| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tequila Sunrise: it's so clear which side Paizo is on? history? apparently not that clear as I have no clue what you're talking about.
@FormerFiend: I disagree that paladins of Milani would be a good idea. Recent books have opened a slew of more thematically appropriate game options for worshippers of Milani, and that faith really strikes me as more appropriate for rebel fighters willing to do any dirty deed available in the book to tip the scales against tyranny. That doesn't strike me as a paladin thing to do. Worshipers of Cayden, Desna, Milani, etc. have received their own treatment and service in various products so far, and thus the evolution, in the story, of what those worshipers look like have been portrayed as a different breed of folks which would not really fit well if slapped with a paladin code. Why should the forces of chaos have paladins? in particular, 'good chaos' i.e. the spreading of chaos to fight tyranny requires different tactics, mindsets, and skill-sets (stealth, bluff, disguise and other means of subterfuge which, to be honest, isn't offered easily by the paladin class)
@The Raven Black: very good point... I've lured a lot of 'D&D only' people to Pathfinder along the years and these ladies and gentlemen often roll their eyes at significant deviations from D&D. More often than not I'm able to argue the benefits of such changes, such as being able to sneak attack constructs and undead things, but to open paladins to other alignments would be to break something sacred to them.
Also, why don't we have "Why can't my barbarian be lawful!!" threads? I agree with JJ that asymmetry is good for the game and the story. I don't find it annoying one bit that monks have to be lawful, barbarians non-lawful, etc. I think what we're seeing here is an unwillingness by some to try the Lawful Good alignment. It's not really 'harder' than playing any other alignment when you remind yourself you're just playing a character and it's not about being the stick in the mud to the rest of the party as much as playing the character in an open, assertive and transparent manner i.e. the character is not afraid to take a stand in certain situations. The rest of the party can grumble all they want that the paladin won't let them steal stuff, but when an undead or evil outsider or dragon shows up, guess who they flock to in order to gain that sweet +4 to saves vs. fear, and guess who they're happy to see smiting the heck of these things. So, to me, the LG restriction is an opportunity for roleplay and fun interactions between players. To strip that restriction and allow any old CG, CN, TN etc. paladin in order to blend with the rest of some bland CG, CN, TN merc-like group is just a lazy excuse to do away with roleplay and fully submit to roll-play.
I think the idea that a paladin being LG is "something sacred to them" speaks to the heart of the issue.
It isn't a matter of role play versus roll play -- which is pretty insulting as an aside. Rather, some people prefer options that aren't the same old same old. They want change, whether it is a paladin-like class for other alignments or more support for anthropomorphic player races or increasing martials or decreasing the idea of god wizards and so on.
The LG is an opportunity to role play, that much is true; that said, ANY alignment is a chance to role play. Allowing a paladin-like class that is TN, CN, CG or whatever doesn't alter that one whit, nor does the Core paladin being LG make it somehow a superior RP choice simply because it has a written out code.
As others have pointed out, various other classes have codes AND a non-LG alignment and manage to not only role play but to keep up with their code as well.
Some of the "hardness" seen in playing a paladin (LG) in my opinion is the need by some to make them fall (as we see in numerous threads) or somehow make them into a Saint rather than allowing that a wide variety of LG paladins can exist and are not cookie cutter Ultimate Boy Scouts. They can be fallible, they can be weak, they can be Human (even if they aren't.)
As someone who has had versions of paladin-like classes for years, I can tell you that the game doesn't fall apart if you allow them. Players can and will adapt, provided you explain the hows and whys of what you are doing -- like any house rule -- and they are willing to accept the world before them, like any campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If HWalsh and others like him spend so much time and energy fighting for the LG Paladin only paradigm, it shows that this exclusivity does mean A LOT to them, even if we do not understand why
They should not be casually dismissed or made to feel guilty of "grognardism" just because of our failure to try and see things their way
I have mentioned several times that I don't have a lot of respect - any respect, really - for the traditionalist position on this because I've heard all the arguments and find them to be tautological, axiomatic(appropriately enough), and utterly unconvincing. More than that I don't respect the position of tradition for tradition's sake in general. I don't see a value in tradition for it's own sake; if a tradition has an objective value or is at least harmless, then fine, keep it. It it is obtrusive, majorly inconvenient, or out and out harmful - as many of them are - then they should be discarded as remnants of the past.
That being said, while part of my intent in that post was to demonstrate how dismissable I find HWalsh's position to be - and perhaps making him see that could be framed as shaming or guilting him for that position - there is a level of actual, genuine curiosity in my question.
I genuinely want to know why this means so much to him. I genuinely want to know whether or not he feels something is being taken from him by those wanting a more inclusive system. I genuinely want to know how I'm harming his enjoyment of the game. I genuinely want to know why he believes "life isn't fair" should apply in this way, which I personally see to be arbitrary. Because I genuinely don't know what it is.
I don't expect him to convince me, I admit. But if he is arguing for something for some other reason than for tradition's sake alone, I would like to know what it is.
We all have a right to our views and our opinions and to decide what we value. But not all of those things are valid or equal. As a hyperbolic example, someone who believes that the world is flat or that the Earth is less than six thousand years old has every right in the world to believe those things and to value those beliefs, but they are objectively wrong and I have every right to dismiss those beliefs.
Now obviously this isn't anywhere near that extreme, that was just an example. But as of right now I do not see any validity in his position and I would like to present him with either the opportunity to explain to me what exactly he's fighting for in terms other than "this is the way it is, accept it", or making multiple false equivalencies by asking "why this can't be this?" when it is in no way comparable to the debate at hand, or otherwise, I'd like to present him with the opportunity to come to the realization that what he's arguing for may not be as valuable as he thinks it is, and that changing the system in the way I and others propose isn't the horrible thing he seems to believe it is.
I have mentioned several times that I don't have a lot of respect - any respect, really - for the traditionalist position on this because I've heard all the arguments and find them to be tautological, axiomatic(appropriately enough), and utterly unconvincing. More than that I don't respect the position of tradition for tradition's sake in general. I don't see a value in tradition for it's own sake; if a tradition has an objective value or is at least harmless, then fine, keep it. It it is obtrusive, majorly inconvenient, or out and out harmful - as many of them are - then they should be discarded as remnants of the past.
Its fine, i dont have any respect for your position, and despite the denials I see it as a powermongering reach for creating the most S.A.D character humanly possible. I dont buy your "no its not about desna its about caiden/other gods".
I also don't have any respect for the "i hate the alignment system" players, the game itself has so many spells and class abilities tied to the alignment system I feel like people who hate it so much should probably look for different game systems as its actually quite a lot of work to disentangle the 3.0 chassis from alignment and alignment restrictions, which is neither harmful, inconvenient, nor arbitrary.
I have no actual problem with alternate allignment Paladins per se.
I do see this is opening the door to soulless clever BS. Since nothing will stop that sort of thing....
I mean we have commando adventurer Vigilantes with no foes or causes, we have the full range of divine types that are played without even a nod to their gods' tenets. This is a player issue, not a rules issue.
Now there are serious flaws in the allignment rules. Some of the arguments are valid and well reasoned, some are no more than "you can't tell me ....". Since it is a game, it is all preference, until you start to demand everyone else accept your preference as Canon.
"Hey, I have this idea ... Oh, that doesn't work for you guys? Hmm, how about..."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't have any respect for the "i hate the alignment system" players, the game itself has so many spells and class abilities tied to the alignment system I feel like people who hate it so much should probably look for different game systems as its actually quite a lot of work to disentangle the 3.0 chassis from alignment and alignment restrictions, which is neither harmful, inconvenient, nor arbitrary.
I find it trivially easy to ignore the alignment system in d20, far easier than absorbing an entirely different one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have mentioned several times that I don't have a lot of respect - any respect, really - for the traditionalist position on this because I've heard all the arguments and find them to be tautological, axiomatic(appropriately enough), and utterly unconvincing. More than that I don't respect the position of tradition for tradition's sake in general. I don't see a value in tradition for it's own sake; if a tradition has an objective value or is at least harmless, then fine, keep it. It it is obtrusive, majorly inconvenient, or out and out harmful - as many of them are - then they should be discarded as remnants of the past.
Its fine, i dont have any respect for your position, and despite the denials I see it as a powermongering reach for creating the most S.A.D character humanly possible. I dont buy your "no its not about desna its about caiden/other gods".
I also don't have any respect for the "i hate the alignment system" players, the game itself has so many spells and class abilities tied to the alignment system I feel like people who hate it so much should probably look for different game systems as its actually quite a lot of work to disentangle the 3.0 chassis from alignment and alignment restrictions, which is neither harmful, inconvenient, nor arbitrary.
Do understand that I'm not offended when I say this, more amused by the observation; but while I don't find the traditionalist arguments valid and categorically disagree with many of the assertions your side makes, I also don't think anyone on your side is out and out lying about what they're arguing for. I think they're being honest if mistaken/misguided/wrong. I even give PossibleCabage and Rogar Valertis the benefit of the doubt that they genuinely believe paladins of each alignment would be repetitive and that they'd rather see nine unique classes that each embody one of the separate alignments.
But yes, I'm making these impassioned arguments and devoting this amount of my time to this not because I legitimately believe in the position I'm arguing for but because I want to powermonger instead of going and playing 5th edition. Gotcha.
That observation being made, there was someone who asked you several pages ago - maybe you missed it, maybe I missed your response - that, were they asking for just what you were suggesting they were, why is that objectively a bad thing?
I have mentioned several times that I don't have a lot of respect - any respect, really - for the traditionalist position on this because I've heard all the arguments and find them to be tautological, axiomatic(appropriately enough), and utterly unconvincing. More than that I don't respect the position of tradition for tradition's sake in general. I don't see a value in tradition for it's own sake; if a tradition has an objective value or is at least harmless, then fine, keep it. It it is obtrusive, majorly inconvenient, or out and out harmful - as many of them are - then they should be discarded as remnants of the past.
Its fine, i dont have any respect for your position, and despite the denials I see it as a powermongering reach for creating the most S.A.D character humanly possible. I dont buy your "no its not about desna its about caiden/other gods".
I also don't have any respect for the "i hate the alignment system" players, the game itself has so many spells and class abilities tied to the alignment system I feel like people who hate it so much should probably look for different game systems as its actually quite a lot of work to disentangle the 3.0 chassis from alignment and alignment restrictions, which is neither harmful, inconvenient, nor arbitrary.
I'm a bit confused. How is a different alignment paladin-like class powergaming?
I know I and others have said a number of times that it would not be an exact copy of the existing paladin's powers, despite the claims that all anyone wants is X power.
I have mentioned several times that I don't have a lot of respect - any respect, really - for the traditionalist position on this because I've heard all the arguments and find them to be tautological, axiomatic(appropriately enough), and utterly unconvincing. More than that I don't respect the position of tradition for tradition's sake in general. I don't see a value in tradition for it's own sake; if a tradition has an objective value or is at least harmless, then fine, keep it. It it is obtrusive, majorly inconvenient, or out and out harmful - as many of them are - then they should be discarded as remnants of the past.
Its fine, i dont have any respect for your position, and despite the denials I see it as a powermongering reach for creating the most S.A.D character humanly possible. I dont buy your "no its not about desna its about caiden/other gods".
I also don't have any respect for the "i hate the alignment system" players, the game itself has so many spells and class abilities tied to the alignment system I feel like people who hate it so much should probably look for different game systems as its actually quite a lot of work to disentangle the 3.0 chassis from alignment and alignment restrictions, which is neither harmful, inconvenient, nor arbitrary.
I'm a bit confused. How is a different alignment paladin-like class powergaming?
I know I and others have said a number of times that it would not be an exact copy of the existing paladin's powers, despite the claims that all anyone wants is X power.
There's one feat in the game that lets Desna worshippers use Charisma as the attack and damage stat when wielding starknives.
Ryan Friere assumes that's the only reason people want Chaotic Good Paladins.
Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with rifts, and almost universally the calls for loosening restrictions seem to be directed at the classes that sit near the top of the heap for their niche. As far as building "the complete adventurer" paladin sits near or at the top of martials. Their saves are better, their out of combat utility is better, their animal companion is better than the rangers.
The root argument for non LG paladins is wanting paladin mechanics (which are very likely only as good as they are BECAUSE the restrictions exist) without the restrictions.
A warpriest of Caiden with a sacred weapon rapier is 90% of a CG paladin. Your lay hands is a little worse on throughput but more versatile and you have to put just a little more in wisdom than you might like so that you can headband of wisdom your way into max level spells but the framework is all there and the choice of blessings can tune your character to be actually in theme with the god rather than just a generic template. When this already exists what possible reason is there to go through the playtest process ensuring balance with other alignments?
Edit:
Ryan Friere assumes that's the only reason people want Chaotic Good Paladins.
I assume its a major reason, particularly on these boards given the focus on optimization you get on online boards.
Like, seriously, shooting star gives you a solid boost, but it's maybe a few points better than if you didn't dump Dex/Str. By mid levels other damage classes are still keeping up reasonably and Paladins are steady beasts at low levels, so any advantage translates mostly to overkill.
That feat gives Cha to attack and damage, you get cha to saves automatically, one level of oracle can add cha to Ac and CMD or AC and replaces dex for reflex saves meaning cha X2 to ref. Cha affects your bonus spells and save dc's. This level of SAD shouldn't be achievable and it requires a lot of fiddling with already existing aspects of the game to open up CG paladins without allowing this.
Why shouldn't this be allowed? Because everything on this game runs on a curve, and when you point buy or stack one stat to to the exclusion of others while minimizing the consequences of things like low dex/wisdom/etc you further marginalize classes that have a M.A.D requirement to be functional, push them farther down the totem pole and increase the feelings of "my character/this party member isn't contributing enough" out there in the wide world.
|
That observation being made, there was someone who asked you several pages ago - maybe you missed it, maybe I missed your response - that, were they asking for just what you were suggesting they were, why is that objectively a bad thing?
This. Paladins are strong classes, but they're not any way as ridiculous as a 9 level spell class at mid levels and above. Are there really that many people who want to build the class around the starknife just to get the cha bonus? And even if there are, does that really cause problems? Like, seriously, shooting star gives you a solid boost, but it's maybe a few points better than if you didn't dump Dex/Str. By mid levels other damage classes are still keeping up reasonably and Paladins are steady beasts at low levels, so any advantage translates mostly to overkill.
In the end I suspect that most people aren't in it for the mechanical advantages, if they were there are easy ways to get similar effects. Granted, this is supposition on my part, but then it's the same for those that think it's all about SAD.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with rifts
You say that, and yet the wizard continues to exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with rifts, and almost universally the calls for loosening restrictions seem to be directed at the classes that sit near the top of the heap for their niche. As far as building "the complete adventurer" paladin sits near or at the top of martials. Their saves are better, their out of combat utility is better, their animal companion is better than the rangers.
The root argument for non LG paladins is wanting paladin mechanics (which are very likely only as good as they are BECAUSE the restrictions exist) without the restrictions.
A warpriest of Caiden with a sacred weapon rapier is 90% of a CG paladin. Your lay hands is a little worse on throughput but more versatile and you have to put just a little more in wisdom than you might like so that you can headband of wisdom your way into max level spells but the framework is all there and the choice of blessings can tune your character to be actually in theme with the god rather than just a generic template. When this already exists what possible reason is there to go through the playtest process ensuring balance with other alignments?
Except that most of those arguing for a CG paladin - my self included - are arguing that they still want restrictions in the form of a paladin code of ethics.
The crux of your argument seems to be that LG is a inherently unfun alignment to play and the only reason anyone would ever play an LG paladin is because they had to.
I categorically disagree with your assertions; that alignment is difficult to remove from the game, that the alignment restriction is an effective or necessary check on the paladin's class power, and that warpriest is an effective substitute.
Especially that last one because I can make - and have done so - a LG warpriest.
Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with riftsYou say that, and yet the wizard continues to exist.
Yeah, and you don't see me advocating for loosening restrictions on it, whereas this is an entire thread on loosening restrictions on what is probably the most mechanically strong martial class in the game.
i want a paladin for every alignment CG included but i don't give a rats patuty about desnas starknife fighting why would i want to use cha as my main to hit and...
Because point buy exists.
Yeah, and you don't see me advocating for loosening restrictions on it, whereas this is an entire thread on loosening restrictions on what is probably the most mechanically strong martial class in the game.Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with riftsYou say that, and yet the wizard continues to exist.
What are these restrictions on the wizard class that I'm unaware of?
Because point buy exists.
i want a paladin for every alignment CG included but i don't give a rats patuty about desnas starknife fighting why would i want to use cha as my main to hit and...
It'll be a cold day in the plane of fire before I use point buy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
its actually quite a lot of work to disentangle the 3.0 chassis from alignment and alignment restrictions, which is neither harmful, inconvenient, nor arbitrary.
it really isn't that much work at all. See I could assume you were lying about your motivations and beliefs and that what you're saying here isn't your true reasoning. But I won't I'll just say its not right.
The root argument for non LG paladins is wanting paladin mechanics (which are very likely only as good as they are BECAUSE the restrictions exist) without the restrictions.
you realize there is almost nothing a Paladin can do that can't already be done as well or overall better/more reliably by another class?
Yeah, and you don't see me advocating for loosening restrictions on it, whereas this is an entire thread on loosening restrictions on what is probably the most mechanically strong martial class in the game.
This isn't a thread about barbarians...?
What are these restrictions on the wizard class that I'm unaware of?Yeah, and you don't see me advocating for loosening restrictions on it, whereas this is an entire thread on loosening restrictions on what is probably the most mechanically strong martial class in the game.Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with riftsYou say that, and yet the wizard continues to exist.
A primary stat that has little to no combat relevancy outside of their spellcasting, reliance on spellbooks which can be stolen/destroyed, significant GM control over which spells can be learned or are even available. Low HD. Fewer base class abilities than non 9 level casters, a fairly limited skill list, armor restrictions, weapon restrictions, even then its not enough to overcome unrestricted access to their spell list.
point buy is also terribly designedBecause point buy exists.
i want a paladin for every alignment CG included but i don't give a rats patuty about desnas starknife fighting why would i want to use cha as my main to hit and...
Maybe in your opinion.
Point Buy is well balanced and makes sure all the players are on the same playing field.
A primary stat that has little to no combat relevancy outside of their spellcasting, reliance on spellbooks which can be stolen/destroyed, significant GM control over which spells can be learned or are even available. Low HD. Fewer base class abilities than non 9 level casters, a fairly limited skill list, armor restrictions, weapon restrictions, even then its not enough to overcome unrestricted access to their spell list.What are these restrictions on the wizard class that I'm unaware of?Yeah, and you don't see me advocating for loosening restrictions on it, whereas this is an entire thread on loosening restrictions on what is probably the most mechanically strong martial class in the game.Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with riftsYou say that, and yet the wizard continues to exist.
Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.
Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?
Lets just remove all the restrictions!
I have mentioned several times that I don't have a lot of respect - any respect, really - for the traditionalist position on this because I've heard all the arguments and find them to be tautological, axiomatic(appropriately enough), and utterly unconvincing. More than that I don't respect the position of tradition for tradition's sake in general. I don't see a value in tradition for it's own sake; if a tradition has an objective value or is at least harmless, then fine, keep it. It it is obtrusive, majorly inconvenient, or out and out harmful - as many of them are - then they should be discarded as remnants of the past.
Its fine, i dont have any respect for your position, and despite the denials I see it as a powermongering reach for creating the most S.A.D character humanly possible. I dont buy your "no its not about desna its about caiden/other gods".
I also don't have any respect for the "i hate the alignment system" players, the game itself has so many spells and class abilities tied to the alignment system I feel like people who hate it so much should probably look for different game systems as its actually quite a lot of work to disentangle the 3.0 chassis from alignment and alignment restrictions, which is neither harmful, inconvenient, nor arbitrary.
I'm a bit confused. How is a different alignment paladin-like class powergaming?
I know I and others have said a number of times that it would not be an exact copy of the existing paladin's powers, despite the claims that all anyone wants is X power.
There's one feat in the game that lets Desna worshippers use Charisma as the attack and damage stat when wielding starknives.
Ryan Friere assumes that's the only reason people want Chaotic Good Paladins.
Ah yes, that. A mostly boards problem. I've found that many problems cease to BE problems when the GM says "Please don't do that" or players aren't looking for the bestest builds, grey areas, or otherwise wandering around looking for the most plusses. The fringe cases shouldn't dictate the rest of the game.
point buy is also terribly designedBecause point buy exists.
i want a paladin for every alignment CG included but i don't give a rats patuty about desnas starknife fighting why would i want to use cha as my main to hit and...
And yet it manages to be the standard by which everyone lists out their character builds on this forum.
Everyone? I missed the meeting again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A primary stat that has little to no combat relevancy outside of their spellcasting, reliance on spellbooks which can be stolen/destroyed, significant GM control over which spells can be learned or are even available. Low HD. Fewer base class abilities than non 9 level casters, a fairly limited skill list, armor restrictions, weapon restrictions, even then its not enough to overcome unrestricted access to their spell list.What are these restrictions on the wizard class that I'm unaware of?Yeah, and you don't see me advocating for loosening restrictions on it, whereas this is an entire thread on loosening restrictions on what is probably the most mechanically strong martial class in the game.Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with riftsYou say that, and yet the wizard continues to exist.
They have access to plenty of spells that compensate for that.
I've never known a GM petty enough to actually try and target a caster's spellbook nor a group that would tolerate such a move.
Most GM control I've seen asserted over that is "no third party spells".
I believe the idea is "don't get hit" of which they have a plethora of options.
Compensated by having int as their primary stat.
Most people on these boards would tell you that armor is highly inefficient.
In so far as they need weapons, that's easily overcome with a feat or proper race selection.
None of which is remotely comparable to paladins being lawful good only as all of that is mechanical while the paladin restriction is a roleplaying one that is subject to huge variation between deity codes and a player's roleplaying ability. And your argument continues to ignore that most people asking for non-lg paladins want there to still be a code of conduct, just codes tailored for the CG deities.
But that's all invalid because apparently this is just a convoluted and elaborate con so that I can make use of a feat that I didn't know existed an hour ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never known a GM petty enough to actually try and target a caster's spellbook nor a group that would tolerate such a move.
Is it also "petty" to target Fighter's with a Will save? or the Rogue with a Fortitude save?
I don't see how it's petty to attempt to disable the god wizard's only weakness.
None of which is remotely comparable to paladins being lawful good only as all of that is mechanical while the paladin restriction is a roleplaying one that is subject to huge variation between deity codes and a player's roleplaying ability.
The Paladin's restriction is also mechanical. You literally lose power if you break it. It's not simply a role playing thing.
But that's all invalid because apparently this is...
Well realistically i dont believe you on this. I dont believe you weren't aware of how cha classes can be made super SAD, I dont believe that the primary issue is a roleplay one when warpriest exists and can easily be roleplayed as a "paladin" of whatever god while taking on a code based on the well documented tenets of any of the major golarion religions. Couching it as a roleplay issue is a non-starter, your character could be a swashbuckler and roleplay as a holy warrior of Caiden, or a bard and roleplay as a holy warrior of Desna. Its a hunt for mechanical advantage and general distaste for alignment rules with roleplay used as a smokescreen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, and there we go.
It feels like the main reason some people insist on LG-only paladins is that they enjoy telling others that they're playing the game wrong.
Desna's Shooting Star is an excuse available only in retrospect, and while it is a powerful feat, it's a bit overrated since you still need Dex to qualify for the feats that would make it really strong.
Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.
Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?
Lets just remove all the restrictions!
Is that your argument, that the alignment restriction on the Paladin is a balancing factor? Because that's already been addressed in this thread. Or are you just getting snide under pressure?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never known a GM petty enough to actually try and target a caster's spellbook nor a group that would tolerate such a move.Is it also "petty" to target Fighter's with a Will save? or the Rogue with a Fortitude save?
I don't see how it's petty to attempt to disable the god wizard's only weakness.
Target a fighter or a rogue with those saves and they're useless for the duration of the fight(assuming it's not something that kills them outright, in which case, they die).
Target a wizard's spell book and they're useless until they can find a new one, which could be a considerable amount of time depending on when and where.
A more apt comparison might be sundering a fighter's weapon when they don't have a back up. Which, generally speaking the groups I've been a part of don't bother with sundering/item damage rules either, partly because it's seen as a bit of a dick move and partly because it's a hassle to keep track of that stuff and frankly we're too lazy to bother with it.
And a wizard probably isn't going to have great fort/ref saves either, so aim for those.
I've never known a GM petty enough to actually try and target a caster's spellbook nor a group that would tolerate such a move.Is it also "petty" to target Fighter's with a Will save? or the Rogue with a Fortitude save?
I don't see how it's petty to attempt to disable the god wizard's only weakness.
None of which is remotely comparable to paladins being lawful good only as all of that is mechanical while the paladin restriction is a roleplaying one that is subject to huge variation between deity codes and a player's roleplaying ability.The Paladin's restriction is also mechanical. You literally lose power if you break it. It's not simply a role playing thing.
Eh, I've given wizards different weaknesses/disadvantages in various games. It's made for a more interesting game, at least for my players.
Ah, and there we go.
It feels like the main reason some people insist on LG-only paladins is that they enjoy telling others that they're playing the game wrong.
I'm not saying anything about whatever happens in peoples home games under their house rules. I'm saying as a change to the basic rules of the game its a comparative power level issue with other martials, and a loss of thematic flavor for the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No but then its a completely none equivalent comparison.
Just like, take away alignment restrictions (but not codes) from a paladin, is none equivalent to, give rogues 9th level casting.
but then false equivalency are your favorite things to throw around aren't they?
a more accurate comparison would be sundering the fighters +3 greatsword.
God wizard weaknesses
-fort
-ref
-hp damage
-ac
-silence
-anti magic
how is it their only weakness their component pouch?
oh wait it isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well realistically i dont believe you on this. I dont believe you weren't aware of how cha classes can be made super SAD, I dont believe that the primary issue is a roleplay one when warpriest exists and can easily be roleplayed as a "paladin" of whatever god while taking on a code based on the well documented tenets of any of the major golarion religions. Couching it as a roleplay issue is a non-starter, your character could be a swashbuckler and roleplay as a holy warrior of Caiden, or a bard and roleplay as a holy warrior of Desna. Its a hunt for mechanical advantage and general distaste for alignment rules with roleplay used as a smokescreen.
But that's all invalid because apparently this is...
I believe that you don't believe me. But that's alright because I know I'm arguing from a position that I genuinely believe in.
The Paladin's restriction is also mechanical. You literally lose power if you break it. It's not simply a role playing thing.
Which would still apply to chaotic good paladins. I don't know why that keeps getting ignored.
Desna's Shooting Star is an excuse available only in retrospect, and while it is a powerful feat, it's a bit overrated since you still need Dex to qualify for the feats that would make it really strong.
Is that your argument, that the alignment restriction on the Paladin is a balancing factor? Because that's already been addressed in this thread. Or are you just getting snide under pressure?Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.
Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?
Lets just remove all the restrictions!
Under pressure of what?
I'm simply stating that once alignment restrictions are removed, what will be next on the chopping block?
Why not continue removing restrictions?
I want to have a Rogue chassis with 9th divine casting. Why can't that happen?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Desna's Shooting Star is an excuse available only in retrospect, and while it is a powerful feat, it's a bit overrated since you still need Dex to qualify for the feats that would make it really strong.
Is that your argument, that the alignment restriction on the Paladin is a balancing factor? Because that's already been addressed in this thread. Or are you just getting snide under pressure?Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.
Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?
Lets just remove all the restrictions!
Under pressure of what?
I'm simply stating that once alignment restrictions are removed, what will be next on the chopping block?
Why not continue removing restrictions?
I want to have a Rogue chassis with 9th divine casting. Why can't that happen?
I'm legitimately curious as to whether or not you understand the concept of false equivalency.
Desna's Shooting Star is an excuse available only in retrospect, and while it is a powerful feat, it's a bit overrated since you still need Dex to qualify for the feats that would make it really strong.
Is that your argument, that the alignment restriction on the Paladin is a balancing factor? Because that's already been addressed in this thread. Or are you just getting snide under pressure?Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.
Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?
Lets just remove all the restrictions!
Under pressure of what?
I'm simply stating that once alignment restrictions are removed, what will be next on the chopping block?
Why not continue removing restrictions?
I want to have a Rogue chassis with 9th divine casting. Why can't that happen?
I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you are sincerely arguing that.
You could have a rogue chassis with 9th level divine casting. Just design it, clear it with your GM/players and bingo bango, there you go.
Again, it'd be nice if Paizo gave everyone what they wanted .. but in a way they did. They gave you the game system and the ability to do what you want with it. Go for it and have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you are sincerely arguing that.Desna's Shooting Star is an excuse available only in retrospect, and while it is a powerful feat, it's a bit overrated since you still need Dex to qualify for the feats that would make it really strong.
Is that your argument, that the alignment restriction on the Paladin is a balancing factor? Because that's already been addressed in this thread. Or are you just getting snide under pressure?Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.
Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?
Lets just remove all the restrictions!
Under pressure of what?
I'm simply stating that once alignment restrictions are removed, what will be next on the chopping block?
Why not continue removing restrictions?
I want to have a Rogue chassis with 9th divine casting. Why can't that happen?
You have the patience of a saint, sir.
I'm legitimately curious as to whether or not you understand the concept of false equivalency.
So your allowed to want "a CG class with full BAB, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, buffing aura, a touch ability, and 4/9 casting. "
but I'm not allowed to want "a class with 3/4 Bab, armor/weapons, sneak attack, 4+skills, and 9/9 casting"?
Why is your want serious and needed and mine seen as a joke or a false equivalent.
We both want something that doesn't exist in the game because of restrictions in the rules.
You could have a rogue chassis with 9th level divine casting. Just design it, clear it with your GM/players and bingo bango, there you go.
Again, it'd be nice if Paizo gave everyone what they wanted .. but in a way they did. They gave you the game system and the ability to do what you want with it. Go for it and have fun.
The same thing could be said for CG Paladins.
I'm legitimately curious as to whether or not you understand the concept of false equivalency.Desna's Shooting Star is an excuse available only in retrospect, and while it is a powerful feat, it's a bit overrated since you still need Dex to qualify for the feats that would make it really strong.
Is that your argument, that the alignment restriction on the Paladin is a balancing factor? Because that's already been addressed in this thread. Or are you just getting snide under pressure?Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.
Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?
Lets just remove all the restrictions!
Under pressure of what?
I'm simply stating that once alignment restrictions are removed, what will be next on the chopping block?
Why not continue removing restrictions?
I want to have a Rogue chassis with 9th divine casting. Why can't that happen?
You're confusing false equivalency with Reductio ad Absurdum
