. Old school casters were not mobile, took forever to cast and could easily be disrupted. Old school fighters were mobile, had the ability to do their job without having to "ready" or "delay". 3x fighters are walking in mud, whereas wizards can now cast intricate spells while tumbling, running around and avoiding most attempts to disrupt, all in a fraction of the time it used to take them to cast a second level spell.

And, meatrace, just for the record, if you don't like LG paladins, why are you playing D&D at all? Sounds like Exalted or something else is your game...

good idea bringing in debates from other threads *sigh*

I don't like LG paladins and personally only know one who does. Therefore I don't play one. Why does my tiny quibble with a single class in one game preclude me from playing it? You're arguing with the ENTIRE COMBAT SYSTEM of 3.x which I find pretty balanced personally. Nonetheless, neither a discussion of the dynamics of the paladin class nor that of previous rules editions really fits in this thread.

For the record, at least in my memory, in 2e a round was 10 seconds.

meatrace wrote:

I agree with the title of this thread, not its contents.

I've been Pallyrolled.

well..

a paladin is whatever his player plays it :P

if its lawful stupid you then knows whose fault is

Everyone who has ever played a paladin?

Just a small point but...when was a round a minute? I thought a round was previously 10 seconds (6 in a minute).

Either way, why are we having a 1st edition AD&D rules arguments in a PFRPG forum? :P

Houstonderek: just play 1e if you enjoy it so much more.

All these problems with scaling spells and metamagic would be gone if we just adopted the XPH psionics system to spell points.

*ducks thrown furniture*

I agree with the title of this thread, not its contents.
I've been Pallyrolled.

I'm not sure this is relevent. IME most spellcasers don't take these feats because they're just too situational and won't get used enough, so when you say "with the tools they have", well, they don't have these tools because they are reluctant to invest much (or any) of their character build into stuff they will rarely use.

Just my 2cp, but especially in the case of Wizards, what are they taking with those bonus feats?! IME magic item crafting feats are worthless and only manage to ensure that the casters are forever behind on XP because they have to make stuff for the whole party. 5th level Extend, 10th level empower, 15th level quicken has been the standard for wizards I've adventured with.

First off I'd like to say that...I use metamagic a lot as a caster. Not all of them, some are utter garbage, but I use Extend, Empower and Quicken regularly. That having been said, I don't see a problem with this though it does involve a lot of math which could potentially slow things down. Doesn't have to, just saying potentially, and I like that it makes Spellcraft more useful. Though I'd almost say this way of applying metamagic should be a 1 round casting time, being that it is that more involved, and not using a higher level slot is a pretty mondo use of a skill.

Really this reminds me of what the 3.5 (Players Guide to Faerun) Incantatrix could do, basically make an ungodly spellcraft check and add metamagic on the fly. Eventually they could even add them to Wands (though not quicken).

I also want to say that the poster who said Heighten shouldn't be a feat is right on.

Derek beat me to it, ya ya got em mixed up. I don't have 1e But I do have my 2e PHB handy

Cleric's: Teutonic knights, the knights templers and the Hopitalers. It also lists archbishop Turipn from the song of roland

Paladins: Roland and the 12 peers of Charleman,Sir lancealot, Sir Gawain and Sir Galahad

*sigh* I suppose it's pointless to argue with those who won't concede commonly known facts. The Paladin as we know it borrows concepts from both the holy orders of knights (Templars, Hospitaliers) as well as the 12 peers of Charlemagne. The term Paladin is often used to describe the Templars, and the peers of Charlemagne had no particular tie to any church whereas Templars clearly did. It's a mish mash. Next you'll be telling me that Sorcerers have utterly separate historical inspiration from that of Wizard or Warlock.

meatrace wrote:

The paladin is based off the crusaders.

No, the D&D paladin is specifically based on Ogier the Dane (Holger Danske) in the Poul Anderson novel Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Which is in turn based on the companions of Charlemagne who defended the Holy Roman Empire against the "saracen hordes". They are little more than particularly reputed knights known for their bravery and valor. This concept, mixed with the idea of healers (Hospitaliers) and knights specifically bound to the church (Templars) inspired Three Hearts and Three Lions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
and actually here's a pretty decent explanation of where we get the term and how it relates to both charlemagne and the crusades http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/cavalier/ThePaladin.html

But if we're talking about Gygax D&D, his vision of D&D is based off of the Lankhmar books (immoral thieves) the Conan stories (an amoral Cimmerian) and Elric (Law vs. Chaos) moreso than they are Poul Anderson's classic novel. The Paladin class still has clunky and often useless class features, and in fact should just be a Prestige Class it's so ultra specific and confining.

A crusader is pretty much a cleric, that is after all what they are based off of.

The paladin is based off the crusaders. I.E. the knights templar, hospitaliers, etc (and I could go into a whole diatribe about how they weren't particularly good, ethical, or wholesome in their beliefs and practices but that discussion is best left elsewhere).

Clerics too, to a lesser extent, but they are also largely based on greek/roman priests of which there were different churches for different deities which all coexisted in a pantheon. I'm just saying if you're using that as a point of leverage in this argument I think you'll fail since their inspiration is largely the same.

Cleric has always sort of been a funky third wheel though, they're a healer and a back-up fighter. Only in 3.x onward has the focus been on making healing really easy so they can do other stuff with their spell slots. Which is why I think they changed the armor/weapons in PFRPG.

I subscrube to the idea that the clerics are the clergy and paladins are the templars, to use a crusade-era holy roman empire analogy.

This is really getting away from the topic though. My opinion stands that, much like a wizard in a magicless world (but who actually plays that?) or a rogue in a world populated only by oozes and undead, a paladin in a scenario that isn't good vs. evil are like gimped fighters in combat. The new Paladin does a good job at minimizing this problem, but it is still there because the class as written is not very versatile. Some people think it's okay to have a SINGLE class stick out like a sore thumb in lack of versatility for the sake of tradition. I don't.

This will not deterr me from buying PFRPG the day of release however. Good job on the mechanical changes of the class!

See that's the point a few of you are missing. Being LG is so infused in what a paladin is it is like taking armor away from clerics or allowing a druids to use any weapon and wear plate mail.

You have many options on how you play LG , I can think of the many paladins I have played and none are Mr. lawful stupid.

They are not just holy champions for some do not serve gods .
They are the knights of honor, the defenders of the weak, the crusaders of virtue and all that is good and just. They are the embodiment of morality and the holy sword of justice. They are Paragons of good

Once you take them from LG you move them away from that path and they no longer deserve the name.

I AGREE WITH YOU. Now if only you even read my posts you would see we're on the same track. A LG Crusader would be called a Paladin, and would be IDENTICAL to what it is. A CN Crusader would be called, I dunno, Blackguard/Anti-Paladin, whatever. Your Paladin would not change. A Crusader by a different color would be named appropriately. Your sacred title is intact.

Saying that I should use a variant to do this sort of thing is like saying I need a variant cleric to control rather than turn. Yes, I understand that as it is now Cleric has that flexibility and Paladin does not, but I see no reason why that flexibility could not be written into the base rules. Paladins are still extremely inflexible as a class, in alignment in his personal code in spells and in class abilities. In the right fight or adventure or campaign they shine as bright as a thousand suns, but in the wrong one or even a slightly different one they flop like a flounder.

Much as the rules on sneak attack are being accomodated so the rogue feels utterly useless less often, so should the paladin.

To the person who made absurd suggestions as to wizards casting cleric spells or fighters casting spells etc for the sake of options, again, please read my posts. I said when it can be balanced over levels and between classes, more options is always better. I don't believe that a mirror image base class to paladin, let alone a host of alignment choices for a divinely inspired warrior who never compromises their beliefs, would unbalance the class, and would in fact put it on par with other still stronger and more versatile classes.

Montalve, once again you have missed my point. If they went with my idea it would IN NO WAY infringe upon anyone's fun playing a LG paladin, it would just be a choice. More options, as long as they are balanced across levels and between classes, always makes for a better game IMHO. The Paladin, as written, is far too restrictive for general use IMO. But I'm done ranting in this thread as it doesn't really matter.

meatrace wrote:

I don't have to be evil to dislike people who are jerks. I see no reason not to use an evil weapon to fight for good, or try to redeem the weapon through feats of heroism.

As it happens I usually play TN, CN or CG characters.

so... you say you would sell the evil weapon... yoursef being good... so it can later be again in the market and used agains you... (ok only in 1 on 3 of your cases, but it could be used to kill your other allies, and the allies besides the party)

interesting... not the smartest choice I would say... but any master knows it worth would use that against the party... they are basically arming their future enemies :P for a bit of gold...

really smart let me tell you.

an evil weapon serves one purpose... its not a person that becoem evil... its a weapon infused with evil so througly that it will corrupt or destroy anyone who uses it...

Boromir used your argument and sacrificed his life after discovering that the One Ring had corrupted him so throughly that he could not serve his people any more... "Let use against its master" was his saying... it didn't serve him well

Read what you actually quoted please. Did I say that I would sell it? No. I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth please.

That having been said, a non-aligned weapon, or a scroll of disintegrate, or non magical bow and arrows could just as easily be used to kill your party members by someone else so that point is moot.

Evil weapons have only one purpose? To corrupt those who wield it? What rules set are you playing with? Unless it is an intelligent item with a high ego I don't see this happening. You're just making yourself look silly now.

We're not talking about the One Ring, nor are we talking about LotR. We're talking about a +1 Unholy longsword for all you know, which would be a perfectly acceptable weapon for the CN rogue until something better comes along. I happen to think that the morally grey area is much more interesting than straight Paladin vs. BBEG struggles and those are the characters I play and the games I run.

My only point, if it was missed, is that in a game where one is playing such a morally grey (yet still heroic!) character, having a Paladin whis his inanely strict code of ethics puts a crimp in one's style.
EDIT: Furthermore, in a campaign where we're aligning with the Githzerai against invading Slaad (to pick any old non good vs. evil grudge) or working with the king to bring in the local Robin Hood type (CG) the paladin once again becomes a rather underpowered class compared to the fighter. The solution that I suggested was to make a class as malleable as the Cleric (and whose LG version is called a Paladin) so one has more options (which is always good) and so that in a nonstandard campaign setting all the classes would be of use to the PCs.

This is already a pretty packed topic, so I'll try to make my points brief in the hopes that those in charge listen.

You guys are doing a heckuva job with the pathfinder modules, keep that up, and I think that an annual compilation of any new feats, spells, magic items, etc that have been released in these would be interesting.

I admit I know little about the pathfinder setting, but a new region or continent with a new sourcebook every year ($20-$30) would be awesome and fit with the Pathfinder theme. I'd love to run the kind of campaign where the players are discovering a new world at the same time I am.

Beyond that: Psionics. Please. There's a dearth of third party psionics material, even if some of it is great (Hyperconscious).

R_Chance wrote:

meatrace wrote:

right and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.

that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.
treasure-hater!

I don't think you have to worry about a paladin joining your party... sounds more like you need to *really* worry about being on the wrong side of that smite evil thing :D

Lol, yeah, sounds like Ol' Meatrace will live about 2 rounds after meeting his first paladin.

Round 1: Paladin detects evil. Meatrace glows like the moon.
Round 2: Paladin smites Meatrace into oblivion.
Round 3: Tarrasque pouts that the paladin robbed the tarrasque of some good meaty snacking (pun intended).

I don't have to be evil to dislike people who are jerks. I see no reason not to use an evil weapon to fight for good, or try to redeem the weapon through feats of heroism.

As it happens I usually play TN, CN or CG characters.

Not kaeyoss but gonna field some of this

memorax wrote:

You know rumour has it that not ever Paladin has to be giving all their money away or not wanting to be rich because their do-gooders. not everyone wants to play the sterotypical Paladin in every game.

A paladin destroy evil, he does not sale it, any paladin would destroy it over saleing an evil item.

A paladin never spreads evil

memorax wrote:

In a certain context as your example of the evil sword yes break it. But otherwise unless my character has taken a vow of poverty he does want something tangibl besides being a hero and the goodwill of the people. As much as some DM and players deny it you do need a certai namount of money to buy stuff and pay for good and services.

Then do not sunder everything. If it's evil or may cause evil you destroy it damn the money.

right and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.

that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.
treasure-hater!

Two words: Dark Sun.

I like psionics in any setting, and I actually prefer the idea that they are few and far between. in Forgotten Realms for instance psionics is certainly a part of the world but it's a tiny fraction of the magic.

I freaking adore psionics, especially the XPH (but not the lousy complete psionic). Also there are some third party books like Hyperconscious really nail the feel and theme of psionics.

Yes psionics is more sci-fi,and the lore behind it (mind flayers for example) do play with the line between sci-fi, fantasy, and weird horror, I think it still has a very solid place in the canon of D&D.

If nothing else, and if at all plausable, I'd see about re-updating athas.org material to Pathfinder, working with those guys and getting the rights to Dark Sun :).

Ahh Psionics, my dark mistress.

Not only do I conceptually prefer Psionics to magic, but mechanically the XPH has IMHO the best magic system ever created. It's simple, it's versatile, it's elegant, it's powerful, it has drawbacks.

Whenever possible I play psionic characters. My best experience was in a Dark Sun campaign that ran a year and a half and we did every single Dark Sun module ever printed, including Draegoth Ascending, updated to 3.5 on the fly using Athas.org rules. It rocked. HARD. Best campaign I've ever played in. We even used the old "character trees" and out of the 3 characters 2 were psionic (a straight class Psion who hit lvl 21 before the end, and a Soulknife/Assassin) and the other was a feral halfling Ftr/Rgr/Invis Blade/Tempest XD.

I dearly wish there were a niche in the Pathfinder world/adventures for some of the old mind magic. Alas it seems Mind Flayers are copyrighted by WotC.

As for being jerks, well, that really depends on the player. I have often found that the only paladin jerks are usually jerks regardless of the class they are playing.

Do you know Bill too?

Sounds interesting. I don't think anyone's going to say it will be a powerful build at high levels because it won't. Sounds fun though.
I might consider going far enough in Sorc so you can go into Arcane Trickster.

Because then it would no longer be a paladin. The class has a history in the game, one that I find valuable to the narrative that makes up this shared experience. I could have opened it up, but then it would cease to be the class that many of us have been playing for 20 years.

Not really though, because if you want to play a LG paladin then that's what you'd get. One of my favorite issues of Dragon was the alternate paladin classes for just this reason, and because clearly my experience is different. You see I played a CN anti-paladin which was my first character ever, and as you can imagine what you remember from your childhood flavors your perception of the game. The game that I've been playing for only 12 years involves rolling your eyes when someone wants to play a Paladin because they will just be a jerk, it's written in the class!

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

meatrace wrote:

HOWEVER: I still wish that it would have been changed to a generic crusader class. Being LG is too restrictive both to the player and to a campaign, and at least in games that I play in the paladin will have large patches where he is virtually useless because his abilities are SOO specific and alignment based. Core book antipaladins is the best way to go.

My 2cp.

Well that's not a paladin then. To many people a Paladin is LG anything else is not really a paladin.

Exactly. The class wouldn't really fit other alignments. So I think we need variants whose abilities are tailored to the alignment and the core concepts behind them. A CG champion class would be all about freedom, liberation, courage/fortitude. A LE champion would be all about tyranny, suppression, striking fear into the heart of the enemy. CE would be all about violating, destroying, unmaking, ending.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Sure, mechanically Paladins are HUGELY less suck than they were in 3.x. However, they are still goody two shoes stuck up SOBs and if anyone tried to play one they'd find my knife in their back before the end of the first session. A less alignment restrictive class (even if it were "any good") would be much more accomodating to a wide swath of players. Clerics have rules built in which let them do radically different things depending on their alignment/deity and I don't quite know why this can't be worked into the Paladin class to make it more universal. *shrug*

@Matt
So if we're trying to be fair, why don't we implement a rule where all melee classes have to make a concentration check (based on their BAB) or their attack fails. Moreso their entire round of attacks fail. This check is made before the ACTUAL check (you know, attack roll) to see whether that attack succeeds.

This is what you want casters to go through. Casters, even at moderate levels with the right feats, are going to lose a fair percentage of their spell's power because of failing an SR check or a saving throw happening. And this is fine, it's part of the system. Casters have more chances for their spell to fail to do anything because the effects of their spells (especially at higher levels) tend to swing the battle in one fell swoop.

You want the mechanic to be on the table, fine it's on the table. Now that it's there I think most of the people in this thread tend to agree we can put it away because it's not needed.

That having been said I think the new Concentration mechanic that has been revealed is just FINE. Sure it's a little tougher than 3.x but we all knew that needed to happen. I just with that, overall, there were a better way to make arcane casters equally usefull from lvl 1-20 short of demolishing the entire game (read 4th edition).

stuff

I doubt it would work like this, but it wouldn't be a bad idea: the +paladin level to damage would just be for the use, but until the end of the encounter (or a reasonable amount of time) the +cha to hit would stick.

I definitely like the changes to the Paladin. A lot more fun options.
One of my main pieces of feedback on the beta is that Paladin still wasn't changed enough to not suck. HOWEVER: I still wish that it would have been changed to a generic crusader class. Being LG is too restrictive both to the player and to a campaign, and at least in games that I play in the paladin will have large patches where he is virtually useless because his abilities are SOO specific and alignment based. Core book antipaladins is the best way to go.

My 2cp.

Kuma wrote:

Lots of good stuff!

I'm impressed! Well said! And with a head cold, too...

What's even more impressive, your post was longer than most of mine!

You, sir, despite being a plump and juicy and mouth-watering bear, shall receive a temporary pass from tarrasque chomping. For now.

drool

I concurr! I think Kuma pretty succinctly summed up my feelings on this topic, point by point, and in an eloquent manner.

/3cheers

meatrace wrote:

Well okay, to play devil's advocate then, does that spell have to be a Wizard/Sorcerer spell? If I'm a Conjuration specialist can I choose healing spells?

I would definately say no.

Although be wording could be interpreted differently, I think it will be stretching it.

After all, the wizard learns spells from the wizard spell list as a general rule. If anything should deviate from this rule it should be stated clearly.

Also I think that "from his school" should be interpreted rather strictly. What is from his school? I my opinion it is the spells on the wizard spell list under the appropriate school.
Even though the clerics healing spells is Conjuration-magic, it isn't necessarily a part of the Conjuration School.

I completely agree with you good sir. However I also feel that the bonus spell should just be a spell slot that has to be taken up by a spell of your specialty, just like in 3.5. Clearly they will have to clarify this rule before the PF release though since it seems open to wide interpretation.

Another_Poet wrote:

Wow, really? That seems.... powerful.

I don't see how this would seem powerful

And I don't think it's that weird, either. After all, they're not really preparing that spell. It's always the same. You don't get to change it, ever.

To me, it seems that your dedication to your school gives you the insight to use a spell one time. It's always that spell, if you want to use it more than once (or however often you get to cast it), you need to have it in the book, but then again, you don't have to prepare it the way you prepare everything else - or you could change it.

So I'd say that you either get to choose a spell regardless of whether you know it or not (usually, you choose a spell that's good, anyway, and you might want to use it more often, so you learn it), or it's an extra spell slot you have to prepare from your book but can change each day.

Well okay, to play devil's advocate then, does that spell have to be a Wizard/Sorcerer spell? If I'm a Conjuration specialist can I choose healing spells?