Personally, I think Fighters are way better than Cavs. Someone said that Rangers and Paladins are the best martial classes and questioned why anyone would ever play another martial class. There are many reasons not to play a Pally or Ranger. Pallys are overly reliant on 1 or 2/day abilities like weapon bond and smite. Also, you're forced to play Awful Good if you're a pally. That may not be for everyone. Rangers core abilities (Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain) require alot of guesswork on the part of the player to make them useful, and if you guess wrong, you're hosed (you took Orc as favored enemy? No orcs in this campaign, have fun sucking!). Also, the combat styles force you into very specific builds, which may not jive with everyone.
Personally, I hate both pallys and rangers with a passion and would never play either. I'd play a Fighter though.
Even though I love Paladins and it's one of my favorite classes and I'm in the minority on loving the Lawful Good alignment restriction, I understand the complaints and have no argument. BUT I think you're way off the Ranger v Fighter thing here.
The Ranger's combat feats are actually more freeing than the Fighter's bonus feats because they don't require prerequisites. For instance, all of the best Archery feats have minimum Dex requirements or that you take other feats you may not want. Ranger gets to skip right over that. For that matter, the Ranger can go TWF without sacrificing an ounce of damage output --- the fighter will HAVE to sacrifice STR for DEX if he wants all of the goodies.
And while the Ranger picking the wrong favored enemy can suck, you get additional ones to choose after you've been playing for a while and even WITHOUT the feature, Rangers still do a fair amount of damage. And have way more skill points. AND spells. Including this one, that will ultimately make the whole wrong favored enemy selection nebulous in actual play.
That being said, I don't think most people say Rangers/Paladins are the only martials worth playing; not while the Barbarian exists, anyway.
The Cavalier needs far more love than it's given. A mount is a pretty powerful option, but it's also way too easily shut out by a petty or unaccommodating GM - especially compared to an Animal Companion, which is still near its max effectiveness when it's not being ridden.
The end of the year is a good time to look back on your life and see what might have gone better, so open up, you're among friends here.
*What's the worst gaming thing you've ever done?
Like worst in character thing? Worst as in 'most evil' was tricking a fighter I owed money to into beating a woman who had dirt on me to death. Worst as in 'dumbest' was probably the time I planting food on a bugbear to piss off his companion mid-combat.
Quote:
The most munchkin-ed PC you've run?
Only because my GM didn't really use every tool in the box..... but my CE Enchanter was nasty. My save DCs were astronomical by first level and he just kept throwing fighters at us.
Quote:
*Worst rule misinterpretation you went with for years?
Truthfully nothing for years - I'm too big of a rules lawyer. But it was usually spells. There are so many I could use them for a long time without realizing I've been using it wrong.
Quote:
*OOC behavior at the table that makes you cringe now?
Really ashamed of this, but when I first started playing one of our table mates was a Chaotic "good" rogue who constantly hoarded the party pot and stole from us. I kind of mentioned to the GM how I don't really think the player was actually "good" and my frustration that I wasn't able to upgrade my gear in four levels because the Rogue had all the money. When we were about to face the big bad the GM handed loot out to everyone.....except the Rogue. And mentioned specifically the hoarding and brought a particular piece of gear I'd mentioned wanting to buy a previous session.
Oh and also ditching games last minute for a girlfriend who was honestly just terrible and there was no future with. My wife and I give each other our space for our separate hobbies and interests, but that's one of the hardest relationship lessons to learn.
Quote:
*Shameless plagiarism you passed off as original? (I'm looking at you, Driz'zt clones!)
Truthfully I plagiarize from these boards more than anything. The most egregious was a redneck witch with a pig familiar stolen whole cloth from a character concept thread.
Quote:
*Character concept you're most ashamed of?
Ugh, the character from my worst OOC moment - an obnoxious, self righteous Paladin with way too many names and titles to keep track of. I thought it'd be funny but it was way more annoying than anything.
Then I suggest some here never play 2E or 5E where magic marts are a must. In both editions some monsters are immune to damage unless it's both a magic weapon and made a certain material. While some parties will run away from such creatures. Their a point where any group of players gets tired of running away. If as a DM they can't find the magical silver longsword. No matter how often they ask or look for it. Fight a werewolf it ends up in a tpk. I put the blame mostly on the DM. The players as well it's up tp the DM to make sure they have the right equipment to survive.
Players should not assume they will get every magic item. Neither should they also have to beg on their hands and knees either. At least with Pathfinder and DR the need for a magic mart is less it's still there. Good luck fighting a werewolf without at least one or two dead pcs if they don't have a silver weapon to overcome it's DR. Again only so many times they can run away. Depending on the type of DM if he or she allows them to run away.
Their a certain point as well where a +1 item just loses the awe factor if you will. If a character is 10th level or higher a regular +1 sword after one finds better items loses it's attraction. It's the same way where a high level party approaches what looks like to be a empty room. The first order of business at least with experienced players. Is Detect Magic/evil, Rogue checks for traps etc. Not "oh look a empty room I'm going to act like I'm first level and not check for traps or magic"
sometimes it's also obvious when a DM goes out of his way to restrict certain items which may cause resentment between players and DMs. Don't confuse suffering in silence with players being happy with your DMing style. The DM I play with currently hates magic marts yet kind of had to backtrack on finding barding for animal companions. Were at a centaur camp and it's in the middle of nowhere. So it makes sense for it to not have as many items as a city would. then he tried to make it be as if their was no...
Someone may have already pointed this out in an earlier reply, but 5E actually has a decent system set up to deal with this where you can be semimagical limited use quick fixes RAW (e.g. alchemical silver for werewolves, holy water for undead) without having to necessarily put in a magic mart.
I don't know if this counts, but I hate Sorcerers being a level behind. I think it has been very well established that prepared casters are powerful enough that it was needless to gimp Sorcerers that way.
I am sure it has been said (a lot) but full attack.
There is a lot I love about Pathfinder - but I can pretty much guarantee my group has permanently moved to 5E, and a huge part of that is how much smoother combat is with the Move-Action-Bonus Action setup. Instead of standing still and doing nine attacks or move and do one, you have 2-4 attacks period. Way more meaningful and fun than I stand still for the whole combat and hope I do enough damage before an SoS spell takes me out.
Mental effects and how they are totally ignored by so many creatures. Immunity to mind effects is to Pathfinder as sneak attack/precision damage was to 3.5. Remember the days when Rogues were never played, because they could not contribute and were totally, arbitrarily shut down in so many confrontations?
Now that is the fate of the Mesmerist, Enchanter, and some others. Undead, Vermin, Plants, Constructs, Swarms, Oozes, Partridges in Pear Trees... you name it, they ignore it. Even creatures with obvious self awareness, thoughts, and minds such as vampires and intelligent plants just outright ignore things that should clearly affect them.
I recently ran "Crypt of the Everflame" for some new players. One was a Thassilonian Enchanter and another a Mesmerist. They were utterly useless and the table of six was really effectively a table of four. I had to take them aside and apologize to them afterwards.
Another related issue is the inability to feint many of these creatures. Which of course makes no sense.
A feint is a physical attack meant to make the target react as it would to a real attack, when in fact you mean to attack elsewhere. There is really nothing mental about it. However, due to the mechanic involving Bluff, mindless creatures are immune.
This is ridiculous, of course. These creatures DO react to physical threats, as they still get their dexterity bonus to AC and still have penalties when they cannot react to threats (i.e.: are flatfooted).
Yet, they instantly know when an attack is not an attack. They are not mindless; they are infallibly hyperaware! Mindless should mean "easy to trick" not "impossible to trick".
Mindlessness and mental immunities seriously need to be looked at again for rebalancing.
One of my first house rules was that intelligent undead were not immune to mind affecting.... er, effects. That always rubbed me the wrong way.
Back to the swarm thing, my group always ruled bludgeoning weapons overcame the damage immunity by covering enough surface area to make a dent.
It's a very good conversion, but a couple of notes on the evolutions: it is probably getting flight too early, especially since it appears to be sustained flight. I would put a time limit on it at least.
And the Smite ability seems to be working like it does in PF, which stomps on a 5E Paladin. Their smite only adds radiant damage (no attack boost) and they have to sacrifice spell slots for it. You might want to scale it back a tad.
I'll also vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination. She's much farther to the right than I'd like, but she's still far different than any of the Republican options and that difference is important.
and I'll vote for/work for hillary when/if she beats sanders. But for me the calculation comes down to
[(%chance bernie winning) X (net good of bernie presidency)] > [(%chance of hillary winning X net good of a hillary presidency)]
Whereas I'll be voting for Clinton in the primaries because I think she'd make a better president than Sanders, not because of electability per se.
Sanders is closer to some of my own economic views and seems to have an above-average store of integrity for a politician. Imagining him in office, I trust him to try to deliver on his promises, a bit more than I trust most politicians' campaign rhetoric.
But I don't trust him to succeed.
I think Clinton may be more adroit at heading off at least parts of the partisan gridlock that I suspect would ultimately paralyze Sanders.
There's some other reasons I prefer her despite some shadiness - work ethic is one - but I'm not going to decry ideologically driven gridlock on the right and then turn around and vote for it on the left.
If gridlock is your concern, it doesn't much matter. Clinton isn't going to be able to do more about current Republican tactics than Obama has or Sanders would.
I'm really not sure what will work. Maybe, eventually, it'll get obvious enough and hurt enough that voters will do something, but I'm not seeing any sign of that yet.
And there's the rub. You cannot fix the problem without undoing the damage the Republicans have done - mainly redrawing the district lines into something resembling sanity and doing away with the gerrymandered mess we currently have.
But as long as Republicans hold majorities, they're not going to do anything about it for obvious reasons. And it'll be almost impossible to take away that majority because they've redrawn everything to make sure they'll stay in power.
Imagine partisan gridlock stomping on a human face forever and ever.
She's weather vaney. She seems to adopt whatever position makes her the most electable. As a new york senator that was pretty far to the left even for a democrat.
This is one of the things that makes me not want to have her as President. Basically, her entire LIFE seems like nothing more than a script to make her appeal to others... but that DOESN'T convince me that she can handle real surprises and spontaneity.
The President of the United States has a lot of power, yes, but the rest of the world does not follow a script put together by her campaign planners. As far as leaders go, I strongly prefer someone who is strongest just by being themselves and has sufficiently demonstrated this kind of independence.
Ms. Clinton just seems... fake.
This is about the only thing that makes her tolerable to me. I don't care if she will only appoint Justices who will overturn Citizens United because she wants some of Sanders' support back - I just care that she does it.
I have to say I'm sick to death of this "country has moved to the right" refrain. First of all, most of the country doesn't participate in the political process AT ALL - if there's been a shift anywhere, it's toward apathy.
But on most of the issues, when broken down, Americans are really more progressive than Congress or the conventional wisdom for sure. Most people do want the rich to pay more, like specific government programs (even my wife's super-Republican, gays-are-causing-the-apocalypse grandfather is worried about Social Security cuts), most Americans are in favor of common sense gun control laws. There are some ways in which that American mean streak shines through - we're overwhelmingly majority in favor or the death penalty no matter how many innocent people we execute (or how many racial biases are revealed in the system, and sadly, often even moreso afterward), and we'd rather let someone die needlessly without access to healthcare rather than see our own taxes increase by a red cent - but ultimately, by most metrics, we are arching toward a more inclusive, progressive society than we had in the 80's.
To the issue of the debates themselves, though, I was kind of shocked O'Malley didn't get more credit. Looking at the debate alone, discounting previous records or gaffes the candidates may have had, O'Malley performed strongly. When asked about climate change, he was the only one to actually mention a proactive plan instead of blaming lobbyists (Sanders, Chaffee), or freaking China. (Clinton - in what was to me the worst answer of the entire night, until Webb made it look like solid gold by comparison to his China/India blaming.)
Webb spent more time complaining about not getting his chance than actually making a case, and in the end, the only reason he's not running as a Republican is because that party has gone down the rabbit hole that if you're not prepared for a Final Solution regarding immigrants or to outright call Climate Change a hoax perpetrated to silence good Christians, you have no place in that clown car.
I like Sanders, I really do. But his performance at the debate was, "Meh." I'll give to him that of all the candidates he was the one who almost straddled the line of telling the truth and admitting that Syria is a situation we have no good answer for. (Prop up a dictator, put troops on the ground and possibly begin a war with Russia, or let civil war reign and concede a large portion of the middle east to Radicals. Sorry if you don't like that but that's the decision America made in 2002 when we planted those seeds.) And his stance on guns is, let's face it, a huge weakness facing down how many high profile mass shootings there have been since Sandy Hook.
Ultimately the real problem with Sanders is that he is just not very popular with the demographic blocs the Democrats actually need to win - the young people and economic populists love him, but they (especially young people and college kids) don't ever vote. Even when Obama was super popular with those blocs, they were not ultimately crucial to his victory. Women and African-Americans actually DO vote, and both are backing Clinton over Sanders by a wide margin.
And as much as I detest Clinton I'll take that sleazy, pandering, take-whatever-side-is-politically expedient over a loony-bin conspiracy theorist like Carson or head-in-the-clouds racist like Trump or - worst of all - a second round of the WORST president in history by any honest metric (or if you can't admit that, at least the worst Republican president), any day of the week.
What really Grinds my Gears is when someone makes a post about a topic that contains a deceptive link to something totally unrelated. For example, there was a time where someone made a post about the different subforums on Paizo.com, and complaining about a phenomenon in which others refer to non-existent subfora. At the end of the post, that person embedded a link to a completely unrelated thread about alignment.
Something that just happened to me: just had a player toward the end of my campaign ask if we could wrap it up sooner because another GM was starting his game back up.
On the one hand the other GM set it on the same day and refused the request to do every other week for a bit at the behest of the other players, and this was a game he'd been playing for a year and was really invested in before it was put on hiatus, so I get it, but it still hurt a bit.
Also really wanted to push for my players to pick up subtle pieces of the story at a time and take the clues to put it together on their own ala Dark Souls, but they glossed over the story points (why I take notes every game) and requested an expo dump when they were lost at the end. That is on me - I should know my group better - but I am disappointed that I won't ever get to do that.
Also an grievance from a game I am a player in - a 5E game wherein the GM literally pitted us against 100(!) undead plus 4 leveled bad guys while we were protecting a caravan. Naturally the entire 300 people in the caravan were slaughtered despite our best efforts.
How do you folks feel about a setting when you're a player?
Well, I long ago made my peace with campaign settings not making sense, due to a common trope that has a fundamental problem - the Underdark.
Seriously, nothing large lives that deep underground, it's not possible. The basic fundamentals for life are sunlight and water. While things do live miles below the surface of the Earth in the real world, they're all small. Mostly it's bacteria. If there's enough bacteria sometimes a few things exist to feed on it, but it rarely goes more than 2-3 rungs up the ladder. The largest are usually 3 inches long at most.
There's just not enough food for anything large and fast moving to live in areas without sunlight.
I may be mistaken, but isn't there in reality an enormous cave system in Southeast Asia with a fully grown forest and its own weather system? Is something that large underground really that far removed from reality?
And I'll add my voice to the "internally consistent" chorus. Realism is whatever, but don't introduce a rule about magic in your world and then discard it willy nilly because it suits you.
I do keep alignment, but I have a very specific interpretation that only relates Law to civic laws. I've stated many time that every single person of any alignment has a personal code and to be any sort of adventurer you have to be disciplined. (Screw that monk justification.)
So Paladins do remain Lawful Good for me - they should respect legitimate authority and always look for opportunities to work within the framework of the law if it is possible.
However, if a player wanted her Paladin to be neutral good, I wouldn't flip the table over it.
Druids have the single most pointless alignment restriction in the game. At least Barbarians and Monks have a justification. The Druid restriction is just dumb. I squash that.
That being said, justification or no, I still don't enforce the Monk or Barbarian alignments. Barbarian tribes definitely have laws (ones I suspect are usually enforced by death or exile, what with the lack of prisons and all) - for that matter, I could see the tribal lifestyle being VERY traditionalist and with very specific protocol and etiquette, particularly when dealing with elders of spiritual leaders.
And I could see a Monk whose 'discipline' is unpredictability and natural talent, who bucks tradition and flouts expectations.
I have to confess being extraordinarly interested in threads that get modded, which half the time increases with Chris Lamberts description of why the thread got modded.
That. Especially when she mentions deleting posts.
WHAT DID THEY SAY?!
Minor correction. ^_^
(I made the same mistake for a couple of months.)
Other than that, 100% agree. I'm drawn to forum drama...
I have to confess being extraordinarly interested in threads that get modded, which half the time increases with Chris Lamberts description of why the thread got modded.
That. Especially when he mentions deleting posts.
WHAT DID THEY SAY?!
Also:
I love gnomes and would probably the player to mutiny if they were removed.
I like silliness and light fantasy. I knew 4E would not be for me when they replaced Gnomes with Tieflings as a core race.
Ulfric wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the consequences I know were coming, or if he wasn't such an ass. Then again, most everyone is an ass, and I can't wait for a PC that can run Skyrim with that "true high king" mod that'll let me MURDERHOBO ULFRIC AND TULLIUS without breaking the quest line.
Legion I can do if I ignore all the dialogue. They're just anathema to my very core, and I haven't quite figured out why. Probably never will. I actually find myself agreeing with a LOT of their policies. I still hate them.
Cutting loose in games is a fantastic stress relief, and has actually had many studies proven that it'll help people with propensities to such acts to NOT do them in real life. Everyone has a demonic hideous little monster inside of them. It's why we carjack and drive like maniacs in games like GTA, or brutally murderhobo that random NPC that insulted us in Skyrim with a stealth arrow to the FACE, or bring down the wrath of heaven with the Archemedes lazor in New Vegas in the middle of a heavily populated area because a thug decided to try and mug ya. Hell, I regularly set up intricate and twisted ways of killing Nazeem in Whiterun because one can live out violent revenge fantasies that way (and I have a LOT of reason to have a LOT of them, lol).
Drugs wouldn't sell well either.
More back on topic: I really, really, really wanna give Way of the Wicked a try... And I can't freaking wait for Paizo's Evil AP.
See I actually thought Tullius was pretty good (see: Defending Whiterun) and besides he wasn't going to rule - Elisif was. She was young and naive, but surrounded herself with smart advisors and even was loyal enough to seek Talos' blessing on her husband's behalf.
It annoys me when someone manages to misspell my alias even when they are making a QUOTE.
I mean, for f#!&'s sake, the quote system automatically puts my name there. You have to actually make the effort to go change it to something incorrect. How the F*#* does that happen?
I am guessing this was probably from my earlier response and the reason is I had to copy+paste and fill in the quote tags myself since I was replying to two separate posts. I always forget the second "h", so, er... my bad.
And yet oddly, despite the genocidal rampage, I can still never find it in me to join with Ulfric. I find him distasteful.
Yeah he's really not much better than the Thalmor in my opinion.
it's been years since I played Skyrim, but I remember back when I was actively playing I wrote a letter/essay from the perspective of my Dragonborn as to why she in the end chose to assist the empire though she was at heart sympathetic to the cause of Skyrim independence.
Unfortunately the letter is on the old hard drive of my dead computer and I can't access it.
Though I'm sure if I got an opportunity to play Skyrim again and remake the same character it might all come back to me.
Well that and (spoilers ahead):
Spoiler:
Ulfric was a Thalmor agent meant to destabilize the empire and make Skyrim/Cyrodill easier to invade. They even mention that had he simply made his case to Torygg, Skyrim would have seceded as one and presented a much stronger front. So really even if you hate the Thalmor, The Empire is your best bet.
Even though Redguards are my favorite race to play and Hammerfell declared independence, I can never bring myself to side with the racist sleeper agent specifically propped up to further the Elf Nazis' cause. (Though I like to headcanon it's just to reunite Skyrim as Asa united front against the Empire and then the Thalmor.)
Edit: Ooh, and I almost forgot the rank hypocrisy over the Markarth incident.
So yeah I can never see any good reason to go Stormcloak.
@ EntrerisShadow - probably because trying to directly address Christianity itself in a Pathfinder product would've provoked an extremely toxic response.
Both from the people angry that it's "wrong" and from people angry that it was attempted at all.
I feel like maybe I'm not making my point correctly here? Because I have said from the start that they shouldn't include real world religions. I actually said that pretty flatly in my last post. The argument is whether having things influenced by religious lore that don't call it out by name is the same as having that religion in the game - and I say no.
I think Skyrim kind of plays on a gentleman's agreement that you'll do things the 'right' way and have balanced skills. Of course once you've dumped 10 hours buying and selling to raise Speech by 3 points, you say screw it and do the trick to get speech to 100 in one transaction because tedious.
My favorite, although not necessarily most powerful, thing to do is max out illusion so I can get Mayhem from the guy at the college. (Best place so far: Riften, though Whiterun had its moments.) I could almost end the civil war by default just by causing everyone to murder each other.
And yet oddly, despite the genocidal rampage, I can still never find it in me to join with Ulfric. I find him distasteful.
My confession: I liked Metallica better before a bus fell on the most/only talented member of the band.
I don't know if that qualifies as a confession so much as objective fact.
Skyrim Rampage Cap'n Yesterday wrote:
I find the CR for Skyrim to be incredibly annoying, it's either they fall before the awesomeness of my rampage or it's Hulk vs Loki, with me being Loki, it's frustrating:-(
A beautiful game tho that's for sure :-)
Really? I've found the only way for me to truly hulk out is to break the system. (Like using the Resto loop or Telekinesis trick)
But for a good challenge that's not absurd I usually go Sword and Board on Expert mode with my smithing maxed out for Dragon Plate.
Of course once you put the time into enchanting all bets are off. Just like 3.PF, Magic > Everything Else.
Soooo... Christianity is LG (except for bloody Protestant heathens, who are NE), Judaism is LN, Islam is CE? Oh, wait, bringing real world religions into D&D actually *is* a terribad idea, I forgot.
Er, yes? We're in total agreement - taking actual real world religious philosophies and slapping a D&D alignment on them isn't really a great idea.
Although I think I've stated it elsewhere, my biggest issue with Rahadoum isn't what terms they decide to call it - the biggest is that it just doesn't make any damn sense whatsoever to me. I keep trying to wrap my head around how it would work, and I just can't.
A misotheistic society just makes no sense in the world of Golarion. And I know the back story and the explanation, but seriously, REALLY break it down and there's no way to justify it without committing to colossal stupidity or insanity. Unless you pared the options way back, it's always going to strike me as kind of stupid that a whole nation decided there wasn't a single redeemable god in the whole bunch. You would think at least Irori might squeak in, but no.
Also I don't know if you can call a nation "LN" when its main government enforcement agency's description reads like an excerpt from 1984.
Yakman wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
As for what exists on earth, if I recall I don't believe the Reign of Winter AP ever delved into the religions here or anything about Russia's political climate.
didn't read Reign of Winter, but from my understanding it does take place in Russia during the 1917 Revolution, and it does feature Rasputin, who, IRL, was an Orthodox mystic.
So... these things are in the Pathfinder Universe, even if there's no commentary about them.
I really do not understand why people won't make the distinction between having things that are inspired by something and outright including them. Like I literally just went over this in the response you're quoting --- they have things inspired by Christianity, but they do not include actual Christianity. Jesus? Never mentioned. The Bible? Doesn't come up.
Quote:
That being said MAGIC, DRAGONS, ELVES. It's a game. People who take it too seriously, or get into a huff about a particular adventure writer's perspectives should re-assess their priorities.
I don't think that's a great attitude, and one I really hope Paizo would never subscribe to. Pardon if I'm misunderstanding, but it kind of sounds like you're saying if they did include Christianity and Islam and slapped "LG" on one and "LN/LE" on another you would say, "Eh, no big deal - people really shouldn't get in a huff over these kinds of things. It's a game after all and that's just the adventure writer's perspective."
Aso for the soldier thing, you know why they DONT just executed war prisoners? Simple, politicS. Most civilized countries have agreed to certain rules with which to operate. Same reason the US doesnt just nuke something, Sure WE COULD. The political ramifications are too steep for the country to risk. Same thing. Most countries dont treat soldiers as murderers because they were under the order of thoer state. Now if they went beyond their orders then they become war criminals.
"I was just following orders" hasn't been a valid excuse since the 40s. Orders have to be lawful to be followed and, if not, you can be a war criminal even if you followed your orders to the letter. Of course, just because you've committed war crimes, doesn't mean you'll actually be prosecuted. Neither of which is a place where an un-fallen Paladin should find themselves.
I feel like it should also be pointed out here that in war it's not uncommon for people on opposite sides of a war to understand the situation and respect one another, even if they are fighting them.
The British have a memorial to George Washington. The Red Baron was given a tribute by Allied Forces. There are examples and stories throughout history where soldiers on opposing sides of war come to have a respect or admiration for each other, despite the necessities of war. So I don't think it's as simple as "to one side he's a hero, to the other a murderer."
Also objective morality exists in Pathfinder. Good is objectively defined. Nowhere in that definition does it say, "Following your deity's orders no matter how cockamamie or trumped up they may be." Unlike theology in the real world, Occam's Razor has been definitively solved by having a power higher than the higher powers --- the dev team who wrote the rules.
Ustalavic Duelist Fighter gets a shout-out because at level 13 it gives you the ability to use your weapon for dirty trick, trip and disarm combat maneuvers... Something everyone can already do.
While that particular tradeoff is bad, the rest doesn't seem awful per se. (Although my guess is this was also a mistake in the wording and the weapon should function as though it has the Trip and Disarm properties.)
You trade out the Bonus Feat for a Dodge bonus to AC, but since you also get Armor Training this makes Medium Armor much better.
Also auto-max damage on Crits? That would be great for a crit fishing build, especially if you had some way of getting Lead Blades. Plus the ability damage at the higher levels could have great synergy with some of the Critical Feats fighters get.
I mean, it's a Fighter - so still bottom rung, but I could actually see choosing this over a vanilla fighter for several builds. (Particularly if I were doing an Inigo Montoya ripoff type.)
I just want to say that Golarion does officially have links to at least a fantasy version of the real world. In the Mummy's Mask AP, there are hints that Ancient Osirion came from Egypt, including the Egyptian pantheon.
True, but you cannot really compare old pantheons to modern day religions. Greek/Norse/Egyptian mythology today are treated as literature and folklore, not like the actual current beliefs of millions of people.
Quote:
In Reign of Winter there is the whole but about Russia. And finally in Artifacts and Legends, a Campaign Setting book, we have the very neutered Saint Cuthberts Mace. So it is not at all true that Judaism, Islam, or Christianity should/do not exist in the setting.
That's not quite accurate. There are things inspired by Christian - and Hindu and Muslim and Jewish - mythology, but what's not included is a group of people who are designated as Christians that believe in the death and resurrection of a man named Jesus. Just like there are no followers of the prophet Muhammad called Muslims or reincarnations of the Dalai Lama or anything of the sort.
The influence is there, but the religions themselves are not. Just like the stat block St Cuthbert's Mace nowhere mentions the church or Christianity. The mace was inspired by the story of St Cuthbert, but can as easily be something else.
As for what exists on earth, if I recall I don't believe the Reign of Winter AP ever delved into the religions here or anything about Russia's political climate.
Which is wise. You shouldn't pack such loaded things into an RPG where they will more than likely be mishandled.
Quote:
And while there is a degree of bias amongst the devs, and notably when it comes to sexuality, gender, and atheism, I would have to say that this seems to at least have been a step in the right direction by some of the comments that had been removed.
We can agree to disagree on that. Like I said, I feel like it wasn't any more heated than a lot of the posts (particularly on gender or sexuality) have gotten.
Actually, I don't think that looks that bad. Dirty Trick is one of the better maneuvers and you actually get some bonuses to it.
Of course, that might be because trapfinding/sense almost never come up in my games, and Uncanny Dodge is situational enough that trading it out is never that big of a sting.
I'm pretty sure that's what chaoseffect meant... That it has the potential to be a good archetype.
Ah got it. Sorry I misread that as has potential to be in the Hall of Shame.
Actually, I don't think that looks that bad. Dirty Trick is one of the better maneuvers and you actually get some bonuses to it.
Of course, that might be because trapfinding/sense almost never come up in my games, and Uncanny Dodge is situational enough that trading it out is never that big of a sting.
If the game doesn't do what you want, don't play it!
This is what I said my solution was, and people wanted to challenge me on it. I've just been dialoging since then to elaborate on the "why"s because people asked. :)
Heh, yeah I never find that the "why" is good enough for some people. It's like "I don't like Pink Floyd."
WHY!?!?
Because I don't like Pink Floyd. I tried it, I don't like it.
Have you listened to X song?
I don't like Pink Floyd. I am pretty sure that I won't like that song.
But Why??
I try to just leave it at I don't like something rather than having to justify it. There are people that will try to force you to like it as if they are your Mom trying to get you to try new food when you are a kid.
Wait, hold everything - you don't like Pink Floyd?
But . . . why?!
(OK, I made the obvious joke. It's now copyrighted and no one else can make it without paying me a royalty.)
Lets assume a ruling LG decides to end the world and take to heaven most souls. Forbidding suicide in his ethos he gave to his most faithful followers and paladins the order to kill all the population, especially the sinless ones.
1. How should paladins of that deity react?
2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?
3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?
4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?
What?!
No! No to all of this! What even . . . I mean, wha-? I don't, I can't .... I mean, seriously, what?
Is this what all of our alignment debate has lead to?! Dear god what have we done?
Removed a couple posts and a reminder: let's keep the real world political and religious commentary out of the Campaign Setting forums.
I'm gonna keep this short, because it's been threadjacked enough, but I really just have to vent a little frustration at this response. And I know it won't change anyone's mind, or bring it back, and it's Paizo's board to do with as they see fit - but this has been gnawing at the back of my mind for a little bit.
There was already a TON of real world political/religious commentary in this thread. (Heck almost every post after this was a discussion of the American political climate!) But you, Paizo, invited that when you used a real-world term (inaccurately) to describe something in a fictional setting. Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam make no sense in the world of Golarion - so you don't stamp the name on some Golarion-specific religion that embodies its worst stereotypes.
If you don't want 'real world' religious discussions about your campaign setting, then don't use a real world term. Or at the very least if you have to use a term with real world corollaries, A) use the correct one, and B) really consider what the implications are when you use it.
I guess you could argue the censorship was because the posts were getting too 'heated', but I feel like if you changed some of the variables here my post and the following responses wouldn't have been erased. I can point to several much more heated exchanges about gender or sexuality that not only weren't deleted, but the Devs even joined in.
How has nobody mentioned "Feral Child" yet? I would call it the worst option in all of Pathfinder.
It gives up !@#$ing wildshape in exchange for . . . trap sense and a situational bonus to CMD. JUST CMD. So to be clear, Devs, that you consider trap sense to be so freaking amazing that it's worth giving up:
Adding insult to injury is that she could still get the CMD bonus by flying in th first place.
It's sad, too, because a Tarzan type human-only Druid could've been REALLY cool - but instead you get a Druid that trades out one of its most iconic features for what is widely considered one of the most useless rogue features.
Something I find weird is that people say that new material is better than core. But... if you look at occult adventures you see four tier 3 classes, a tier 2 class and a tier 4/5 class....
Even if you look at ACG: 1 tier 1, 1 tier 2, 4 tier 3, 3 tier 4s, and a tier 5.
Things are generally on the average to lower powers scale with the new material.
Pathfinder was the first RPG I ever played (OK, well technically I was introduced to it at a 3.5 game where a friend let me play as the caster's golem to learn the mechanics - but my first REAL game was Pathfinder) so it holds a special place in my heart.
On the other hand, once I became more involved and started tinkering with neat concepts I wanted to try, I learned how eagerly Paizo likes to fix things that weren't broken. And a minor gripe, really, but I have noticed the quality in printed material has declined --- it feels like from Ultimate Combat on I didn't have to search hard to find glaring omissions, typos and just general issues with the type face. (The ACG was the worst offender I found - but I didn't buy Unchained or Occult Adventures.)
Do I like the game? Yes. But not like I used to. And I still appreciate Paizo's commitment to representation (unfortunate misuse of the term atheist and the implications it brings aside) and even, it feels like, influencing WotC for the better. But the mechanics themselves --- the more I play, especially compared to other systems, the more I see the cracks and the more I gravitate away from it.
I confess that I hate those haughty pointy-eared elves with a passion and thus in my world they rule an oppressive and violent empire in which they have enslaved civilizations of every race except gnomes, from whom they keep their distance and tend to treat as second-class citizens anyway)
Yeah I'm a classic dwarf.
(But seriously, no offense intended to people who like elves or play elf characters c: )
I don't hate elves, but I typically play elves the same way. Why?
Elves are damn near immortal, mystical, and supposedly very intelligent. They never have the problems that humans have and are almost always presented as superior in nearly every way.
My thought was, with the crapsack worlds most RPG lands tend to be, why on earth would these beings let mankind run the show?
Elves in my homebrew world have a continent spanning empire and are largely in charge of things. It's a patrician, gentle sort of tyranny - they see humans less as animals to be broken and more as unruly children that need the adults to corral them for their own safety. They'll even give them some nominal responsibility the way you might let your kid be in "charge" of the family pet or some chore. But it is tyranny nonetheless.
The difference being that they don't mess with Dwarves (the Dwarves have the underground, which holds no interest, and besides, provides a nice bulwark against Drow - who aren't actually evil, per se, but it'd be way too long to explain here) and still kill Orcs and Goblinoids on sight.
I always hoped for the day when Artemis Entreri would kill Drizz't, I wouldn't know if it happened yet as I stopped reading his books after The Ghost King the worst book I ever bought, in hard cover :-)
I couldn't read much past The Pirate King. It's clear Salvatore is tired of Drizzt - which I understand and would be fine with, except the newer characters he's attempted to introduce I find very uninteresting.
Though I always liked Entreri better anyway (obviously) and thought that the Sellswords series was better than anything he'd done since The Dark Elf Trilogy.
*Insert obligatory martials cant have nice things post*
With the news that Pummeling Style getting nerfed hardcore, I am really beginning to wish the devs would listen to the large number of people unhappy with martials continuously being depowered while spellcasters go unmolested.
I'd start a new thread about it, but recent history indicates it would be locked the 2nd page in.
Consider heading over here. I think it's about due a necromance, in light of the reactions to the ACG errata.
*Insert obligatory martials cant have nice things post*
With the news that Pummeling Style getting nerfed hardcore, I am really beginning to wish the devs would listen to the large number of people unhappy with martials continuously being depowered while spellcasters go unmolested.
I'd start a new thread about it, but recent history indicates it would be locked the 2nd page in.
The answer is an unfortunately prosaic Wizard x4. The OG OP still can't be bested without a smorgasbord of cheese. Can reliably and easily replicate any other class's ability. Buffing, debuffing, control, damage, guile, stealth? There's a spell for that.
Starts damn good at level 1 and becomes an unstoppable juggernaut at 10. And you'll never run out of spells when there's 4 of you.
TL;DR: There are rules in place to help the martial/caster power disparity. If you're really worried about it, use them in your game. If you want versatile characters, stop building them to be myopic killing machines and invest some feats and/or skill points in non-combat stuff.
So to rein casters in from godlike to just really overpowered you just have to remember to use all of the convoluted rules centered around spellcasting until they reach midlevels and literally all of those things are easily overcome. Got it.
Ok so someone else may have already said it - there are a LOT of posts to sift through - but I find the 4E comparison particularly funny now that even in D&D and its variants, 5E has strongly (but not completely) balanced out casters and martials and is proving to be one of the most popular editions ever introduced.
4E's commercial failure had a lot more to do with WotC making marketing decisions that shut out anyone who still wanted to play older editions and required huge financial investment just to play.
Truthfully, 4E was probably a superior game ruleswise, but Pathfinder gave me a free resource to learn about it and accessible organized play - so Paizo grabbed me immediately.
The Girdle is a cursed item; it's intended use is to trap someone in the wrong gender, not to help them adjust to the correct one. That's what the Elixir of Sex Shifting is for.
So I wonder then if it would be ineffective on a Trans person? If you're already living with a soul or mind or what have you with incorrect biological markers, wouldn't the girdle fizzle?
Kind of feels like no matter what the girdle has some unfortunate implications.
My point wasn't to "assuage white guilt". Frankly, I don't feel any reason to have any. I was born in the USSR where all of us white citizens were slaves to the brutal tyranny of the Communist Party because that's how the true "equality" of Marxism plays out in real life. After the fall of the Soviet Union, my mother and I came to America seeking a...
I know this is kind of old news at this point, and I was going to wait until getting back from vacation to respond, but I figure I should get in before the (inevitable) threadlock this is heading toward.
I just want to be clear I didn't mean to target you, Voin, specifically. Often times we repeat dominant cultural narratives that have been handed to us as true our entire lives.
When I was a teenager and arguing about racism from my (very sheltered, very privileged) perspective I would often try to throw out the Black Panther example. I've even heard black people do it. Obviously, there is nothing for them to gain from the false dichotomy, but it's what they've been taught by a school system and media with a vested interest in repeating it often and loudly enough that we are all incapable of making the distinction.
I'm sure your intentions were well meaning; but it speaks to the power of myth that nearly all of us by a certain age have internalized many dogmatic concepts that fall apart under scrutiny.
Gotta say the 5e Fighter is definitely competitive with the Warlock. My favorite path is Battle Master and stuff like Goading Attack/Trip Attack is great (Goading is especially great as a Crossbow Expert).
The knockback for the Warlock isn't very effective unless you have a Polearm Master in the group per my experience (but man is it great if you do).
I think it may have been errata'd, but you used to be able to Crossbow Master with a shield (I speak a lot about crossbow master because it's the Fighter I played).
I suppose Eldritch Knight can get Haste as well, which is neat. Not a fan of Champion.
Champion isn't great, but it is pretty strong in the THF style with the expanded crit range. Also an effective switch hitter.
The thing that gets me is how anyone could think the Fighter is unimpressive when Beast Master Rangers exist. There's a useless class if I ever seen one.
If you want a good quick fix that doesn't change the game drastically, there are two things you can do that solve a good deal (if not all) of the disparity.
1. Full attack/standard does not exist. Nor does spring attack. If you are a fighter with 2 attacks, you have two attacks. As long as you have movement left, you can attack and keep on moving and split attacks between targets.
2. Combat feats scale with level. Is this feat a prerequisite for something else? Then it's granted automatically once your BAB reaches the appropriate level. Also combat expertise is dead as it should be.
To truly hate takes time, emotional effort, focus on the object of your hate. We call the KKK and the Black Panthers "hate-groups" for a reason - they'd be a lot less trouble if they were simply "don't give a dire-rat's arse about people different then them" groups.
Hey sorry, I know this is semi off-topic, but this is just something I have to address because it's an oft-repeated and yet rarely challenged fallacy and it bothers me a lot.
It's popular to immediately compare the Black Panthers to the Klan for some misguided attempt at 'fairness', but the reality is the two groups could not be more different. The Black Panther Party was a group created by members of an oppressed minority in solidarity against a government that was actively killing them. The Black Panthers worked and interacted with other leftist groups of all races. Their fight wasn't against white people, per se, but white supremacy.
Furthermore their gathering immediately caught the ire of the US government, and in particular Hoover's FBI. They were immediately targeted with arrest, persecution, and murder. (Fred Hampton being the highest profile of these cases.)
I don't want to act as though it was all sunshine and roses - they were revolutionary, after all, and still radical. But they were not an organization founded to promote black supremacy or white genocide.
The Klan, by contrast, was founded by former Confederate soldiers with the express purpose of killing and intimidating black people after the Civil War. The Klan has killed nearly literally thousands of blacks by lynching alone. Despite this foundation of violent extremism and terrorism, it not only was not greeted with the same sort of resistance, but actually enjoyed a long period of legitimacy in the US government. (There was a time when my state, Indiana, had an entire state legislature consisting of Klansmen.)
For further contrast, here is the mission statement of the Klan as provided by a 1920 pamphlet the group released:
Quote:
WE STAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY. Distinction among the races is not accidental but designed. This is clearly brought out in the one book that tells authoritatively of the origin of the races. This distinction is not incidental, but is of the vastest import and indicates the wisdom of the divine mind. It is not temporary but is as abiding as the ages that have not yet ceased to roll. The supremacy of the White Race must be maintained, or be overwhelmed by the rising tide of color.
Now in fairness there is a black separatist, antisemitic organization of a much smaller number called the New Black Panther Party that HAS been designated a hate group, but typically when the Black Panthers are brought up the distinction is not being made. (It should also be said for the record that members of the original BPP have denounced them.)
We really need to quit parroting this myth. Without digressing too far into current events, it's a seductive narrative meant to assuage white guilt at the expense of meaningful change - and this sort of mythology we have built around our history is literally deadly.
