Paladin of Iomedae

Azraiel's page

33 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish! Unfortunately people in my groups are obsessed with "diversifying", so I never get to play in a group with a uniting cause/theme/origin, or enjoy tackling any challenges brought up by a group that doesn't have all the bases covered. Not to suggest that they make boring characters, they don't, but I am considering clearing all my future characters with the DM in secret all the same.

Liz Courts wrote:
  • All-paladin group (but of different deities)
  • I envy you.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Otherwhere wrote:

    Because Detect Magic is an at-will, unlimited use cantrip now, I simply turned it into a sense that all spell-casters simply have. Yes, they have to concentrate with the minor hassles that imposes, but otherwise they all can sense magic. In a world where this is so prevalent, the counter-measures are also commonly employed to obscure the aura when/if it is important to do so.

    Creates some extra work for me, but I like the flavor and so it isn't a problem.

    So characters with Detect Magic at will have octagons in their eyes as well as rods and cones? ;)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Nicos wrote:
    I have a couple of problems with that. First you have to counter a spell with another spell. Second it make things more convoluted that they should be. Third the whole planning that kind of stuff is annoying, it doesn't show how smart the GM is, it doesn't show how much the Gm know the system, it is just a burden to have to do this kind of things. And that is just a cantrip. But well, I suppose my rant is more about magic in PF in general.

    Welcome to caster supremacy?

    But in all seriousness, any undercover villain (or hero for that matter) that doesn't mask their true alignment and any suspicious magical auras they're carrying around isn't even trying to stay hidden. Magic and alignment detection have been omnipresent throughout D&D's history.

    Status Effect: The method by which a spellcaster slightly increases the amount of enjoyment they are experiencing at the expense of all of the victim's enjoyment. See also: Funpire, Nap Time, Smoko, and Strategic Fun Redistribution (SFD).

    True Neutral: An individual prone to perching upon fences, also known to engage in erratic and irrational behaviour because they are "above your petty morality", see also: Neutral Evil.

    Cohort: See Slave.

    Paladin: A noble champion of justice and the common good, imbued with the power to oppose evil. Powers may be instantly revoked without appeal if the Paladin succumbs to evil, neutrality, nonlawful goodness, or any action that offends the political philosophy of the GM.

    Munchkin: An individual who, as an equal partner in the adventuring party, constantly strives to be the most equal of the group.

    Scrub: An experienced gamer who plays at a beginner level as a matter of choice/pride, as higher levels of skill are Dishonorable.

    Powergamer: Anyone better at playing the game according to the Rules As Written than a scrub.

    Dragon, True: See Gigantic Sentient Flying Lizard Wizards.

    Greatsword: The only melee weapon known to exist. See Two-Handed Power Attack.

    Charisma: An attribute that, if high, is used to remind the DM that people are supposed to be positively predisposed towards your character. No matter how high, the Charisma attribute will not make your character any more liked by NPC's than the worst member of your adventuring party.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Aelryinth wrote:

    IF you want to address the 'problem' with martials, you MUST MUST MUST do ALL of the following.

    All of them. Not SOME of them...

    I agree with pretty much all of that, though I feel compelled to remind you that it's not just detractors of The Disparity that are uncomfortable with the idea of fighters walking on water, flying, out-wrestling dragons etc just because they need to for balance. What they need is cool ways to shut down those problematic abilities. Martials don't need to be able to wrestle a Dragon toe-to-toe so much as they ought to be able to scale the Dragon, distract, debilitate and generally make life painful for it, and if they so wish, beat it into submission and make it their mount.

    One of my favourite examples of a Mythic ability done almost right is Dimensional Grappler, explained in the spoiler below for the uninitiated.

    Dimensional Grappler:
    Dimensional Grappler (Su): When you have an opponent grappled or pinned and it attempts to use a teleportation effect, you can attempt a Will save against the effect, even if it would not normally allow a save. If you succeed, you learn the type of teleportation effect (such as dimension door) and the creature's intended destination, and then may prevent the effect (as if using a quickened dimensional anchor, using your character level as your caster level) or accompany the opponent as if you were part of its gear with negligible weight.

    I say almost right because obviously any class that doesn't have strong will saves gets cheated out of a really, really cool ability. Paladins and Monks get to enjoy and fully utilise it, most other martials do not, and that's sad. But if Dimensional Grappler had been implemented properly as an (Ex) ability with a more universal mechanic, it would've been the gold standard of how martials should be able to counter cheap tricks, at least to me. The enemy casts fly or takes wing to harry you? You can shoot them down and finish it up close weather they like it or not. They're invisible? That's okay, you have situational awareness and blind-fighting; stab them if they try to sneak up on you, and counter-snipe them if they try something at range. The enemy tries to teleport? Grab them by the throat and shut that shit down, or better yet, hitch a ride to draw their WORST DAY EVER out a little longer. Martial counters ought to be simple, efficient, cool and require as little suspension of disbelief as possible.

    Martials are never going to have as many fantastical abilities as casters, that's the whole point of casters. But martials deserve the ability to counter these magicks when they're being used against them, and to look good doing it. Mages are dangerous, geeking the mage first is just common sense, but that mage should be thinking to himself "Holy shit I need to geek this fighter somehow." too.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ssalarn wrote:
    Azraiel wrote:
    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    Steve: I'll jump in, hit his central neck with a clothesline, bounce off the ropes and drive my knee into him while he's still down and finish him with a Stone Cold Stunner.

    Ally: Or I could summon a horde of angels.

    How did I miss this reference?!

    I would give you more than one +1 if I could, kyrt-ryder.

    That may be the best martial/caster disparity video ever. Thank you for linking that in.

    Most welcome! One of my favorite skits (and comedic duos) ever, hence my incredulity at missing the reference at first.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
    If paladin commits ANY evil act, no matyer how small, they fall. Point blank period. THAT is why they fall.

    I use the phrase "going to town" because it's sufficiently vague to not be nitpicky, but specific enough to imply a dramatically and contextually appropriate punishment, such as a classic revenge spree. Actually falling is not required to make this a terrifying threat, just a willingness to pay that price.

    The real pitfall to playing a Paladin is figuring out (or hopefully just being able to hash out frankly) what the GM's interpretation of the Paladin code is. Lawful stupid GM's are a thing too, after all.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    Paladin. Full Stop.

    No, not lawful stupid, I-didn't-actually-read-the-code-on-induction-day Paladins; there's nothing in the code that says you have to be a chaste, stuck-up knight templar. If you actually read it, very little of it is much of a handicap at all.

    A knight templar type might live in fear of falling, but real Paladins do not; their enemies do. Any evildoer with half a brain realises that if they piss a Paladin off enough, they will happily fall from grace once they're done going to town on you. I'm not even talking about the awesome old Powder Keg of Justice story. That one's dialled up to 11 in a good way, but Paladins are people, hopefully exceptional ones, but people have limits that they won't cross without the right nudge. You don't want to give them that nudge.

    And that's just the "I have to be a jerk who's constantly fretting over my own moral cleanliness" misconception. Real paladins get to have fun and look damn good doing it. Partying and post-saving-the-whatever debauchery is AOK, and you can drink pretty much anybody under the table besides. Massive Fortitude Saves, Mercies and Immunity to Disease is an enviable combination for those who enjoy a spot of revelry.

    Being arrested isn't automatic grounds for falling either. You can spend time in the slammer for breaking crappy laws*, break out of said slammer*, and then dust yourself off, pick up your sword, and go be a champion of justice and goodness with your adventuring company all over again.

    No other class has that kind of awesome roleplaying fodder built in for free, and that's just my extreme example of a noble scoundrel type Paladin. There's plenty of other ways to portray them credibly.

    (*remember, only legitimate authority needs to be respected.)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    Steve: I'll jump in, hit his central neck with a clothesline, bounce off the ropes and drive my knee into him while he's still down and finish him with a Stone Cold Stunner.

    Ally: Or I could summon a horde of angels.

    How did I miss this reference?!

    I would give you more than one +1 if I could, kyrt-ryder.

    Insain Dragoon wrote:
    Azraiel wrote:
    Insain Dragoon wrote:
    All he has is an +1 Adamantine Aku bane Katana.
    It could be Excalibur, with or without the scabbard, and it wouldn't make him any less badass, or less of a "pure" magic-is-fer-pussies martial. An awesome magical sword is always an acceptable accoutrement!
    What I meant is that in compared to Pathfinder Martials he generally accomplishes a lot more with a lot less. We're all collecting magical trinkets and artifacts like it's Pokemon, but Jack does it all with just a magic sword and a robe.

    Yeah, I got that, no worries. What I was getting at was that having a cool magic sword isn't "cheating" at being a pure martial. Rather that acquiring an important weapon (magic or not) is almost an expected part of your average martial hero's journey.

    Insain Dragoon wrote:
    All he has is an +1 Adamantine Aku bane Katana.

    It could be Excalibur, with or without the scabbard, and it wouldn't make him any less badass, or less of a "pure" magic-is-fer-pussies martial. An awesome magical sword is always an acceptable accoutrement!

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    VargrBoartusk wrote:
    As for the Path of War, Let me first explain my stance on magic. Magic ? Magic is magic. Psionics are magic, SLA's are magic, Dragons ability to fly and other square/cube law funzies like giants? Also magic. Magic is any form of BS that allows someone or something to do the blatently impossible. Now some of this like most spell effects are big flashy i summon fire and rain doom upon my enemies and this is blatent BSing at its best. No one argues it's impossability and for caster types this is fine. For martials it's to much for me. Your milage might very you might like it I don't.

    See, that explanation sheds some much needed light. You ascribe any capability that violates real world physics to magic, and that's totally okay, but the default assumption of Pathfinder's high fantasy world is that, while dragons may be chockers with awesome magic, those wings they have work. Their bodies don't collapse or tear themselves apart because gigantic sentient flying lizard wizards can exist "naturally" in Golarion.

    Again, not hating on your interpretation, but I feel compelled to point out that it is yours, and that by cannon, the natural laws of Golarian accommodate things like Dragons and Giants and the Tarrasque.

    The question asked by critics of the disparity, a question I see being sadly misrepresented way too often, seems to be "if all of these other things can exist without magic, why are fighters arbitrarily barred from tapping into the same natural/extraordinary/nonmagical goodness?" Or, to put it another way, "why are nice things only for non-humanoids and primary spellcasters?"

    Why is a warrior who transcends real world limitations just a little bit via legendary prowess, less sucky skills, and little things like better climb/jump/run/swim rates so offensive? The Fighter can already start their day with a refreshing cup of liquid hot magma, outrun the fastest humans who ever lived, lift spine-snapping loads, then sleep off the damage from those lightly cooked internal organs and do it all again tomorrow. Why is patching in some far more reasonable extraordinary capabilities suddenly crossing a "must be magic" threshold?

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Insain Dragoon wrote:
    So someone like Samurai Jack then?

    You. I like you.

    Cool holy sword? Check.
    A whole bunch of useful skills at max? Check.
    Awesome leader? Check.
    Can fight a bunch of chumps and/or one big bad thing? Check.
    Relies on magic to save the day exactly 0% of the time? Check.

    Jack is definitely an example of a "just that badass" high fantasy character done right.

    RDM42 wrote:
    Bandw2 wrote:
    John Lynch 106 wrote:
    Remove a wizard's spellbook from them before they've prepared their daily spells and they'll be more useless than a naked fighter. Both classes are SOL though.

    actually unless they used all their spells from yesterday i'm pretty sure they keep them.

    could be wrong though.

    also we deviated from the core expectations specifically to show that they were gear dependent.

    Regardless, the spell slots and ability to memorize spells is the class feature, not the filled slots. You want to presume an equipmentless fighter, you get to presume a wizard or sorcerer with empty spell slots.

    Your passive aggression is turning into regular aggression, also that counter point has been debunked. Prepared spells are retained indefinitely until cast, wizards have a multitude of ways to work around losing access to their spellbooks, and cantrips and school abilities are things that exist.

    Next argument, please.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    These may not be complete, but the unspoken rules seem to be as follows:

    (1) Casters must never steal the spotlight. If you can end a combat with a spell combination, don't. Instead, cast most of your spells so that the martials look good -- even if it's not really necessary to have them along, you must always pretend it is. This means that you don't save up explosive runes traps, and you don't use armies of simulacra, and you don't send planar bound critters to do all the fighting -- because gentlemen just don't do those things.

    (2) Follow the railroad. Artificial timelines and endless series of combat encounters are what make martials look good, and they're also the most easily avoided situations, once casters start really using their spells. So don't. Don't use divinations, don't bypass encounters, don't change the playing field. Ignore the temptation to solve problems through solutions other than combat.

    (3) If casters forget the first two rules, the DM's job is to remind them. Arbitrarily add restrictions or drawbacks to spells, or threaten out-of-rules consequences for using them, or, in extreme cases, declare outright that every dungeon is in an antimagic field. Give the martials all kinds of narrative abilities through "role playing" that the rules don't actually give them, and minimize the same for the casters.

    (4) Every episode needs a contrived underwater element to make Aquaman seem like a full member of the Justice League. It's the DM's job to contrive to make the martials look good, regardless of how much that damages suspension of disbelief.

    (5) Ignore that the game is based on mechanical underpinnings. Play Magical Tea Party as much as possible. The DM should fudge dice rolls at will, or even ignore them outright. The DM should alter stats mid-encounter as needed, or alter monster tactics (usually choosing to make them do really dumb things like run up next to the fighter and stand there to get full-attacked). Above all, the DM should always ignore actual written rules in favor...

    This. So many times over. Whenever a PC doesn't obey the Polite Code for Gentlemanly Magicians, the rest of the party becomes their sidekicks at best or their pawns at worst. It's not even malicious, full casters just naturally assert control over their surroundings.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tormsskull wrote:
    Okay, what do you think is more fair? 60% don't have a problem with the disparity? 40%?

    Why bandy about totally unverifiable percentages in the first place?

    But if we're going with gut math, I don't know anybody who plays Pathfinder or D&D and thinks that the martial/caster disparity isn't a thing, so I'll see your 40% and go all in. I don't play with a representative sample of all Pathfinder players everywhere, so I don't pretend that my own subjective 100% is accurate, but in my experience, the more experience a player has, the more likely they are to realise that their beloved martial character isn't at the Wizard's right hand, or even eating at the same table.

    They're the help.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    RDM42 wrote:
    Azraiel wrote:
    The problem there doesn't seem to be that withdrawing is a thing, more that martial characters don't have a way to cut you down like a coward when you try to flee from them.
    If you don't have withdraw, PCs will never leave combat, they don't flee enough as it is,

    That's an oversimplification, I'm afraid. Martial characters need to be able to punish you for turning your back on them. Not every Tom, Dick and Harry, and certainly not your average dumb monster, just martially-trained sentients and appropriately swift or ferocious creatures.

    There is a galaxy of difference between a dweeb wizard with a knife trying to block your egress and a trained warrior who will cut you down the moment you falter or take your eyes off them.

    Lifat wrote:
    NobodysHome wrote:

    The Withdraw action.

    "Eeek! I'm a wizard next to a fighter! Now I'm going to run away without provoking an attack of opportunity from him, and weave around this chair in the room to prevent him from charging to catch up with me!"

    Spending one round to get out of a dire situation 'for free' seemed so cheesy I disallowed it in my first campaign. Our other GMs allowed it, so I started allowing it, and it's always been abusive and cheesy, in my opinion.

    Even if I agreed with you that withdraw was overly powerful (which I don't), then I'd like to remind you that without it most parties will never ever flee from battle (untill they get other ways to escape). Personally I'd love having my players run away from a potential party wipe combat. As a GM I'm supposed to try and avoid the situation but it does happen from time to time and then it is nice that the players have a chance to escape.

    I don't see how "Move away from opponent in a straight line and do nothing else on your entire turn" to avoid AoO from the first 5 foot square you leave is to powerful. Once they initiate withdraw that is it. The only choice they have left is how many feet they are going to move in a straight line.

    The problem there doesn't seem to be that withdrawing is a thing, more that martial characters don't have a way to cut you down like a coward when you try to flee from them.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Biztak wrote:
    Do martial characters really need better things?

    Ye gods, yes.

    andreww wrote:
    Azraiel wrote:
    A moderately concealable wall opener. An Adamantine dagger probably won't create a passage-sized hole through a wall in reasonable combat time, but it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter.

    No, it wont

    Ignoring hardness doesn't do anything if the weapon is incapable of damaging the object in the first place.

    I's say I defy you to justify how a weapon that ignores the hardness of the object altogether is not effective, but apparently that challenge has stood the test already.

    Chengar Qordath wrote:
    Yeah, any class without an alignment restriction would default to True Neutral as its "natural" alignment. But then, I tend to think of True Neutral as the most common alignment for people anyway. They don't want things to be in a state of total anarchy or rigid order, and while they're not going to be jerks for no reason they also look out for themselves and generally don't make major sacrifices to help strangers.

    Neutral Good would make more sense for a natural default, if we're taking human psychology and nature into account at all. Perhaps even Lawful Good, or at least Lawful Neutral, given our natural inclinations towards such practices as trading, lawmaking and forming social groups/hierarchies.

    Not that the D&D alignment system is nearly nuanced or detailed enough to account for real-world morality and ethics.

    Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
    Idk, you guys are odd with your bro code and man code and wh a t evs

    Less of a "code" and more of a gentleman's agreement to the effect of "no d!ck punching". Don't break that agreement unless you enjoy getting in the junk right back.

    But there's definitely no kind of secret Bro Code, right fellas? *makes secret sign*

    Magus and Bards blur the lines between martial and magical, sure, but they rely upon their weapons to be effective. But for Paladins and Rangers a handful of utilitarian spells is icing on the cake, not a core or even important feature. They neither depend upon those abilities nor miss them when they are absent; the weapons they wield are their true tools.

    Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

    If I could like this more than once... I wouldn't. Dishonour is for the weak!

    A moderately concealable wall opener. An Adamantine dagger probably won't create a passage-sized hole through a wall in reasonable combat time, but it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter.

    alair223 wrote:
    kobold cleaver wrote:
    Considering what they do to goblin babies, I don't think we should allow adventurers anywhere near children.
    As long as your children aren't trying to eat you I can't imagine why roving bands of adventurers would be murdering them

    I'm guessing that's a reference to Rise of the Runelords, alair. Without revealing spoilers, what to do with creatures that are inherently evil but presently helpless is a popular moral dilemma to throw at PC's.

    Quark Blast wrote:
    alair223 wrote:
    ...<snip>... Though sometimes it leads to a question of why the 9th level wizard and cleric aren't teaming up with the 4th level ranger to get rid of the nearby goblin issue.
    Welcome to the Forgotten Realms? :D

    Haha! Can't take a 5-ft step without tripping over a legendary protagonist who is more important and powerful than your entire party combined will ever hope to be.

    I don't see a Pathfinder 2E as likely, at least in the foreseeable future. I think a revised edition would be much more likely than a second edition.

    Setting aside Paizo's stated desire to not render current material obsolete, a *lot* of gamers love Pathfinder for the D&D 3rd/3.5 nostalgia. Not only that, Pathfinder preserves its predecessor's charm while substantially revising and improving upon the source. That's quite an accomplishment to risk throwing away.

    Balancing the need to change the game enough to justify charging us for new books against the need to preserve that D&D 3.5 charm and feel would be a massive challenge.

    bugleyman wrote:
    I've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years, but that isn't why. You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't claim to speak for others.

    You are equally welcome to your opinion, good sir, but don't pretend that we're not speaking for a lot of fans, either.

    Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

    Answered in FAQ!

    FAQ wrote:

    Advanced Firearms and Rapid Reload: How does Rapid Reload work with advanced firearms? It seems like I can reload an early firearm with alchemical cartridges and Rapid Reload faster than an advanced firearm. Are advanced firearms meant to receive an additional reload reduction for using metal cartridges? Are they meant to work differently with Rapid Reload than early firearms?

    Advanced firearms do not receive an additional reload reduction for using metal cartridges; their reload speed is the one listed in the chart, and they must use metal cartridges, which don’t affect the reload. On page 136 under loading a firearm, it mentions that Rapid Reload reduces the time to load a firearm in the section for rules that apply to both early and advanced firearms; however, the Rapid Reload feat doesn’t break out advanced firearms separately from other firearms. It should reduce their reload speed from a move action to a free action.

    I'm going to enjoy showing this to every rules lawyer I know *so very, very, very much*.

    Late to the party but for the record, none of my Pathfinder groups have had any trouble understanding the function of this item. We run it as written, without any added command words or requirement to be wielded, and see it as a perfectly fair and reasonable spontaneous caster's answer to the pearls of power, which I remind you are barred from spontaneous casters.

    Quandary wrote:

    If you really think it's an item that needs activation (not all do), then great, you pick it up, activate it however you do, and then it's activated: you now know that spell. You can proceed to cast spells like normal with your newly expanded spells known list.

    I don't see any actual conflict between RAW and what the author's stated intent was, so I will just go with that.

    I'd have to agree with Quandary, and even then only as the worst-case interpretation, rather than the stated/intended application.

    Never had a single problem with Leadership in fifteen years.

    To be fair, my gaming groups lack the "us vs. the DM" attitude that leads to banned mechanics instead of reasonable discussion between adults, but it's a completely reasonable (not to mention cool) benefit to sink a precious feat into all the same.

    At the risk of sounding rude, pre-emptively banning a core feat seems like a scrub move to me.

    Oh gods no, lol

    That Guy is the type who always plays a Chaotic Neutral munchkin who skirts evil territory constantly, and views altruistic party members as holier-than-though jerks. My bad for not being clear enough!

    Stashing something with a lot of utility in it, such as a Wand, a Decanter of Endless Water, a Portable Hole, or a Well of Many Worlds would be a practical idea. Logic being that if you can only hide a couple of items from the bad guys, utility beats power. I've also seen a wizard shrink his spellbook down to fit, and our Rogue hid her backup weapon, a sortof magic switchblade, in hers. You could also fit a Glove of Storing and go from appearing to be disarmed to demolishing fortified walls and enemies with an Adamantine Greatsword in one turn.

    Also don't forget that there's no “one item at a time” stipulation. You could easily slip the Portable Hole full of spare equipment and the Well of Many Worlds in the one pocket for both a comprehensive escape plan, just make sure you can tell them apart...

    Practicality aside, one of the most *fun* applications of items like this for me has been trolling That Guy. You all know That Guy, ye who judges loudly from down low, who conflates being lawful and/or good aligned with being stupid and/or self righteous and can't keep their hands out of other party members pockets. So one session the Wizard crafted concealing pockets for everyone, and we slipped the GM descriptions of what surprises we had left in them for That Guy.

    On the tame but still ego-bruising end, the Wizard's new pocket had nothing but a lump of coal and an alarm spell in it, while the Alchemist's lovely new purse had two pouches, the hidden one she used, and the main pocket which was booby trapped with Sovereign Glue. Unfortunately That Guy never tripped any of the Alchemist's or Wizard's traps, as That Guy targeted party members more or less in descending order of alignment, starting with the “self-righteous” Paladin and the neutral good Shaman. The Paladin played the long game, keeping a handful of valuable coins that, unbeknownst to That Guy, were the same enchanted coins that the party had recovered as part of a sting several adventures prior. Believing all was well, That Guy proceeded to reach into the unsuspecting Shaman's Handy Haversack, only to find... D4+1 ravenous weasels. That they swarmed him in the middle of a marketplace with dozens of laughing onlookers only made the prank that much sweeter for us and an even more memorable lesson for That Guy.

    That Guy later earned a permanent criminal record in two powerful magocratic nations when he spent his 5gp of stolen money. That Guy stopped stealing after that, we were all slightly disappointed.