I've been wanting to play a 'reluctant lycanthrope' for some time... Not to go all wolf over my enemies... but to have a bit of an 'edge'.
Prior to this I've been thinking Barbarian or Alchemist who can 'bump' thier stats gaining claws,teeth and senses... but the feel wasn't quite right...
Kind of going for a jack nicholson 'Wolf' feel. Stronger... faster... heightened senses... Yet still fighting the curse.
My theory is the length of the seasons. Or as I call it the 'Lazy lazy Brits' syndrome. I get my dvd sets of Supernatural, Smallville, Arrow, Buffy, Highlander, pretty much any american show and I get myself a solid 22 episodes. I get Doctor WHo.... and I get about 13.
It's more an issue of money than 'lazines'. DOCTOR WHO costs less-per-episode than almost any US SFF series, and stretching that money over more episodes would be impossible.
Ehhh... Sherlock only gets 3 episodes a season...
Downton Abbey (which I hear is very popular though I don't watch it myself) only gets 7-8
So it's really a habit with all the british shows I watched... And based on the old 'serial' format of the original series it's something that's been going on for a LONG time... (I remember being VERY disillusioned When my friend told me Dr. Who was actual in season... thirty... forty something. Only to find out the seasons consisted of a story or two...
I'm surprised They don't have more money for this show. Something must be mishandled somewhere... Doctor who is arguabley the popular thing coming out of England right now... I was flipping through BBCAmerica the other day, and EVERYTHING was Doctor who. Specials on the first, 3rd, fourth, the new episodes, then repeating... It looked like it was just the 'who-channel' O.o
The special effects are pretty good in the show... but its not the ONLY sci-fi show out there and they all have effects budgets. heck with the constant recycle of monsters (Daleks, Cybermen, etc.) Their cost should be lower then many others... The suits are in the back closet ;)
Werthead wrote:
In addition, WHO takes between 9 and 10 months to film 13 episodes, so doing much more than that and allowing people to have a few weeks off between seasons is impossible. If you look at American TV, the 22-episode model is gradually being phased out anyway. It's exhausting making that many episodes and almost impossible to maintain quality. The cable model of making 10-16 episodes per season (GAME OF THRONES, THE WALKING DEAD etc) is definitely becoming a lot more attractive, as fewer episodes means they can put more resources, money and filming time into each episode and improve the quality of each.
Again, why does it take so long? Other sci-fi shows don't take that long.
The cable model sucks. I was very ticked off when Dexter was only 12 episodes, and that was the first time I saw that... We don't get 'Tv series' anymore... we get Mini-series' In fact, I have seen some 'mini-series from the 80's and 90's that had more meat to them then a few of the 'regular' series that get produced now :(
I figure this is based on two reasons. 1) What comic fans call 'Writing for the TPB' Instead of getting 2-3 issue stories we get them padded out so they can eventually sell them as a collected edition. That's the way TV feels nowdays. Lost was useless to watch weekly... Sitting down with a dvd season and watching it straight through was kind of awesome. Sadly with comics we paid for more comics with this philosphy but with tv, we get less. They have one story they want to tell and stretch it over 12-14 episodes. No point in stand alone 'filler' episode :(
2) No more reruns. Its very rare for me to catch 'reruns' anymore. In the old days everyone wanted to hit the '1-200 episode' mark for syndication... now with netflix and hulu and dvds... nobody bothers anymore.
So my question to the rest of you is how would this effect the rest of the game if I had a Paladin of Cayden Cailean who was CG at the table?
** spoiler omitted **
Could your table abide having this kind of guy in the group who was a holy warrior?
Would this somehow unbalance the game or break it?
I wouldn't like it personally.
I mean... honestly, there's nothing in your character description that COULDN'T be a Paladin of LG... I'm playing a Paladin of Sarenrae and frankly I think they'd be good buddies. Depending of course on how you 'Love to Drink'... Thaddeus has no problem with a couple drinks, but he refuses to get drunk. In my mind, Drunk leads to lowered inhibitions and lowered inhibitions lead to code of conduct violations that a sober paladin would never make. But yeah, nothing in the paladin code that requires 'unhappy' Paladins who don't have any wanderlust....
In MY opinion... I do not like the term 'Paladin' tossed around to every alignment. in MY opinion it should be 'Special' Unique amongst only the mot trustworthy and reliable people in the game.
If someone is a Paladin, then their word should be GOLDEN... their code sets them above reproach... Neutral characters.. .Evil Characters.. Even the CG and NG characters.. they have more wiggle room in what they say or how they act.
A peasant isn't going to think too highly of a LG Paladin who come riding into town to save the day... if last month an Evil Paladin Burned his farm and a CG paladin ran off with his wife...
The term 'Paladin' loses all meaning if EVERYONE can call themselves that.
Champions... holy warriors... sure, I have no particular issue with that.
But I would hate for it to become like the current 'cop shows,' There are so much glorifing the 'dirty cops' or the vigilanites or the powerhungry psychos... that the average person does not LIKE Police anymore. They don't TRUST them...
Paladin didn't know... If YES, they were evil and 'deserved' execution, then he was...
Then he should have just left them their after re-securing there cell. He is not the law and cannot punish them for being in prison. He can't slay helpless creatures, unless it is lawful punishment. Since his kills were not lawful punishment or honorable, he falls.
Oh... mine wouldn't have.
If the choice is... Kill them now, or leave them to be horribly tortured and eaten alive?? My paladin would have taken the 'merciful' route...
Though that's not what OP's guy did, I acknowledge that ;)
Ehhhhh.. ACTUALLY... Thaddeus would have redeemed them all. He's a redeeming MACHINE in Kingmaker...
Many of his redeemed still die righting their wrongs... but he's had a few surviving converts ^_^
So back to the topic. Can a non-court appointed paladin kill helpless prisoners and still be within their paladin code?
Or better yet. Can Superman break into a foreign prison and kill the inmates? Could any hero? Could anyone who calls themselves LG do...
Good heaven... I barely remember the original Topic... :D
In this example... He was caught between two warring nations of evil people. While sneaking into a temple of Evil guys he's at war with #1... He came across Evil group #2 being captured and used for food.
Quite honestly, Superman would have not have gone into a foreign prison and ripped the doors off the hinges and set everyone free... He would probably have completed the rescue mission he was THERE for... and did as much damage to his enemies as he could...
Taking the prisoners to a 'legal authority' is not an option. There isn't one. Anywhere. Its the middle of a jungle in between two warring tribes.
Theres NOTHING he can do with the prisoners without chosing one side of their war. Choices are A)Free Evil group #2, B)Kill Evil Group #2 saving the pain of torture and being devoured alive by Evil Group #1... or C) Leave Evil Group #2 to their own fate.
Our group chose A and sided with the morlocks against the common enemy. Theirs chose B
Quite honestly the way 'Comic Heroes' probably would have handled it, would be to leave them to rot there... My biggest problem with this situation, is that YES, they were helpless prisoners. So what??
Evil people in jail.... PROBABLY deserve to be there, and THESE kind of creatures PROBABLY deserve to be executed.
However, they were not HIS prisoners, and frankly didn't know much about who they were, and how they ended up there...
Where they a group of terrorists who were attacking and got caught? Did they sneak in to kill the king/queen/children. WEre they freedom fighters? Just picked off the street?
Paladin didn't know... If YES, they were evil and 'deserved' execution, then he was justified and divinely allowed to do it. If not, then he could be in trouble.
As this was Paladin of Torag... I doubt there would be an issue.
In the case of DOCTOR WHO, the show has no real need for story arcs. The Doctor travels from one place/time to another week after week, and the odds of events in one place being affected by another are fairly slim. The beauty of the show's format and design is that if you come up with a cracking idea for a story arc, you can do it, and if you haven't got one, you can just do stand-alones. With modern WHO, it feels like every season has to have a story arc regardless of whether the producer has had a really good idea or not.
Or as I said earlier, new WHO feels constrained by structure and format, when it really has no need to be outside of the Doctor, the TARDIS and the companion. Other than that it should be free to do whatever it wants. Yet it feels like the story arc structure, which was one intriguing, is now holding it back.
My theory is the length of the seasons. Or as I call it the 'Lazy lazy Brits' syndrome. I get my dvd sets of Supernatural, Smallville, Arrow, Buffy, Highlander, pretty much any american show and I get myself a solid 22 episodes. I get Doctor WHo.... and I get about 13.
(Yes, I know they do things different over there... I don't care. I want more Who!)
One of the issues I have with such a short season is its predicatbility. You have 13 episodes with about two Two-parters, a Dalek episode, a Cyberman episode, A River song episode, Meeting a new compaion, and episode to explain to them everything we've seen four or five times now... and a couple of the other classic tropes that old-time fans love to see.
It quite sadly doesn't leave much room for NEW things... As for the 'meta-plot' I thought RD's were brilliant. little easter eggs tossed in that were completly unnecessary by the end of the season. Bad Wolf? Torchwood? Saxon? If you missed the references... they didn't hurt the enjoyment of the show.
Moffets? I don't like his at all. There hasn't been enough payoff. Season 5 ended with the great mystery of 'HOW could someone cause the Tardis to explode??? THat can't HAPPEN!!!" Here in season 7, we still know nothing... and since it was 200 years ago for the doctor... I doubt he's still concerned about it >.<
NEVER end a season on a cliffhanger, unless you plan to deal with it the first or second episode of the NEXT season...
Frankly I want MORE standalone episodes, but it feels like we're getting less lately...
(Actually outside the 'who/what is clara' this season HAS been more stand alone..) But clara is REALLY taking up too much screen time/importance.
Point is, with 'full seasons' a meta-plot is a great way to solidify a season... but with only 13 episodes, there isn't ROOM for both meta-plot... and EPISODE plot.
[Maybe paladins are not "I am the LAW!" Psychopaths bent on the destruction of all evil regardless of the cost. Just maybe paladins are not WarHammer 40K inquisitors bent on purging the non-believers. MAYBE if you want to play the "above the law" character, there are vastly more appropriate options than a paladin.
Ummmm.. I'm curious where you got 'are exemplars of Law and Good matched only by Archons in conduct.' They are still mortal after all... not outsiders formed of the stuff of 'goodness and law'...
In fact according ot the wiki. 'Archons often disguise themselves as goodly knights, of the sort legends are written about, in order to inspire those around them.'
I'm not sure Paladins are big on the 'disguising/misleading/lying' without falling.
....
My examples have been Superman and Captain America. The shining beacons of heroic ideals that all other heroes in their respective univerese respect and hope to emulate....
Cap once disbanded the avengers because some wanted to kill in a war...
Yet you seem to want to lump them in with Judge Dredd???
The key to remember is Paladins are a PLAYER class. Which means they are meant to be PLAYABLE. Your version does not sound like it is. Have you ever seen a paladin played to your high standards?
Honestly, I'd love to see a youtube video or something on that... I think either A) The game would completely derail from the paladin being incapable of doing... Anything. B) it being very... very boring... If not for the Paladin... then probably for the OTHER players. Even if they were ALSO LG, then they still couldn't do anything...
Paladins should be restricted... and difficult... but still very much playable.
Ok you got me. Superman is not a paladin. He's close, but still not a paladin.
Then I would highly recommend tempering you expectations. Pathfinder is RIFE with Classes and archtypes specifically tailored to match a players desire to play his favorite literary, comic, media character.
Paladins have a code of conduct. Some people believe it is a strict Code of Conduct... You claim that neither Captain America nor Superman are 'Good Enough' to have been Paladins.
And in all of literature and media, superman is the closest you can think of...
Therefore I suggest you're reading the code WAY to strict...
Weirdly the President can't order civilians around like he is their God-King. Lex would need a court order before Superman would need to follow that order to respect authority. At which point a paladin would have to figure out whether or not that government was a legitimate authority. Superman is not a paladin though and does not risk losing his powers over such a matter.
I'm very disappointed in myself. I tried to find a clip from Hitchhiker's guide dealing with the overbearing inane bureacrats and the endless forms (in triplicate)... but my search-fu is weak today.
However, The president has a MASSIVE amount of power that does not need to go through the system. Lex may have tried to use more than his due... but as President he was a serious threat.
Also, Vigilantism has always been against the law in DC... most cops are happy for the help and look away, but everytime the government gets involved there is chest thumping an finger pointing.
Superman did not NEED to wrap that lightpole around the bad guy who was knocked out... He did not NEED to interfere with due process... and some comics like to point out that superman (and other heroes) can't really testify in court against criminals because their identity isn't public record.
He breaks laws all the time... he just does it because its the right thing to do.
Marthkus wrote:
Actually very recently Superman renounced his US citizenship in the comic books. A very paladin move. If you no longer approve of what a country is doing, you don't claim to be a part of it.
Ironically, Clark Kent did not renounce his citizenship... Which technically means 'superman' and 'Kal-el' were never actually citizens with paperwork anyway...
On a slightly more serious note... When Luthor was President of the United States, he gave MANY orders that Superman simply would not do. He trusted the legal system to take of itself, but he refused to be manipulated by it.
When the law was evil, He broke a lot more laws. And he did so without any angsty guilt over a code. He does HAVE a code... but opposing evil authority is NOT a violation of it.
1) Captain America was not a paladin. He is just LG. Paladins have their own code on top of that.
2) If Nazi Germany was not legitimate authority, then you can argue a paladin acting against it. That goes into the ethics of war and other matters of debate.
Really? Captain America wouldn't be statted as a Paladin in your games? He's all about High charisma, Leadership, and having a stricter code then any other heroes.
But... Ok, whatever... How about superman? Or better yet, what character... anywhere would live up to the standards you seem to be insisting upon?
Then, I'd like to know how he would deal with said concentration camps and nazis.
No, paladins can't ignore individual laws. They have to ignore whole non legitimate governments to ignore 1 of their laws.
It's like how the US president can't veto part of a bill. Its all or nothing.
RAW?
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Yeah. RAW says nothing about unjust laws. You can't pick and choose what parts of the law you follow. The law is either legitimate or it is not.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that 'Respect' = 'mindlessly obey.' By your definition, Captain America wouldn't have done anything at a concentration camp.... or ever attack a Nazi, after all they are just doing their jobs. And of course Hitler was the legitimate authority over Germany...
Point of fact though... Paladins only fall if they CHANGE their alignment... NOT if they perform an 'unlawful' act.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
LG paladins can fall from breaking their code. They don't have to change alignment to do that.
This is my point. Breaking an unjust law does not change your alignment. Repeated and consistent disregard for the law WOULD change it... but 'not eating the baby' does not change his alignment. Performing a single Evil act does not Change your alignment either... However the code SPECIFICALLY calls out 'committing an evil act' as fallable. Unlawful... Chaotic... Neutral... None of these other possibilities are mentioned. Therefore if they don't cross the 'super-vague' RAW code... you don't fall.
In fact a part of that code is: help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
If a LN guard walked up and demanded you follow the law and sacrifice this baby... by the code, you NEED to save the innocent baby. If the LN guy gets in the way defending Evil... then he dies too.
Paladins have the god-given ability to TEAR EVIL UP!! However, even Neutral and Good people can die in combat if the Paladin is defending innocents. This is why I value Sense Motive over Detect Evil. DE really only tells me who my smite will work EXTRA good on. It does NOT tell me who is deserving of death. Their actions and the situation are what will determine that.
Turning around and leaving the city because he's not 'hungry for baby' isn't any more honorable and 'code worthy' than letting evil win on legal loophole.
In kingmaker, its kind of fun just how DIFFERENT two of our LG characters are.
LG is NOT one specific spot that everyone who is LG will agree about. My LG paladin respects laws, but choses good over Law on any day of the week. Sarenrae respects Free Will, and theres only so much he can FORCE people to reform... everything else has to be THEIR choice.
Our LG sorcerer is also Good, but beleives more heavily in order and Nobility. He prefers the Intimidate route to the diplomacy route. If he ever slipped in alignment, he'd hit LN.... I'd hit NG. We debate right and wrong quite often, but we're both in the LG range.
Point of fact though... Paladins only fall if they CHANGE their alignment... NOT if they perform an 'unlawful' act.
If the Law is Evil... A paladin does NOT DO IT. He is forbidden from willfully perfoming an Evil act. He only has to respect 'legitimate authority'. Not following an evil law should NEVER cause a Paladin to fall. Their code is not THAT strict.
Insane things I've been seeing here...
Paladins must obey all laws everywhere or fall.
Paladins can't kill LN people.
Paladins can't help the rebellion against the evil empire?!?
And sooooo much more, This thread is awesome. OBviously people have been a little starved for an alignment thread :P
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
You don't kill helpless creatures just because they are evil. You are required to take them prisoner and hand them over to proper authorities.
These kind of debates are tough because people want to be very generic about a very specific situation...
******IN THIS ADVENTURE******
Serpent Skull book 5:
There IS no 'proper authority' You are trapped between two warring Evil factions. The prisoners in question here, are found when you break into an Evil enemies temple... and find Evil prisoners. Your in the middle of a lost jungle and frankly have ZERO authority to turn ANYONE over to ANYONE...
Quite frankly your butting your nose in a place it doesn't belong.
When WE ran it... there were no drow mentioned, but we had already set up an alliance with the morlocks and any more soldiers was good, so we rescued them.
OTHERWISE... the prisoners were there as 'food' for the monsters to eat as they will. Killing them could EASILY be seen as a mercy.
Do I think the paladin made the right call?? ehhh... not really. They would have been useful later.
Do I think he was 'honor bound' to release the evil creatures into the world again? Not even remotely. This was really a situation that the Paladin wins regardless. The prisoners are evil (as per the DM). They were going to die anyway. If the paladin did not feel he could trust them NOT to jeopardize his current mission... then he was really RIGHT to kill them.
HOWEVER... He would have been a BETTER man if he HAD freed them. My Paladin king always choses life if he can. If he offers redemption and they attack, or if they surrender and fail the 'Sense motive' test, then their life is forfeit.
Redemption is a tricky thing. Paladins are not STUPID. they should KNOW when they are being played. Hence Sense motive as a class skill. I have it maxed out, and frankly use SM MORE then I use Detect Evil ;)
Yea DM your right just stand away from everything and take it one step at a time. Tactics need to be changed and no its 5 foot end turn, 5 foot end turn, 5 foot end turn till they got close enough.
Solution here should have been... Trog takes 5' throws javelin. PCs move 60' Trog takes 5' and throws, PCs charge and kill.
I guess I'm confused as to what the pcs were doing for the 3 rounds just waiting for the npcs to come close enough to stab...
I'll admit this thread seems kinda hypothetical to me... I couldn't imagine this stuff actually happening in a gaming group.
I Love playing Elves... I have never asked to play one in the Marvel heroes game... or the Star Wars game... or even the Wheel of time game.
If they don't exist in the setting... why would a player get insistent about BEING one there?? Does this actually HAPPEN??
Classes are bit different. If the DM says 'no monks' in his world... because he hates monks... I would like to know WHY. If it's mechanical (really the BEST reason to Ban something...) then that's cool... but I would still like to find some way to tweak my character with mechanics you DO find acceptable.
I did that with a monk in a 2E game. DM hated the kit from years prior.... but I really wanted to play a martial artist. I ended up writing up my own kit that focused entirely on different things then what he hated, and we ended up with an awesome character.
Do you hate unarmed fighting? or is it mystical 'Ki' that you hate? Can I work out a fighter who can do everything that I want to do without using the monk class?
If it's fluff that the DM hates, that's also rarely a problem. Personally, I hate the wuxia eastern monk in robes concept. I hate mystical concentration magic abilities...
However, I love some martial arts. Bring on the Chuck Norris, VanDamme, Jackie Chan, type characters. I can promise to cut out the magic fists, and healing myself... and stick just with the flurry of blows and bonuses to AC if that would get my character in a game...
I'm all for a compromise. If you don't have gunpowder in your world??? there is no gunfighters. end of story.
In essence, you are saying that YOU know how things were intended to work and that anyone with a different take on it is cheating.
Well... I've seen people on these boards bring up that being 'Dead' doesn't say anywhere RAW that you can't take actions....
so YEAH, I'm confident in my interpretation of how it was 'intended' to work ;)
I think a big problem is trying to lump EVERYONE into specefic groups. Not EVERYONE who has a creative idea is trying to cheat... or is a Rules Lawyer... or whatever other title people want to shackle them with....
Lvl. 1 sure, you can change your PC to whatever you like. At lvl. 2+ I'd rule NO. Consider a priest who is trained for years if not decades all of a sudden changing to the worship of a different deity. It doesn't happen. If you have been worshiping Korada for a few months sure but in order to become a priest, your faith has to be pretty solid and you have to put years into it including training, indoctrination and tests of faith.
Except in Pathfinder you DON'T have to train for years to become a priest... or a wizard... or a bard... Its really the RAW downfall of Multiclassing.
PErsonally I LIKE the idea of long backstories explaining things... but if someone has a 'Road to damascus' type 'calling', I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it.
As for switching gods mid-stream... Paladins can become Anti-paladins and they still get spells from their new patron, so the idea isn't that far fetched.
I think there would have to be a pretty sound story or reason to ditch one god in favor of another, but I think it's certainly doable.
I can picture a cleric of Erastul who's off doing his thing, and comes back to find his home and family destroyed... At which point he says to heck with 'God of Homestead and Community' he obviously didn't help when they needed him... I;ll dedicate to Gorum and take the fight ot my enemies!!!
The only question is whether Gorum would have him? If adventurers are 'rare' and he's got some xp, Hp, and levels under his belt... And most importantly, would he be of USE to the new god... He probably would grant some spells to him as long as their purposes align.
What I'm NOT sure about, is whether he'd get to transfer his levels over... or if he starts at multiclass level one... I can REALLY see an argument going for BOTH directions...
Honestly if I was a DM, I'd probalby let him keep his levels. A 6th level cleric of Gorum isn't any mechanical improvement over a 6th level cleric of Erastul. If its story based and not min-max attempt I usually side with whatever's 'fun'.
Ok, while "base speed" may not be specifically defined anywhere in the rules as "land speed", there's an AWFUL LARGE amount of evidence that is the case...
Could you please tell me what base speed is referring to there? I mean, if base speed does not mean land speed, that could be potentially any kind of movement mode, couldn't it? Where does it even SAY any playable race has a "land speed"?
Looks to me like "base speed" is indeed being used as a synonym for "land speed," unless you'd like to prove otherwise.
It's been awhile since I looked at the movement rates, but isn't ALL movement rates determined FROM that base rate? isn't climb 1/4 your base rate, and swim the same...
Lands speed = Base rate, but everything else is a fraction OF that speed...
soooo if a monk gets bonuses to his base speed... he gets a bonus to ALL his movements that factor Base speed.
Same way a Dwarf doesn't climb as fast as humans without armor...
Hang on. If I leave, I will create an opportunity for the BBEG to hit me. Instead, I will... what? If leaving creates a possible opportunity to be attacked, not-leaving also creates a possible opportunity to be attacked!
Exactly. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't, that's the entire point of what I'm trying to bring up. You can either make a full attack and just maybe get a lucky critical and do enough damage to bring down the enemy, or you can try to run and lose for sure.
If I'm playing a game of poker for my life and I have the option of trying to draw an inside straight or folding and losing for sure, I try to draw the inside straight.
Frankly, I agree. The rules really go out of their way to make it difficult to run away. The monsters are faster then you, they have range, Surprise rounds limit the 'prepping the battlefield',If your infiltrating the Orc's stronghold... THEY have set the traps and obstacles.. AoO that tear you up... Not to mention the magic and other obstacles.
As a rule, adventurers are the one that are on the quest. If they're on the rescue mission, running means the hostages are killed... If they are defending a village, retreat means the village dies...
Also, Pathfinder deals in MASSIVE amounts of damage...
Just last night, My paladin was fighting some kind of evil tree. 15'-20' reach, and it did 23 points of damage to me in one hit. I smited it back for about 28... My AC helped save my life, because at level 6, I only have about 54 hp... I could NOT have survived another hit like that, and it got multiple attacks around...
At what point was the right time to run? Before the first round took place? After I was half dead in that first round, but still had more HP then the rest of the squish party?
We beat the thing in 2 more rounds, but that battle could have EASILY gone a different way.
From the moment of conception to the moment of birth, is 5.5 years for an elf baby.
** spoiler omitted **
In the 2E "Complete Book of Elves" it mentioned that elves have a 2 year pregnancy resulting in epic celebrations when the child is born...
As for kids in the game???
REALLY depends on how you want to play. I would NEVER recommend DMs 'Saddling' a PC with kids. it can really screw up a campaign.
I also do NOT believe it is feasable to bring newborns and toddlers into an average dungeon crawl.
HOWEVER...
Me and a another Player have some characters that got married and had a small brood of kids. Here's how THEY manage it...
1) They have a home base. MOST of the time they live in their sleepy little village raising their family as 'mostly retired' adventurers.
2) When the DO get the itch to get out of town and do something exciting again... The grandparents watch the kids.
Is that a little irresponsible as parents?? yeah, probably. However They ARE high level adventurers at heart, and at times they do what they do....
It can be a BLAST planning out the whole next generation... and if the game goes LONG enough... 0r you keep the same world for the next campaign, there are some ready made PC/NPCs just a waiting!!
As for who plays them?? Usually the DM. unless they eventually become PCs
Regardless, it still resulted in about 2 years of 'retirement' after each birth... so it's not a GREAT 'mid-campain thing to do'
The other alternative I used was to have an adventurer with a wife and kid back home, but had no serious implications on the current game whatsoever.
We DO have a kingmaker game going right now, and all I hear lately is that I need to find me a princess and start making some heirs!!
A bit surreal that I hear the same thing from my parents OUTSIDE of game... though they word it "Get a wife and give us grandbabies!!!" O.o
On the one hand I love to get into character and actually come up with the plans and the speeches and what not. It's what seperates a tabletop game from a video game.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
I HATE when a CHARACTER is held back by MY weaknesses. I very well may NOT be able to come up with a rousing speech at the drop of a hat.. I CERTAINLY am not able to woo a women senseless with a few well placed words.
That's what seperates ME from my CHARACTER... Sir Thaddeus as a +15 Diplomacy and a 20 Charisma.... "I" do not.
Fighters are allowed to show their strengths without their players being athletic... wizards are able to cast spells without their players knowing magic...
Why would my 'face-man' be dependant on MY lame seduction ability?
Stats are there for a reason... I personally like the 'roleplay it out for fun... MAYBE get a bonus or penalty (not MUCH of a bonus or penalty...) and then let the character's stats do the heavy lifting.
Remember what they say... most of debate is 'non-verbal'... it how you look, how you stand, what kind of confidence you have... only a small part is the actual WORDS you use... Let the character be the swashbuckler he's meant to be ;)
I've read what's available on the srd about the Godling classes, and these look amazing. I'll have to change my original brainstorming, but I think this will work out perfectly. I'm planning on it being a pretty small party (3-4), so having them all be Godlings would be great! I'll definitely keep a campaign journal for this posted somewhere.
Thanks again for all your help!
I tried the godling classes as the prestige class... and it didn't work very well. My guy was an infernal sorcerer and the PrC did NOT mesh well with the spontaneous caster... he was in all ways weaker then if he just kept going with Infernal sorcerer for the same basic premise.
Personally I'd enjoy the kind of surprise twist that your going for here!
For choices over which god? Personally i would NOT decide yet... give it at least a few levels before any 'revelations' occur, then go based off of how they play their characters.
Honestly though it doesn't REALLY matter what god it was. The kids powers do not HAVE to mimic the parents powers... any more then zeus' six dozen demigods are all clones of him. If they're lawful,, the kid could just as easily be chaotic... if theyr'e evil.. the kids can fight that heritage and be good... So I'd say whatever is the best story you wnat to tell :)
Have you looked at the 'mythic' rules? Honestly, that sounds like EXACTLY what your trying to do here.. creating the Hercules and perseus style 'heroes of legend' that don't necessarily 'interupt' the standard class progression.
The biggest problem with Rogues and combat is this belief that 18 Dex is a 'Good thing' and that Finesse is really 'all that'.
For a Rogue, more than a 14 Dex is a bit of an indulgence and is a waste of stats big time.
Str is where it is at for Rogues; finesse all you want, when your hits land they will be a joke. 10 or 12 Str on a Rogue? What a waste of time, will only lead to feelings of inadequacy and ineffectiveness.
I don't know....
I find their REAL damage comes in with Sneak attack... which I needed to be flanking to get... which I needed acrobatics a LOT to get in place for...
I was pretty glad to have my high Dex quite a few times in serpent skull...
There IS a quality for a weapon that lets you use dex for damage...thus taking str right out of the equation. That was nice, but it didn't show up until I was about 15th level, so it wasn't as useful as I'd hoped.
Compare rogues to rogues. Compare fighters to fighters. Fighters have a *different skill set*...involving ways to maim and kill, usually face to face. The 7 Int fighter will have fewer extra skills than the 14 will. Again, it's simple math.
Unless you have a party of just Fighters, then that comparisons worthless.
Is a fighter with 7 int going to be more limited then one with 14? Of course.
But we're not talking about 'fighters' we're talking about people in general.
Will there EVER be a situation where one person with a 7 int is more knowledgeable and better than another person with a 14 int.
Yeah, it may not be often, but it can and would happen.
There can easily come a time in a game where you should be listening to the 7 int bard and not the 14 int fighter. Highest base stat in the party doesn't automatically mean what people claim it means.
The 7 Int character can't afford to spread a few points around like the 14 can. I understand math. Do you?
Unless he's a bard or Rogue... I know enough math to know that a rogues 8 skill points are better then the fighters 2... or most peoples 4...
And humans gets their extra one... and leveling up gets you another one... my Rogue in serpent skull was getting around 10 skill points a level with a 10 intelligence.
and of course the bard get their 6 and can roll untrained... and gets half his level added to them...
Depends on if they want to focus on knowledge history or swimming and climbing...
How do I figure that most gamers would translate to a better than 7 Int?
Seriously?
Oh, please.
By the way, you do understand that there is the base stat...and all those are...
Which was kind of my point. Skills are where it's at. Pathfinder has done quite the job of micromanaging things to the point that just about everything is covered by one of the knowledge skills. Even things that don't really 'fit' all that well still get lumped in.
Also if the DC is over 10... you have to be TRAINED in the knowledge skill to use it... or be a bard.
My point is that 7 isn't that bad, and with the proper use of skill points, class skills and bonus feats/traits... There won't be much difference in 'every day life' between a 7 int and a 10.
Just looking at the 'sample Knowledge checks'
Determine slope 15
Determine structures Style or age. 15
Recognize Reginal terrain features 15
Determine approximate date of a specific event 15
Identify unusual weather phenomon 15
common peasants without skill ranks in these... don't get them. (also, Geography,engineering and dungeoneering are pretty rare in our groups so the PC'S don't get rolls for it either.
The description is DC 10 (for really easy questions) and DC 15 (for Basic Questions)
Having a 20 intelligence does not help you answer Basic Questions. Without the skill points put there, you don't even get a roll.
Out of curiosity... what has everyone been using 'Just the base stat' for in game?
As for the hypothetical 7 Int bard, that's just what he is, hypothetical. Who would create such a character? Theoretically, he could exist, of course, but I don't think anyone would legitimately create a character for a class heavily dependent on skills for effectiveness and give them a 7 Int (assuming you are not rolling for stats with a pretty restrictive method and just got unlucky), as anything but a joke (or a strawman, as the case may be).
Bards are pretty versatile for buffing and knowledge... However, if I wanted one who was decent at COMBAT... I could foresee short changing him a bit on knowledge and counting on his bard ability to pick up that slack.
If my 4th level bard has essentially wiped the penalty away AND I'm hitting a bit harder and more often, and then loaded down with skill points... it MAY be a good trade off.
I would certainly consider it... (Though as a rule I go the route of dump stats... i hate negatives :P )
Besides... arent' they Chr based characters? I made a detective once with HIGH intelligence... and mediocre chr and was quickly informed how 'unoptimal' that was...
Oh? A low Int is *gosh, by golly, gee whilickers* not very intelligent. RAW says so. Yes, there is justification.
"Not very intelligent" is not equivalent to "an utter f*!+ing dingus".
This is not even getting into the sheer stupidity of the "If your Int 7 Fighter isn't a gibbering moron you're just trying to be a powergaming dick and should leave my glorious (inaccurate) method acting presence" argument I've seen tossed around by multiple people in multiple threads.
And I've agreed that it isn't much...but if you play him up to your full intelligence...well, most gamers are smarter than that.
Where do we get this assumption from?
I think in a FANTASY world, we could assume a 'base 10' normal stat... but really??? Do you think the average person in THIS world doesn't get any negatives to obscure questions?
50% chance to answer a basic question on religion? EVERY religion? 50% chance at every geography question? Every underground question? Every engineering question?
I'll admit to a 7 int with a few skill points tossed in the fields I actually KNOW something about... but it's basically hubris to claim that I'm a 10 int in ALL fields...
Same as I'll admit that I'm no 10 strength either. I toss 2-3 college books in my bag, and try hiking across campus... I'm encumbered!
The old TSR Marvel game had a list of every stat, along with what it meant, and an example of who had such stats. I remember stating up some friends one time, and a buddy got mad since he was only 'Typical' or 'Poor' strength.
I asked if he could bench press 250 pounds... he said no. I said sorry, this is where your at. We have a range from aunt may to Thor... us pansy humans are at the low end. ;)
I think a lot of it is based on level and class. a 10th level bard with a 7 int. is going to be smarter than a 1st level warrior with 10 int.
Skill points, class skills, items... these are more important then the base score...
I would consider a 7 int character the type who has to look at his notes before spouting off knowledge. A little absent minded, not too great with the details. But I don't think it automatically makes him a hillbilly mountain folk/ogre kin type who sounds out the big words...
Really it's just a negative 2 to the knowledge roll... with a class skill in the knowledge skill... he's still +1 better then the 10 int guy who ISN'T class skilling it...
Since Paizo stuck with 3.x compatibility to keep the system going, with changes of course, did they in a way shoot themselves in the foot for the eventual drastic rules updates and rolling up of PF specific additions to that system (such as alternate stealth) under a new edition?
Most signs point to this being an impossibility. Not stepping up (in my opinion) on the above alternate stealth rules is but one example of a possible unwillingness/inability to even try to advance the concepts they introduce due to sticking to that compatibility. Even after the proposed life cycle of this edition of PF, it seems unlikely they could cut the 3.x cord even if they want to.
I doubt it.
We already have alternate armor rules, alternate Critical hit rules, alternate words of power rules...
Problem is, not many people LIKE these new things... It doesn't seem to stop Paizo from trying something new if they think it needs work.
Had armor as DR or Words of Power really taken off... They probably would have made the jump to more 'official' products like a 1.5 Core rulebook in the future...
Like the Mythic rules. They are KIND OF optional right now... however, they are going to start rearing their head into the APs when appropriate... so we'll have new 'non-3.x' content coming out...
The thing that bugged me most about the 3.x to PF conversion, was the early books... If they KNEW they were going to change rules and grow the game beyond the 3.5 limitations... I REALLY wish they would have just waited to do the Elves/dwarves/Golarion setting books until they had the kinks ironed out.
Now we've got books that list bonuses that don't make any sense... and they are covering the same ground twice with the inner sea world guide....
I was thinking of playing a rogue with 18 dex and 16 int with 10s in all the other stats as a human. I plan to use my rogue talents for weapon finesse, fast stealth, a combat feat, weapon focus, and skill mastery twice. I'm only planning out to lvl 12.
That's your first major mistake. You don't plan ANYTHING out to level whatever! Stop that! You are just setting yourself up to get dead or become a glass cannon.
Ehhhhh... depends on how 'carved in stone' you make it. I have friends who plan up to 20... and I could never do that. What I HAVE done however, is take a look at all the feats I like, and make a note about their prerequisites and what level I can potentially get them at....
Nothing worse than seeing an awesome combo in your head... and 3 months later when you actually level, grabbing something that is kinda cool on THAT day...
I have my paladin 'sketched out' a bit feat wise through 12th level... and already switched out one of my planned one. :)
You do realize that the request was for ANY circumstance?
Ehhh I assume that was a poorly phrased question that people leapt on. Is there any character that is good in ANY circumstance? They all have bonuses and weaknesses.. even the most powerly optimized character is going to have SOME weakness a DM can exploit.
If the goal is NOT an optimized character... then NATURALLY he'll be have more weaknesses and not be great for ANY circumstance.
We don't play evil characters, so Anti-paladin will always be #1...
otherwise... the more weird and unusual the class, the more like we'll take it... We have had a gunslinger (DM allowed it only for the one night We be Goblins game... Seriously.... Goblin with a blunderbuss!!! ) we have a summoner... we have a gnome monk... we have a cavalier coming in the next game... we have a halfling samuraii... Not to mention the occassional wizard/sorcerer/druid/paladin/rangers basics...
I think the only thing I HAVEN'T seen right now, would be a cleric (unless you count cohorts) and a straight up fighter. Had an inquister fall through, and no ninjas yet... but I think that's because we have limited number of games available and not a dislike of the class....
Yeah. I am a big fan of parts of Golarion, please do not get me wrong. Some really solid material, but then to change things after the fact when they are so damn good (the mini faith of the Isgerian hellknights being made mono instead of originally a polytheist unity of orphaned fanatics). That is when it is most co**ed up. Some parts of golarion don't interest me or my players, and it doesn't fit together very well, but in its best isolated parts it is gold-pressed latinum.
Honestly, that's my favorite part... and when we were designing our own homebrew world, it was EXACTLY how we planned on doing it.
This little section here is like the realms... this one like Raveloft... Al-quadim over here... maztica there...
Basic philosophy was... we have a TON of adventures, and whatever system they were written for, could be used in our world desert/horror/planescape/whatever!!!
Honestly, there are a lot of places i care nothing for in golarion... but it is pretty cool how most fo the APs seem pretty... localized. The ones I've played pick a location and that's where hte character lives. Varisia, Mwangi, river kingdoms... Its rare that you travel through mutliple genres... which is cool. I have no interest in numeria or... place with guns. (Alkenstar??)
Wow... just glancing through the thread, it seems that A)people hate rogues... and B) people hate non-combat characters.
Well that could be taken as insulting. Hate is a strong word. People might suggest against making a character who's useless in combat, but I don't think people are posting becuase they "hate" someone useful out of combat or rogues.
I believe you used the term 'Dead weight' on the first page ;)
and others said things like uselessness and 'we call characters like that NPCs, and of course suggestions to try the concept in a different game that supports that...
Hate seemed pretty appropriate for this thread.
Though FRANKLY, I will say that it's been better than OTHER threads detailing the same kind of charcter concepts. Those usually devolved into claiming the 'non-combat' guy was useless and a drain on treasure... with suggestions of either kicking him out of the party.. or killing him.
Thankfully THIS one hasn't reached that yet... but it's only page 7 ;)
Wait, how does running Pathfinder in a 3.5 (like Ebberon) setting require conversion? Unless you are using a module, you don't need to convert anything.
Maybe warforged could be boosted, but otherwise it works.
I'm not certain how the 'settings' differ, but as far as modules and adventures go, there IS a difference... One of my friends spent quite a few weeks trying (with help from someone online here) to convert CoCT from the original 3.5 rule set to Pathfinder...
Same with Runelords... We just got an updated anniversary set of that...
SOMETHING with the CR ratings and challenge levels or soemthing doesn't quite match up with current rules vs. 3.5
They're close, and playable... but the DM will have to keep a close eye on the new balance...
Wow... just glancing through the thread, it seems that A)people hate rogues... and B) people hate non-combat characters.
Personally I like both.
As long as people go in with the proper expectations...
1) Will rogues skill monkey be good at combat? NO! Will ANY rogue be good at combat?? Not really... So in my opinion that's just a wash until the groups start banning rogues.
2) If your NOT going to be great at combat.... be good at SOMETHING!!! We ran a serpent skull game, and there were LOTS of survival/knowledge/perception(tracking) etc. skills that we WISHED we had... Combat WILL happen, so at least give him a weapon... but will he be the BEST at it?? nope. No rogue is.
But the Realms halflings did NOT call themselves halflings. They called themselves the hin, meaning "people" if I remember correctly, which I think originally came from Mystara.
Really? I never saw that term before in any of the novels or the book of Halflings and gnomes... (though the latter wasn't realms specific)
I always hated the term 'halfling'. What are they 'half' of? In Tolkien, they call themselves Hobbits, and the tall folk derogatively refer to them as 'halfling' in a 'you are half the man I am' kind of way... It's one of the big issues I have with Forgotten Realms and WoTC in general... they don't use Hobbit, they have an independent race refering to themselves as 'half'...
Iirc, the word "hobbit" was invented by Tolkien (unlike elf, dwarf, orc, etc.) and thus couldn't be used because it was someone else's Intellectual Property.
Yep! in fact I THOUGHT I heard that the earliest edition DID use hobbit, but were forced to stop...
Regardless if you can't use THAT word... come up with something ELSE. Kender are essentially the Halflings of Krynn... Let the halflings call themselves a name that doesn't require a comparison to something else :-/
Out of curiosity... does anyone have any insight why 'Little Person' is NOT considered offensive??
IF I was shorter then average... I don't think I'd like that term at ALL... Your not so much a person... your a 'little' person. It focuses more on your 'size' than any other term.
I always hated the term 'halfling'. What are they 'half' of? In Tolkien, they call themselves Hobbits, and the tall folk derogatively refer to them as 'halfling' in a 'you are half the man I am' kind of way... It's one of the big issues I have with Forgotten Realms and WoTC in general... they don't use Hobbit, they have an independent race refering to themselves as 'half'...
In my mind 'Little Person' has the same kind of negative connotation. Little = lesser and all that.
3.0 was 2nd with some bugs ironed out, WBL, EL, and free multiclassing. The differences are there, but hardly oil and water.
You think?
Really, when we started looking at 3.0, the ONLY thing we recognized were the 6 stats. Thac0, Feats, Skills, multiclassing, AoO... NOTHING stayed the same from 2---->3
Grabbing a book from 1st edition and putting it in 2nd? No problem. Going from 2nd to 3rd??? whole new game.
Better or worse is a matter of debate, but there was more then a simple 'playtest evolution' going on there.
Can you create items with the same Command Word, and activate them all simultaneously?
Saying a command word is not enough, by itself, to activate a 'command-word activated' item, as strange as it may seem. It takes a command word AND a deliberate act of will in order to do so, and this is (usually) a standard action.
This has a few consequences:-
* You cannot activate more than one item with the same command word using one single action. Each item needs its own standard action and its own act of will.
Much to the chagrin of my high level wizard wielding a wand of magic missles....
What do you mean it only shoots one?? Two at most?!?!? Screw THAT, give me three of these wands and some tape! We're going to fix that problem! Take three of these crap wands and then cast it like a REAL wizard can!!
I don't think Dinklage was saying he finds all halflings, dwarves, etc, offensive. He's saying that most depictions are shallow.
But to be fair... it's not the dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings characters that are 'shallow'.
it's really most fiction in GENERAL. There is usually the typical hero, the typical wizard the typical rogue... All loosely based off Star Wars or Lord of the Rings...
It's one thing to say that 'Gosh.. I wish the short people in this 'genre' were more well rounded...' but what "I" wish... is that ALL the characters were more well rounded! ;)
As for painting, I have been trying to do various things laying around. I was doing ok until I hit a group of skaven that I had. I did about 4 of 20 and I just gave up. I couldn't get motivated to finish them. Back into a box somewhere till I get the mood again and do a few more.
I have a lot of trouble getting excited about painting something that I've already painted before. I'm not fond of doing armies of undead or random orcs... did about 8 goblins... and that went alright, but I wouldn't have wanted to do another bunch.
For me it's mostly the excitement and challenge of a new project. Once i get past it... meh.
Except that without the OGL 3.x would have died an untimely death back in 2008... as opposed to being top of the heap in 2013. Which pretty much makes the OGL a major reason for the longevity of 3.x if not it's popularity.
That seems a strange assumption... In a world WITH an OGL, yeah, the most popular system is going to be the one that uses it...
But if there never WAS an OGL... why wouldn't the game have kept going the way it did anyway?
I never actually played 3.x till we jumped on Pathfinder a year or two ago... but we played 2E for about 10 years after it 'died'... fact is we STILL have a 2E game going twice a month.
For us it was the writing in the APs and a continued support now that jobs and families are stopping us from writing out year long homebrew campaigns...
the Rule set is kind of inconsequential. If they still published kick butt 2E adventures and new kit books... (and hadn't destroyed the realms) we'd still be playing that.
The OGL let Pathfinder exist... but frankly we don't use any 3.x books or 3rd party stuff.. If pathfinder had been its own good system with the support and writing it still has, the OGL wouldn't mean anything to us.
He doesn't exactly use it as a crutch. The man doesn't constantly walk around looking at people thinking "Oh man, it'd be fun as hell to peel his skin off."
Keep in mind that as he grew up there wasn't any other man to see/torture. He had a few sadistic moments with other women, but that just fell in line with the usual debauchery. The way I play him, Dmitri isn't really going to immediately register that a guy is even introducing himself to him, but that just makes it to where he can grow as a character.
"The dwarf reached out his hand for a humble handshake. Dmitri simply stood there, eyeballing the hand more out of curiosity, curious what the gesture meant."
He's completely alienated to the habits of men, which makes him awkward starting out, but allows him to grow as a character.
This is basically the same thing as orcs or goblins. They aren't Evil... they were just raised that way! They don't know how 'civilized people act!!!
Sooo WHAT :)
If they grew up in an evil devil-worshiping society that worshiped cannibles... then EVIL! :)
It may not be his FAULT... He may be able to be redeemed and grow as a character... but yeah, if he's ok with torture and enjoys the pain of others... while worshipping the cannibal gods.... he starts as evil
