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

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,082 posts. 18 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 38 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,082 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

Michael Brock wrote:
I understand that some people want to use all of the options.

Fixed that for you :-)

I know that Mike knows the following, I just though it was worth explicitly pointing out.

Many of us believe that Purple is exactly 100% wrong, that PFS has TOO MANY options, that far more should be disallowed.

Pleasing all of us is a literally impossible job. We want different and opposing things. Mike does an excellent job of trying to keep us all reasonably happy.

Silver Crusade ****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aid another is not an acceptable use of a 7th level characters action. It is not contributing meaningfully to the fight.

I totally agree with your main point, but the pedant in me has to point out that aid another CAN be an effective contribution if you build for it. Handing out +8 is a lot different than handing out a +2 :-).

Silver Crusade ****

Michael Eshleman wrote:


I'd also advocate for a campaign mode-only PFS sanction of Wrath of the Righteous. I think that the main challenge would be constructing the chronicle sheets. I haven't read the AP, so I'm not sure how much mythic treasure there is and how much would/should be added to the chronicle sheets, or what special boons might be added.

I really, really, really do not want anything mythic leaking into the regular campaign (the little that has leaked is already too much IMO). Which means that the chronicle sheets would have to be very boring or I (and at least some others I know) would be unhappy. And I expect the really bland sheets that would make me happy would make many of the receivers unhappy.

probably more work and trouble than its worth.

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:


Now, imagine what an animal could do with a rank of Appraise...

The good news is they could figure out the value of an item.

The bad news is that the feline/human or canid/human value translation table hasn't been written. and items only have 2 values "MINE" or "useless"

Kinda depends on animal

Cat: "hmm. Makes me look pretty AND my person is looking at it. MINE"
Dog : " smelly and I can roll around in it. MINE"
Raven : " Shiney. MINE"

Silver Crusade ****

N N 959 wrote:
. If you're looking for codified benefits from a 3 INT, you're not going to find them.

In addition to the benefits you've pointed out, there are some very major codified benefits

1) 3 extra tricks per point of Int
2) access to lots of feats when Int reaches 3. Note that there is a little bit of table variation in what feats are allowed.

Getting to Int 3 is generally a VERY good idea

Silver Crusade ****

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tuna Slaad wrote:

It comes down to this, campaign leadership, Mike and John, have ruled what is in the best interest of the campaign. This is why we have professional leadership.

You asked and they confirmed the decision in the best interest of the campaign.

Um, are you saying that we should never ask them to revisit their decisions, that we should never offer alternatives, that we should never state that we disagree with their decisions?

This thread consist of people, quite respectfully, asking them to change their ruling. I think that is a fine and good thing.

They're definitely competent professionals who have the best interest of the campaign at heart (the internet being what it is I'll explicitly point out that I am quite sincere when I say that). That doesn't mean that every decision they make is correct and most certainly does not mean that we should just quietly sit here if we see things differently than they do.

Silver Crusade ****

Fomsie wrote:


While we would all love to think that everyone would follow their "word of honor" in such cases, past experience has shown that people do not.

So what? How would they benefit?

Somebody decides to take what was originally a wizard and become a mystic Theurge. Who cares?

And do we really expect there to be a mad rush of this?

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:


The only reason it has no in-world reason is that the player has not chosen to assign one.
...

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but your post is coming very close to saying "if you're not willing to play the way I do then its your problem"

Unlike some prestige classes, things like Mystic Theurge and Arcane Trickster have no in world presence. All they are to me is a set of abilities.

Heck, my Arcane Trickster wannabe was actually a Divine Trickster. He had cleric levels only.

I am now in the position where I can no longer build several characters in the direction I'd intended. Even with a rebuild they'll be less effective than they would have been if I built them for their new role.

RP wise, my Mystic Theurge wannabe really was a cleric/wizard, blending the two roles. She is so much a wizard/cleric that I'm very likely to NOT retrain her and just live with my suboptimal build (its not as if a suboptimal wizard sucks)

But surely you can understand why I'm now mildly irked that I can no longer play the character I intended to? I didn't want this particular "opportunity".

I believe that very liberal rebuilds should be offered more readily than they are. I really don't see the downsides of it. I don't care if somebody rebuilds their barbarian claiming that it was totally built around arcane strike.

But Mike et. al. disagree for what are, obviously, to them good reasons. Its their call to make.

But don't expect those of us negatively affected by the change to like it and to not be at least mildly irked. Please don't tell me its a challenge that I should relish.

Silver Crusade

Unfortunately, given that skalds explicitly have synergy with barbarians the conclusion has to be that they don't have it with bards.

Oh well, guess I go with a bard/oracle/sorcerer. It will actually be fairly obscene at level 3 :-).

Silver Crusade

BretI wrote:
Skald to bard and back should give Synergy

Do you happen to have a cite for that? I looked but couldn't find anything.

BretI wrote:

The good news is they added Familiar Folio to Additional Resources.

Excellent. Missed that.

I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to or scared of some of the characters this enables.

Well, time to go give Paizo some more of my money

Silver Crusade

I'm pretty sure the answer to the following is no, but thought I'd check.

Answer has to be PFS legal, unfortunately.

I have a second level Lotus Geisha bard that I'd like to retrain to a duettist (I am assuming Duettist will soon be legal and am planning ahead).

I am doing this for RP reasons and my end game absolutely HAS to be a Duettist bard. I don't care whether or not this is a suboptimal choice.

Unfortunately, to retrain an archetype is so expensive that I can't afford it. Unless one of the following is legal my best, slightly absurd but acceptable, option is to retrain those levels into oracle/sorcerer and then retrain them back into a Duettist bard

Can I do either of the following:

Retrain a bard archetype to a different bard archetype by using the retrain a class rules? Ideally with a class having synergy with itself? Obviously I'd have to retrain both levels simultaneously.

Get class synergy when retraining a bard into a skald and then a skald into a bard ? Seems a little less contrived than the oracle/sorcerer route.

Silver Crusade ****

Robert Hetherington wrote:


I think a good general answer here would help guide individual policy.

Allow rebuilds more freely.

In this particular case, I'd allow something like one rebuild per campaign, that must be taken the first time the character gains a chronicle on 2/19 or later.

Sure, that allows a little abuse but it seems a good compromise.

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:


There's a lot of room between "can't accept all solutions" (which is what I was responding to) and "auto succeed". You know, like letting them sub in Acrobatics for CMB on a chandelier-trip. ;)
Although, I am curious why you imposed a penalty on the check. What was that for?

I had misinterpreted you as saying that you'd accept almost all creative solutions. It sounds like our positions are actually quite close.

As to why the penalty, the numbers are on different scales. Acrobatics will generally be significantly higher than CMB. I though I was giving the player enough of an advantage for creativity in basically allowing him to get through the entire room so I didn't also want to make it easy. It also felt difficult.

In my experience, players are happy with highish DCs for difficult things. They feel more excited when they succeed, and they LOVE it when their character blows through the difficult DC because they were optimized that way.

Quote:


I understand your reaction to this one, but think about it for a moment: yeah, the cat can't talk
...

Like, maybe with a minute or more of interaction, by using the familiar as the "face", you can improve the lion's attitude per the Diplomacy rules (perhaps with a penalty if the familiar doesn't have Speak With Master yet), and then if that succeeds, allow either a Diplomacy (request) or Handle Animal (push) to get the lion to do something.

If it had been presented to me in those terms I might well have allowed it. But I wasn't going to let the cat talk :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
The GM can't accept ALL solutions.

Why the heck not? Do we want to make memorable games, or do we want our games to be the same string of full-attacks and scripted skill checks as the last 17 sessions?

Because some players are either totally off the wall or push things way too hard.

Its not about keeping things challenging. Its about keeping things fair.

I was typing up some examples and I realized that they arguably fall into the second category (Pathfinder has rules).

Pathfinder has a quite flexible skill question. Many of the creative solutions players come up with can be best handled by applying a skill (the CRB even recommends this). So, my answer to a great many creative solutions is to ask the player what skill he thinks appropriate and then make my best determination as to skill and DC, inform the player, and if they still wish to proceed have the player roll the dice.

So, I've let characters swing from chandeliers into the bad guy to knock him prone. Acrobatic check at a minus instead of a CMB check. I'm not going to let that auto succeed no matter how "cool" it is.

With that caveat, I'll give a couple of examples I've rejected:

"A player wanted their cat familiar to talk to the lion and convince it to turn on its owner. Without their cat having speak to animals of its own kind"

"Above chandelier example but character had no acrobatics skill and was wearing heavy armor".

Examples of things I've allowed without a roll :
"I throw food at the swarm and back away"
"I let the swarm cover me and then smash the alchemists fire on myself so we BOTH take the D6 damage"
"Players hid the McGuffin well enough that the bad guys wouldn't have found it, thereby avoiding the final battle. I gave the players the choice of auto succeeding and ending the scenario without the battle or my arbitrarily screwing them over and having the battle occur (with full knowledge that if the battle occurred it was for real)"

Quote:


My wife once solo'd a potentially very difficult encounter because she was playing an archer and she figured out that the statue only animated if you were within 30 feet of it.

Actually, I allowed exactly that solution when I GMed that scenario (assuming we're thinking of the same one).

Silver Crusade ****

Oykiv wrote:

But in this case we are having urges to kill in thoughts, and in actions. The character wants to join the Society to find a social acceptable way to continue killing.

There is a fair bit of fiction revolving around characters (often vampires or other supernatural types) who HAVE to kill but choose to target socially acceptable victims, confine themselves to animals, etc.

I even played what was basically a vampire in a D&D like game. That game didn't have alignments but the character certainly saw herself as a mostly good person and I think her companions would have agreed

So I don't think this character type is necessarily evil.

That said, PFS is a poor venue for exploring such a character. It can be done but only by really toning down the blood lust and probably by keeping the back story quite secret.

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:

When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).

I agree in principle and try to reward creativity wherever possible but it isn't that simple.

The main problem arises when the GM and the player see the creative solution differently. Players A solution may seem hackneyed or totally over the top to GM B. The GM can't accept ALL solutions.

The other problem comes when the player comes up with a creative example that is actually covered by the rules. A classic example that I've seen in play is the "throw sand in the eyes" trick. That is pretty clearly a dirty trick maneuver in Pathfinder. So, when the creative player tries this I pretty much have to explain to them that this is covered by the rules and their character can try but its likely a poorish idea.

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:

where did I insult you? please, elaborate.

"you can at least PRETEND to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, for the sake of role play"

If you did not intend that as an insult then you really need to work on your communication skills.

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:

"I still don't think he's a god" is an annoying slap to the face. you can at least PRETEND to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, for the sake of role play.

You are now, for the first time in this discussion, seriously annoying me.

I take the word of the Creative Director, the man who literally is in charge of what is and is not official lore, that it is very widely accepted that Razmir is not a God and you insult me.

And you fail to accept even the possibility that the situation isn't clear cut.

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:

did you not read john compton's post?

I'll take your word for it that is John. But John posting in 2012 when either not a Paizo employee or deliberately not posting as an employee does NOT trump James in 2014.

Silver Crusade ****

David Bowles wrote:
I still don't see how running CORE is any different than running regular mode, since they aren't changing the scenarios. I'll run it, but I don't see why I'd ever play it. I looking forward to the TPKs in season 4+, personally. I'm not giving people a "CORE break" on enemy tactics. All hail the King of Storval Stairs.

Well, if you play hard mode then you really can't complain when the players play hard mode back and half the table are druids with Animal Companions.

Personally, I think the GMs should run Core a little easier. Not play softball, but at least don't play hardball.

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:


this is the problem I have with metagaming. as players, we all know it's fake. as CHARACTERS, there's no reason for ANYONE to know razmir is a fraud. suspect? maybe. but KNOW? not possible.

You are stating lots of opinions as if they are fact.

Forgive me if I trust James Jacobs opinion a lot more than yours. On matters like this his opinion IS, essentially, fact.

James Jacobs

Clearly some knowledge check or other is enough for a character to know. Expect extreme table variation on which knowledge and how high the DC. But that variation is (or should be) up to the GM, not you.

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:


this is a big part of it for me. as player, we all know razmir is bogus. as characters, hardly anyone should.

According to James Jacobs that isn't true. In fact, IIRC he used exactly the Scientology analogy. Pretty much everybody thinks it is a scam.

But therein lies one of the problems. Tables and players are going to vary in how obvious it is that Razmir is a fraud and it is the GM who decides, not you.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm not calling someone a dim bulb when i prep a daylight to cast on them*.

...

* ok so i've done that with a light spell when the fighter finally had an idea...

Love it.

But may I recommend ghost sound in future? Raspberries, cheers, trumpet fanfares, etc are all a cantrip away :-)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
melferburque wrote:


.

sure, by RAW you get a check. but why? why does it matter? why do you care? why does everything have to be broken down to pure mechanics? why not just let something insignificant slide by as role play flavour? why would you even bother making that check? do you roll perception on every PC and NPC you meet to see if they are what they say they are? if so, those must be some absolutely riveting sessions. if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, just call it a duck.

I really don't care about "your experience" and what you think is cheating. my character is legal, I clear it with the GM before I play, and it's been audited several times. trust me, I'm pulling off some serious shenanigans here, I made damn sure it was legal.

why do you worry about what other players are doing? unless you're the GM, unusual game mechanics are no...

First, you're conflating me with others. While I admit to having some intellectual curiosity as to how you pulled it off I've never said that you should tell me. I'm not talking about your use of unusual mechanics.

Second, part of the GMs responsibility is to tell me what the character perceives of the world. I shouldn't have to ask questions.

I've already explained why I care about you lying to me when you "detect evil".

Most of the time I don't really care if you lie about your race. But it does slightly irk me when I find out that I wasn't informed of something that my character would know as it interferes with my immersion in the world. And, as others have pointed out, on rare occasions it can cause me to waste resources.

It also slightly bugs me that you're not letting me in the joke. Feels selfish and mean spirited of you. You're having fun by fooling me. Amazingly, I don't necessarily like that. Assuming, of course, that I find out :-)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
melferburque wrote:


and if I were playing with brand new players who had no idea why "paladin of razmir" makes no sense, I would afford them the same warning.

given that he's a GM blob starting at level 3, and I tend to roleplay the razmir stuff pretty thick, I doubt this will be a problem. he's not lawful good and his definition of "evil" is "enemy of razmir"... he also can legitimately detect evil if required, but it burns a 1st level spell slot.

I think that you're now being inconsistent. When you play your "cleric of Razmir" I'm supposed to treat you like a cleric who can heal and stuff.

But when you play your "paladin of Razmir" I'm supposed to know to ignore your "detect evils". At least some of the time.

How am I supposed to know the difference?

And what about when I'm playing a character who does NOT have the knowledge about Razmir that I do? Is he expected to be deceived? Or am I expected to metagame?

I get the impression that you're actually significantly overstating things here and, at the table, I'd find things less objectionable or be completely OK with it.

But I stand by my main point. Unless you're very careful, delusional characters that the players don't know about can cause problems and there is the strong possibility that some of your fun is coming at the expense of other people's fun

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:
pauljathome wrote:


Your secrets may not be as safe as you think they are.

I have a +18 disguise to appear human and am wearing a mask. even if you told me I wasn't human, I wouldn't believe you. also, what reasoning would you have to even make that check? I say I'm human, I appear human. unless I bleed on you or something, there's no reason anyone should ever doubt my claims to bother with such a check. and good luck matching my bluff check with your sense motive.

RAW I get a check when interacting with you. Your mask (unless its some magical item I'm unaware of) may (emphasis on may) provide a small circumstance bonus.

Not sure what level you're at, but +18 really isn't that impressive. I've seen level 1 characters with a +17 perception.

In my experience, when a player is keeping secrets it is very often more effective than it should be because the rules aren't being followed. Either the GM is helping or the player is making incorrect assumptions or liberal rules interpretations.

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:


why do you need to know his "smites" are actually just buffed power attacks, and his "detect evil" is delusional projection and nothing else?

Here I think you're going too far.

If I'm sitting at a table and I hear a player say "I detect magic (or evil, or poison, or whatever)" and the GM (who is presumably in on the joke) says "you detect nothing" then you've essentially given my character false information and robbed me of the chance to get that information (I'm not going to waste table time verifying what you've been told).

I play some delusional characters (one of my clerics is convinced he knows EVERYTHING about the undead but he has no knowledge religion) but I tell the players up front to ignore some of what they say.

Silver Crusade

melferburque wrote:


am I also a jerk for saying I'm human, when I'm actually vishkanya with the subtle appearance alternate race trait and wearing full on razmiri regalia to boot?

You're not being a jerk but you ARE potentially breaking the rules. Its a disguise check to appear as a different race. It is quite possible that my character would notice something. I imagine you've got your disguise quite high but my perception may also be rather high.

And clearly the GM HAS to know. And GMs being the overworked harried individuals they are telling them at the beginning of the session may not be sufficient.

Your secrets may not be as safe as you think they are.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Banner of the ancient kings is so good its arguably broken. Even if you assume that it MUST be used in 2 hands (which I believe to be the correct interpretation) it works fine for caster and support bards

Silver Crusade ****

Nok Gaan wrote:

Copycat is simply a weaker version of mirror image. That makes it a weaker version of a 2nd level spell and really shouldn't count as a prerequisite.

I absolutely agree. When SKR asked his "Teach by questioning" as referenced above my answer was "Well, it is OBVIOUSLY significantly less powerful and hence only a 1st level spell". I found that particular rhetorical style particularly grating in this case.

But his meaning was crystal clear. Until the PTB reverse themselves the rules are what they are.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
pauljathome wrote:


So, you don't like my definition. You claim core healers aren't viable. What is your definition of viable?
Having healing for a party member equal to or greater than the DPR of the opposing side.

By that definition, I agree that healers aren't viable.

Needless to say, I find that definition absurd. I don't have to stop ALL damage, just enough damage so my side can defeat the other side

Silver Crusade ****

andreww wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Also please note that a healer does a LOT more than just heal hit points. Condition removal is also an important part of their job.
I think this is probably where the disconnect arises. I would expect most clerics, even those focused on debuffs, control, summoning or melee, to have a range of condition removal spells available because they are so useful. Similarly with something like Breath of Life. I have multiple oracles, none of them are healers, all of them eventually pick up Remove Fear/Sickness/Paralysis and depending on available spells known Blindness, Disease and/or Curse. With the spirit guide archetype they all can gain access to restoration, neutralise poison and breath of life if I think they will be needed. None of them is a healer, one of them even has the inflict line to underscore the point (and to use the Lunar touch of madness ability).

Fair enough. I've seen and played clerics who almost never cast condition removal spells in battle because they are so combat focussed (conceptually, they're basically warpriests).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be an argument that, RAW, nothing in Pathfinder says you can't play a character after he dies :-)

Silver Crusade ****

andreww wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
This is flat out false. You can build a quite viable Core only healer.
What people consider viable varies by individual and by experience. I have run a fair few 7-11's recently and looking through them I am just not seeing how 6d6 or even 8d6 channel was likely to have kept anyone up in a fight.

At level 9+ breath of life alone makes a cleric extremely viable. Sure, a combat cleric can have one as well but the healing cleric probably has at least 1 more memorized or available.

At level 7 or 8 6d6 isn't to be sneezed at, especially against enemy AoEs. Its not just the front liners that you are keeping up.

I agree that the cure x wounds spell aren't great but even those sometimes save lives

Silver Crusade ****

andreww wrote:
Given that core lacks most early entry tricks I don't expect to see any eldritch knights, arcane tricksters or mystic theurges as they are painful to play without them.

There are still some early entry tricks.

My planned mystic theurge will be wizard 3/cleric 1 when he goes in. So I essentially lose just 1 level as a wizard and some MAD which is a quite acceptable trade off (probably both ways as I expect this to be neither stronger OR weaker).

Silver Crusade ****

Undone wrote:
pauljathome wrote:


This is flat out false. You can build a quite viable Core only healer.

My definition of viable : not one character has died on my watch ( character currently level 10). Admittedly had the non core channeled revival feat to cover level 7 through 8.

By this definition the core barbarian is an extremely potent healer since no one dies if he kills them first.

So, you don't like my definition. You claim core healers aren't viable. What is your definition of viable?

I can't help notice that all the people defending dedicated healers are basing their claims on multilevel experience but nobody saying they aren't viable are actually supporting their position with evidence.

Also please note that a healer does a LOT more than just heal hit points. Condition removal is also an important part of their job.

Silver Crusade ****

Ragoz wrote:
Quote:
He doesn't need to be smoking a listed drug in the game. It could easily be an herb with no effect at all.
I'd be pretty disappointed if someone made a character such as this and wasn't using a listed drug with all the side effects. I feel like there's no reason to halfheartedly use the flavor of something but back down when the rules come into play.

The addiction rules are rather harsh.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is at least one other reason to at least consider being more open.

This game is insanely complicated sometimes, ESPECIALLY when you go for unusual characters. The more the other players know, the better chance they have in catching errors that you may make. Which I think is a good thing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Details aside, a high level wizard who gets to pick the terms of engagement is almost certain to kill just about any character (including the same wizard). There is NO vaguely reliable way to protect against a high level wizard who wants you dead and picks the timing of the battle.

Either kill his character first (invent some "in character" reason), expect to die, leave the campaign, or convince the GM/other player that this isn't the game you want to play.

Silver Crusade ****

Undone wrote:

There is no viable in combat healing in core besides the Heal spell. It's been discussed to death. Pathfinder doesn't support a true healy type in core.

This is flat out false. You can build a quite viable Core only healer.

My definition of viable : not one character has died on my watch ( character currently level 10). Admittedly had the non core channeled revival feat to cover level 7 through 8.

On another note, one reason that rogues, monks, etc become more viable is likely to be that Core scenarios will be easier due to a combination of picking earlier scenarios and GMs playing a little less hard ball

Silver Crusade ****

Jeff Merola wrote:
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
The swashbuckler is a melee class that is nearly immune to melee attacks. How am I the only one who sees the value in that?
Unless you have an attack bonus way higher than your opponent, they're not "nearly immune to melee attacks."

If you build your swashbuckler with a good AC the parry is even less effective since the opponent has to roll over your AC to hit.

It is probably best for the high strength swashbuckler (as always, the best way to build a "Dex based" class in pathfinder is to max out Str and treat Dex as a secondary or even tertiary stat).

It is very useful against touch attacks, mind.

Silver Crusade ****

LazarX wrote:


You don't have to love the Decemvirate that much or at all to fit in with the Grand Lodge, since you're not likely ever to meet them. Joining the Grand Lodge simply means that you are a Pathfinder who does not have loyalty or obligation to an outside faction.

That's not what the guide says. Goal : loyalty to the Decemvirate above All.

As written, it us NOT at all the default faction.

Silver Crusade ****

Velarrio Ileor the Faceless wrote:
It was a PFS session. The Paladin was unable to object because of a very important fact that made it legal.

When I sit down to a table with my paladin I tell everybody (in and out of character) that I do NOT want infernal healing, even to save my life.

I'd be seriously peeved (in and out of character) if that request was ignored. I'd be upset at the GM for allowing what I consider a jerk move and PVP.

It is NOT cute and amusing. Please don't do it

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:


So you believe that "adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline" is very important, but when those very laws are laid out in black and white in the class description, you'll set them aside in favor of your vague sensibilities of paladinhood? That doesn't sound much like "ironclad laws" to me.

I disagree that "don't commit an evil act" constitutes the entire "ironclad laws of morality" that they follow.

As I say, I believe a paladin is held to a higher standard. The part of the code in the rules text really does NOT hold them to a higher ethical standard. The flavor text is part if what defines a paladin as more than just a LG person

Silver Crusade ****

Dorothy Lindman wrote:


I've even run into a lawful good inquisitor of Damarak, the empyreal lord of lawful executions: no one blinked when he insisted on killing captured bad guys, because he listened to their defense, pronounced judgment on them, and dispatched them quickly without unnecessary pain.

I'd have a major problem with that. Lawful characters do NOT get to take the law into their own hands except under the most extreme of circumstances. In fact, I'd ding him on alignment if he did that. In general, of course, as always circumstances matter

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:

If so, then can you please point to the part of the code it's violating?

I won't speak for others, but I have always believed the flavor text is also very important in understanding paladins. And I'd claim that a character who is "to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline." would not throw an evil spell.

I'd also say that if 99% of good characters wouldn't do it for ethical reasons then a paladin CAN'T do it.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Helgason wrote:
I don't have problems with the Pathfinder part, but sometimes it's hard to figure out a faction motivation.

Yup. I generally found it easier with the old factions. After all, everybody comes from somewhere and making your character at least somewhat patriotic is usually pretty easy.

I miss the Shadow Lodge. It was always my default for characters that didn't fit other factions. Grand Lodge doesn't fit that bill well for me since too many of my characters don't trust the Decemvirate very much.

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:


So as long as your specific deity doesn't have any tenets more stringent than the default "don't commit evil acts", a PFS paladin can absolutely use IH without penalty.

Paladins are held to higher standards.

This thread is proof positive of my previous point :

Expect major table variation.

I'm pretty sure that we won't convince Jiggy and I'm pretty sure he won't convince me (I could be wrong on that, mind). Nobody is "wrong" on this. Its just that opinions on alignment, paladins, and what a PFS judge should do wrt alignment differ wildly.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phoenix1990 wrote:
So I have a paladin 2 sorcerer 2 from what I have got from this thread is that so long as I use the wand of infernal healing to heal a team mate I stay paladin, however if I use it to wake up BBEG and my team mates begin to "torture" him I then have to atone or have I missed the point somewhere along the line? Thank you for your time

Expect extreme table variation.

I'm in the camp that wouldn't allow a paladin to do this. GMs that I respect would have no problem with it.

But keep in mind your GM IS right at their table. They have the responsibility of deciding. You get to make your case but THEY decide. And you then have to accept their ruling graciously. If you can't live with that don't do it

Silver Crusade ****

Blasting/buffing/battle field control/debuffing all work very well to make a cooperative wizard

And then do NOT hyperoptimize. Do NOT take dazing for your blaster, do NOT dip a level of sorcerer, etc.

At low levels, reliable ways to spam magic missile can make you quite useful (especially when you hold your action to disrupt the enemy spell caster).

Or, since you're not hyper optimizing, spend some resources on other ways to contribute. Take a couple of levels of empiricist investigator and be an insane skill monkey as well.

1 to 50 of 1,082 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.