Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
And I'll take alignments gone for any game.
I like the alignment system, if only because it helps give you a foundation for building a character's personality upon. Some people can't just spit out a character all willy-nilly, and the alignment system is a good crutch for "how would my character respond to this situation?" It gives a good introduction to roleplaying, and helps you define motivations for those who don't want to crank out half a novel every time they play Pathfinder.

Alignment when used that way is great. It's an RP enhancer, a guide, a helping hand if you will.

The problem comes from the devs imposing their moral worldviews, sometimes in a contradictory fashion, on the actual RULES of the game.

It morphs it from an enhancer into a detractor, from a guide to a rule, a helping hand to a RESTRICTION on your roleplay.

No, your necromancer can't be a good guy. Because rules.

That otherwise nice fellow who ritually imbibes his opponent's blood out of respect for them? Evil, because alignment rules.

Got turned into an undead? Want to RP your character fighting his new urges, struggling to remain good? Screw that noise, undead are always evil, and your alignment explicitly shifts to evil upon becoming one.

THAT is the part of alignment I hate, and do without.

NONE of that is being stopped by the Devs. What's stated in the book are the DEFAULT assumptions. You want to play against any of those... talk to your DM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
And I'll take alignments gone for any game.
I like the alignment system, if only because it helps give you a foundation for building a character's personality upon. Some people can't just spit out a character all willy-nilly, and the alignment system is a good crutch for "how would my character respond to this situation?" It gives a good introduction to roleplaying, and helps you define motivations for those who don't want to crank out half a novel every time they play Pathfinder.

Alignment when used that way is great. It's an RP enhancer, a guide, a helping hand if you will.

The problem comes from the devs imposing their moral worldviews, sometimes in a contradictory fashion, on the actual RULES of the game.

It morphs it from an enhancer into a detractor, from a guide to a rule, a helping hand to a RESTRICTION on your roleplay.

No, your necromancer can't be a good guy. Because rules.

That otherwise nice fellow who ritually imbibes his opponent's blood out of respect for them? Evil, because alignment rules.

Got turned into an undead? Want to RP your character fighting his new urges, struggling to remain good? Screw that noise, undead are always evil, and your alignment explicitly shifts to evil upon becoming one.

THAT is the part of alignment I hate, and do without.

NONE of that is being stopped by the Devs. What's stated in the book are the DEFAULT assumptions. You want to play against any of those... talk to your DM.

Except it is. Those "default assumptions" are the rules as written, so the rules as written enforce arbitrary alignment restrictions. Saying that it can be house ruled differently to fix the issue does not solve the core problem here... namely arbitrary alignment restrictions.

Sovereign Court

You can't build a game, or anything without default assumptions.


Stereofm wrote:
You can't build a game, or anything without default assumptions.

Yes, all the rules are default assumptions. That doesn't mean there can't be or don't exist issues with them. For instance, a lot of people were upset with the ACG's core assumption that dex to damage was best handled with Slashing Grace. And many people disagreed.


As for the alignment argument, the flavor in a lot of products I've noticed make alignment to be very wobbly compared to how people talk about alignment. Where it is rules relevant, like with necromancy I was under the impression that it was fueled by the negative energy plane which, while not evil itself, tend to be the 'dark side' energy. Basically it had more to do with the assumed planar cosmology than actual morality.

In regards to low magic not being terribly easy in Pathfinder; while I think E6 or E8 lets you do this fairly well I am actually digging D&D 5e because low magic is way more doable. It and FATE will probably be my go to for low magic/simple rules games, and Pathfinder can handle my gonzo multigenre super power campaigns.


Squiggit wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
And I'll take alignments gone for any game.
I like the alignment system, if only because it helps give you a foundation for building a character's personality upon. Some people can't just spit out a character all willy-nilly, and the alignment system is a good crutch for "how would my character respond to this situation?" It gives a good introduction to roleplaying, and helps you define motivations for those who don't want to crank out half a novel every time they play Pathfinder.

Alignment to facilitate roleplaying is cool with me.

Alignment as rules annoys me though. I'll take my chaos monk and lawbarian just fine.

Though it goes beyond that in that I tend to not like fluff-as-rules in general. When I GM I tend to be flexible about "Special" requirements on PrCs and tend to ignore stuff like Druids not being able to wear metal or only worshippers of Cayden being more bold while drunk.

Not that any of those are necessarily bad things (except the last one, screw that noise) I just feel that it constrains things a bit based on the opinions of someone who isn't even in the game.

I agree alignment rules should be guidlines and not written in stone. And for many reasons. Take your Barbarian cultures for example. Man so called Barbarian cultures would be considered very lawful as they often had very strict taboos and limited behavior the tribe would tolerate. Just go read Tacticus Germania where he praises the Germans strict moral codes And the Germanic tribes are the classic Barbarians. But rules state Barbarians have to be non lawful, but I tend to ignore that part.


A lot of the alignment concerns are built into the game to reflect Golarion, which is the sole setting for Pathfinder. It's easier to set defaults in the rules for your setting, than to leave them open or undefined, and have players playing AP's constantly running up against setting constraints that they don't know about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am loving the irony of people who object to the alignment system (moral rules) when it is applied as rules. Not criticizing its just one of those things that the pastor and philosopher in me finds funny.


Odraude wrote:

That's a lot more involved than saying it's an unwillingness. Those are genuinely good reasons to meet GenCon releases. Still, that doesn't bode well for Occult Adventures. I have a feeling history will repeat itself and Occult Adventures will be another editing mess due to rushing to meet the new GenCon date. It's a heartbreaking shame to me, because I genuinely like the people that work at Paizo and I really love Pathfinder. But if nothing can or will be done about the editing issues, and if GenCon is going to continue to be the focus of Paizo at the expense of quality control, then maybe it is time to move on.

That really sucks. But I don't want to spend money on a poor quality project. I guess thems the breaks.

Paizo is still in the grips of Gencon recovery phase. I would guess if they make a statement about editing, they are not going to rush one out.

Personally however, I do feel Paizo would be better off if they dropped down some of their production schedule. Every year it seems like sees the release of some extra book (Emerald Spire this year, RotRL Anniversary edition, etc). Seems like reading on the board that there are far far too many times where Paizo devs are working 7 days a week and late into the night to get a product out.

Shrugs. Personally I am more attached to Golarion and the APs than the hardcover rule book line (with the exception of bestiaries). Everything about Iron Gods so far has been awesome, and I hope to be able to resubscribe to the AP line soon, as soon as I stop hemorrhaging cash :(

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Alignment when used that way is great. It's an RP enhancer, a guide, a helping hand if you will.

The problem comes from the devs imposing their moral worldviews, sometimes in a contradictory fashion, on the actual RULES of the game.

It morphs it from an enhancer into a detractor, from a guide to a rule, a helping hand to a RESTRICTION on your roleplay.

I generally agree, though I'm cool with some acts being categorically Evil (torture, for example, is not okay).

Rynjin wrote:
No, your necromancer can't be a good guy. Because rules.

This is true, though I don't personally have much of a problem with it.

Rynjin wrote:
That otherwise nice fellow who ritually imbibes his opponent's blood out of respect for them? Evil, because alignment rules.

Actually...not by the rules. If he gains magical power from it it's Evil by the rules, but only then. And even then, it's only an Evil act, and could be overcome by enough Good ones anyway.

Rynjin wrote:
Got turned into an undead? Want to RP your character fighting his new urges, struggling to remain good? Screw that noise, undead are always evil, and your alignment explicitly shifts to evil upon becoming one.

Uh...this is actually categorically untrue. Neutral and even Good undead explicitly exist in Golarion, so this is pretty clearly allowed.

Rynjin wrote:
THAT is the part of alignment I hate, and do without.

I can definitely see where you're coming from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have actual rules for fighting the hunger in Blood of the Night.

Sczarni

I would drop/ignore the new technology s*** that has just been introduced. I do not want techno junk invading a sword & board fantasy game. If I wanted technology and plasma guns I will go play star wars or some other game. I know that Paizo Is in the business of selling products but they need to please keep the 2 fantasies separate.

Other than that, I like pathfinder where it is. More class options are okay as long as current classes and feats are not nerfed.


Ulfen Death Squad wrote:

I would drop/ignore the new technology s*** that has just been introduced. I do not want techno junk invading a sword & board fantasy game. If I wanted technology and plasma guns I will go play star wars or some other game. I know that Paizo Is in the business of selling products but they need to please keep the 2 fantasies separate.

Other than that, I like pathfinder where it is. More class options are okay as long as current classes and feats are not nerfed.

then have your sword and board fanasty. Just because there is a new book for futuristic options does not mean you HAVE to sue them. They are simply options for those of us who DO want them.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Ulfen Death Squad wrote:

I would drop/ignore the new technology s*** that has just been introduced. I do not want techno junk invading a sword & board fantasy game. If I wanted technology and plasma guns I will go play star wars or some other game. I know that Paizo Is in the business of selling products but they need to please keep the 2 fantasies separate.

Other than that, I like pathfinder where it is. More class options are okay as long as current classes and feats are not nerfed.

then have your sword and board fanasty. Just because there is a new book for futuristic options does not mean you HAVE to use them. They are simply options for those of us who DO want them.

I have it on good authority that James Jacobs will break into your home and force use to use the new technology guide.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Ulfen Death Squad wrote:

I would drop/ignore the new technology s*** that has just been introduced. I do not want techno junk invading a sword & board fantasy game. If I wanted technology and plasma guns I will go play star wars or some other game. I know that Paizo Is in the business of selling products but they need to please keep the 2 fantasies separate.

Other than that, I like pathfinder where it is. More class options are okay as long as current classes and feats are not nerfed.

then have your sword and board fanasty. Just because there is a new book for futuristic options does not mean you HAVE to use them. They are simply options for those of us who DO want them.
I have it on good authority that James Jacobs will break into your home and force use to use the new technology guide.

lol well seeing as I live a few hours from redmond (I live in Seattle) I wouldn't be suprised hahaha!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love Pathfinder. The fact of the matter is, they've taken a game with a LONG history and kept the spirit of the game alive while listening to the critiques of their customers. They have a fantastic business model that I believe works wonderfully well. If it wasn't for Paizo, I'd still be scrounging for 3.5 players and wouldn't have met all the wonderful people I have today.

I love how active the people of Paizo are on the forums and how the game itself runs. Are there bugs in the system? Of course. Do I want them to release a new system? Hardly. I am an avid fan of the 3.5 system and Pathfinder has rekindled my desires to write, to create, and to GM. Paizo has done a wonderful job and I for one love Pathfinder for being what it was meant to be. An upgrade to 3.5 with Paizo's own flair and finesse.

Huge shout out and thanks to James Jacobs, Mike Brock, and everyone else working so hard to bring us a wonderful game!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I love Pathfinder way more in person than I do on the forums. Almost all problems with the game on the forums aren't exactly experienced at the table. Alignment has been an issue exactly once when the DM started rejecting character concepts because the group didn't have similar alignments despite all being non-evil. Our resident rogues have been the most active characters in the party. We never have a problem simply not playing with Scifi/guns/asian themes when the GM didn't want to play that in the setting. Anyone who isn't into rules bloat limits their character to the Core Rulebook and works out fine. Cheese builds rarely happens because most people want to do a concept that they want not squeeze their concept into some quirky build trick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Ulfen Death Squad wrote:

I would drop/ignore the new technology s*** that has just been introduced. I do not want techno junk invading a sword & board fantasy game. If I wanted technology and plasma guns I will go play star wars or some other game. I know that Paizo Is in the business of selling products but they need to please keep the 2 fantasies separate.

Other than that, I like pathfinder where it is. More class options are okay as long as current classes and feats are not nerfed.

then have your sword and board fanasty. Just because there is a new book for futuristic options does not mean you HAVE to use them. They are simply options for those of us who DO want them.
I have it on good authority that James Jacobs will break into your home and force use to use the new technology guide.

Can attest. He rappelled down through my skylight and forced us all to play gunslingers when Ultimate Combat came out too.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Seems to me a LOT of people complain about the system as it is. Complaints about not enough dex-to-damage options just up your strength if you really want to melee THAT badly

And if that is against your concept?

Quote:
or that certain classes are vastly underpowered compared to others don't play said class

Doesn't stop those classes from being vastly underpowered.

Quote:
or that feat chains are unfair,

They are.

Quote:
or that Pathfinder should be classless Seriously?? Play another system then, there's plenty of classless ones out there!

Agreed.

Quote:
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I like Pathfinder how it is.

So you have absolutely no house rules, then?

Quote:
I think the feat chains are neat, and a fair way to get to more powerful feats.

One problem is that the benefit you get for long feat chains generally isn't worth it. The other problem is that casters don't have these and get all of their powerful feats at, basically, no cost to them.

Quote:
I think there SHOULD be some caster versus martial disparity; it makes you feel like you earned it when you're a high level caster and you had to struggle through the low levels to get there. (I don't care what anyone says, wizard 1-4 is pretty boring and you feel almost useless compared to the barbarian who's destroying everything in one hit until you start to get some decent spells.)

If you can't find a way to not feel useless as a Wizard at any level, I think you may need to look around a bit more. At 1st level, Wizards have things like Grease, Color Spray, and Sleep in their arsenal. All three of those can flat out remove enemies from the encounter. It only gets better from there.

Obviously there will always be some disparity between casters and martials. The problem is the size of the gap between them. Right now, casters are gods and martials are peasants. Ideally, you'd want both casters and martials to be kings, but caster kings and martial dukes would be a fair enough compromise for now.

Also, it has already been mentioned but, just because we have complaints it doesn't mean we don't like it. I've never called Pathfinder anything more than 3.55, because that is what it is to me. I haven't consistently played 3.5 for 11 years for nothing.


Gnomezrule wrote:
I am loving the irony of people who object to the alignment system (moral rules) when it is applied as rules. Not criticizing its just one of those things that the pastor and philosopher in me finds funny.

Not seeing the irony.

I like alignment in its default state (Roleplay guidelines).

I don't like where it intersects with the rules (Mechanical influence).

There is no contradiction in terms here that would suggest any sort of irony.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Suichimo wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Seems to me a LOT of people complain about the system as it is. Complaints about not enough dex-to-damage options just up your strength if you really want to melee THAT badly

And if that is against your concept?

Then you've got a few choices to make:

1) house rule it with willing GM and players
2) accept your concept can only be approximated with the rules you've got and do the best you can
3) play a game in which that concept can be achieved like Mutants and Masterminds or some other system
4) change your concept

There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.

I'm sorry but no. That's insane.

Not all games are going to enable all concepts, no. I'm not going to expect to play my space pirate captain and her fleet of battlecruisers in Pathfinder. I'll play rogue Trader or Savage Worlds for that.

But when the system itself has no problem with the concept and we're talking about something as trivial as tweaking an existing feat? There's definitely a point in "grousing" about it.

This idea that you can't have any opinion on a product other than a positive one and still play it is completely absurd.


I'm cool with how it is, yeah. Well I would change a couple of little things. 1, give PCs x4 the normal amount of skill ranks in the first level like 3.5 did. And, give rogues full base attack bonus. Oh and also, any weapon that obviously should have two damage types like the bastard sword or katana should be able to do piercing, then they should have piercing as well as slashing. Other weapons should have two damage types or more because of common sense really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me that saying you like "Pathfinder" is kind of a moving target. The game is evolving all the time. New rules, new player options, new everything.

--Marsh


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Suichimo wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Seems to me a LOT of people complain about the system as it is. Complaints about not enough dex-to-damage options just up your strength if you really want to melee THAT badly

And if that is against your concept?

Then you've got a few choices to make:

1) house rule it with willing GM and players
2) accept your concept can only be approximated with the rules you've got and do the best you can
3) play a game in which that concept can be achieved like Mutants and Masterminds or some other system
4) change your concept

There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.

No, its not okay. If you want more options or better designed options, you should voice that opinion and show it's merit. Just smiling and accepting mediocrity is a worthless method of going about anything in life. Whether it's dex to damage or more representation in RPG or better editing, people should voice it for the betterment of the game. Hell, that's how Pathfinder was created. If we folloeed your advice, we'd all be smiling like fools playing 5e and letting our 3.5 and 4e books to gather dust.

Mediocrity should never be accepted and no one, fan or worker, should ever get complacent. Not saying Paizo is either, I'm just saying that the "like mediocrity or leave" is a worthless, dismiss binary option in a world where there are better options. Like improvement.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
anlashok wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.

I'm sorry but no. That's insane.

Not all games are going to enable all concepts, no. I'm not going to expect to play my space pirate captain and her fleet of battlecruisers in Pathfinder. I'll play rogue Trader or Savage Worlds for that.

But when the system itself has no problem with the concept and we're talking about something as trivial as tweaking an existing feat? There's definitely a point in "grousing" about it.

This idea that you can't have any opinion on a product other than a positive one and still play it is completely absurd.

But but... Paizo doesn't have to make good options for anything! And critiquing them is bad, because we'd just be whining like petulant children. Instead, the adult thing to do is to accept mediocrity or take our ball somewhere else. Clearly voicing dissent is the wrong thing to do always! :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.

A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).


Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).

No it's a failure in the fans for desiring an option that isn't supported by the rules. Duh! :p


Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).

It doesn't, I know, I've ranted about it.

Liberty's Edge

When it's all said and done I can respect fans for defending the favored rpg company. Even if some don't want to hear negative things about it. I'm not so sure it's truly a bad thing. Nor a good thing either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
It doesn't, I know, I've ranted about it.

Swashbuckler comes close, but you need another suppliment to get dex to your rapier. Devs really droped the ball and disappointed a lot of swashbuckler fans.absolutely nailed it on that one. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).

Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.


Honestly though, the devs really did a good job with a lot of the content in the ACG. The swsshbuckler is a nice dex chsracter that im enjoying. But the editing and some mediocre design decisions hold back the book from being good. The editing in particular holds it back considerably. If it wasn't for that this book would be a solid four stars for me. But I've also accepted that the devs do not ever want to give us good options for dex to damage, so I guess that's fine. Sometimes you just have to make peace and let go of losing battles.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.

Yeah, I also like playing kensai magus. Or bards.

Just not a finesse fighter. Or rogue. Or anyone without at least medium casting.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Bill Dunn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.

What does he do better than the barbarian, out of curiosity? Does he tank better, or alter reality?


Bill Dunn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.

Define "fine." Not that I don't believe you, but I and others just might have higher standards which would be the cause of disagreement about the viability of that fighting style in Pathfinder.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.
Define "fine." Not that I don't believe you, but I and others just might have higher standards which would be the cause of disagreement about the viability of that fighting style in Pathfinder.

I'm curious about your standards too. If your standards are "hey at least my flat 1d6 damage may make me better combatant than a level 1 commoner," we may not see eye to eye. Not meaning to say that's what you meant, but I know people like this exist as I seriously saw someone on this board argue that the feat Galley Slave was a "good, viable choice."


chaoseffect wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.
Define "fine." Not that I don't believe you, but I and others just might have higher standards which would be the cause of disagreement about the viability of that fighting style in Pathfinder.
I'm curious about your standards too. If your standards are "hey at least my flat 1d6 damage better than a level 1 commoner," we may not see eye to eye. Not meaning to say that's what you meant, but I know people like this exist as I seriously saw someone on this board argue that the feat Galley Slave was a "good, viable choice."

Yeah, how good something has to be to be viable tends to vary a lot depending on who you ask. I recall one guy who set the bar for martial viability so low that me and a couple other posters made builds with a Warrior NPC Class with an NPC stat array (equal to 3 pt boy) and NPC wealth that could still make the cut.


Cant speak for Bill but my usual martial dex characters that don't deal dex to damage either TWF or have some kind of damage besides strength to stack on or some sort of status effect. I did it as a Ninja which was fun. Ive seen it done with a Rogue during an adventure path and it went over okay. Seen it on a monk. Seen it on this weird Monk/Cleric build that got Wis to attack and just piled on status effects/touch attacks and use mobility to get away and hit the next mook to make them sit still to get ganked without getting too many actions.


Rynjin wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:
I am loving the irony of people who object to the alignment system (moral rules) when it is applied as rules. Not criticizing its just one of those things that the pastor and philosopher in me finds funny.

Not seeing the irony.

I like alignment in its default state (Roleplay guidelines).

I don't like where it intersects with the rules (Mechanical influence).

There is no contradiction in terms here that would suggest any sort of irony.

No offense intended. I thought it was ironic and you were not the only one that commented on alignment. I was simply pointing out that people were expressing that they liked alignment except when it limits behavior given that alignment touches on how characters limit themselves it seemed ironic to me.


Gnomezrule wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:
I am loving the irony of people who object to the alignment system (moral rules) when it is applied as rules. Not criticizing its just one of those things that the pastor and philosopher in me finds funny.

Not seeing the irony.

I like alignment in its default state (Roleplay guidelines).

I don't like where it intersects with the rules (Mechanical influence).

There is no contradiction in terms here that would suggest any sort of irony.

No offense intended. I thought it was ironic and you were not the only one that commented on alignment. I was simply pointing out that people were expressing that they liked alignment except when it limits behavior given that alignment touches on how characters limit themselves it seemed ironic to me.

I think the issue is when alignments plays a solid mechanical aspect of the game for no apparent reason. For instance, all undead are defaulted to evil (before you someone says something about Golarian and whatever, I am going to simply point out that EVERY undead template except for ghost has the line Alignment:Any Evil). Despite the fact that Mindless Undead (being mindless) should have no alignment at all (mindless things are not capable of thought, therefore are neutral in all things). Or how Infernal Healing is evil, no matter what it is used for, but the mind compulsion spells are perfectly fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gnomezrule wrote:


No offense intended. I thought it was ironic and you were not the only one that commented on alignment. I was simply pointing out that people were expressing that they liked alignment except when it limits behavior given that alignment touches on how characters limit themselves it seemed ironic to me.

Think you misunderstand: Alignment will, inevitably, effect behavior and I don't think anyone was arguing that the fundamentals of alignment should be change.

It's more an issue when alignment is used as a restriction on things that don't have clear, inherent moral relevance.


My original comment was meant in fun my second was to explain why I used the word irony.

I actually agree in principal that alignment is helpful in principle.

Though I personally would never want to see the good necromancer. But that is my take on the game I want to play.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The degree to which magic items are requied to not screw up game balance is kindof annoying, and it would have been nice if the game shipped with an alternate mechanic to replace it rather than needing to be something I houserule out.

5e is much better for low magic, and I suspect that will be the scenario where I start making regular use of it.

Dark Archive

K177Y C47 wrote:
I think the issue is when alignments plays a solid mechanical aspect of the game for no apparent reason. For instance, all undead are defaulted to evil (before you someone says something about Golarian and whatever, I am going to simply point out that EVERY undead template except for ghost has the line Alignment:Any Evil). Despite the fact that Mindless Undead (being mindless) should have no alignment at all (mindless things are not capable of thought, therefore are neutral in all things). Or how Infernal Healing is evil, no matter what it is used for, but the mind compulsion spells are perfectly fine.

I find it ridiculous that raising skeletons (negative energy) is evil, while enslaving elementals and binding them to golems is AOK! I'm not a fan of the alignment rules in D&D having any mechanical effect. IMO they the effects of alignment shouldn't go any further than character creation and personality design.

*PERHAPS* old style detect alignment spells. You can see if a character is currently planning to make someone suffer or die, or if they are in the middle of channeling power from an evil deity.

I once made use of some non-evil, non-necromancy undead, that were created specifically to throw people off. Confused the crap out of the players and the cleric. Good times with Animate Object.


Darkholme wrote:

*PERHAPS* old style detect alignment spells. You can see if a character is currently planning to make someone suffer or die, or if they are in the middle of channeling power from an evil deity.

I have always liked more the old style in this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkholme wrote:

The degree to which magic items are requied to not screw up game balance is kindof annoying, and it would have been nice if the game shipped with an alternate mechanic to replace it rather than needing to be something I houserule out.

5e is much better for low magic, and I suspect that will be the scenario where I start making regular use of it.

Pathfinder Unchained would probably be the book to have low magic gaming. They are going to have alternate rules systems for crafting mundane and magic items as well as monster creation. So who knows? Good to make a topic about it, since it's still being developed.


Darkholme wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
I think the issue is when alignments plays a solid mechanical aspect of the game for no apparent reason. For instance, all undead are defaulted to evil (before you someone says something about Golarian and whatever, I am going to simply point out that EVERY undead template except for ghost has the line Alignment:Any Evil). Despite the fact that Mindless Undead (being mindless) should have no alignment at all (mindless things are not capable of thought, therefore are neutral in all things). Or how Infernal Healing is evil, no matter what it is used for, but the mind compulsion spells are perfectly fine.

I find it ridiculous that raising skeletons (negative energy) is evil, while enslaving elementals and binding them to golems is AOK! I'm not a fan of the alignment rules in D&D having any mechanical effect. IMO they the effects of alignment shouldn't go any further than character creation and personality design.

*PERHAPS* old style detect alignment spells. You can see if a character is currently planning to make someone suffer or die, or if they are in the middle of channeling power from an evil deity.

I once made use of some non-evil, non-necromancy undead, that were created specifically to throw people off. Confused the crap out of the players and the cleric. Good times with Animate Object.

I'm okay with most raised undead being evil. Though I thought the golem making was using elemental energies, not an a actual element?

301 to 350 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is? All Messageboards