Everybody's page

I think that #1 might be a fallacy in fantasy worlds like PF and other D&D based and even non-D&D based RPG's that take place in fantasy worlds-- though really that which can be realistic, like physical combat, should be, with the realization that everyone, of every class, above some level (6, 8, 10, depends on who you ask) is essentially superhuman.

However, in wargaming or anything that calls itself a simulation or simulates a real life event that takes place on Earth, intentionally violating realism should almost always be avoided. At most, in a WW2 wargame, there should be optional rules that give the Axis an equal chance to win.

I don't think DMs do this intentionally to antagonize their players, it's just difficult to shove aside meta-knowledge to do something you know will be useless. Like not instantly looking for a source of fire/acid damage when fighting trolls, even if you don't have that in-game knowledge.

That's one difference between good and bad GMing.

A really great GM (and I'm not saying I am one or that it's easy to be one) will have NPC's act as they would with no knowledge they wouldn't have in game of the PCs' abilities-- though they should get the same types of Knowledge rolls PC's would get.

On the other hand, I don't believe in going the other way, either, by having NPC's attack the tank to make the tank feel more useful (though I do believe that if a character buys an expensive magic item, takes a feat chain, or builds up a skill bonus, a GM should try to work things so that at least a couple of times a situation arises where it's useful, if it wouldn't otherwise have come up).

Some things are common sense, though: Opponents with any sort of Int and Wis will go after the guy in no armor casting spells rather than the tank with heavy armor going after them. The PC's should have to use battlefield positioning and sometimes even take feats to protect the squishies and force the NPC's to have to deal in melee with those built for it.

Ok so my GM has said we will be having a game at level 5, and we can use any Race that has a LA of 3 or less. In PF he said CR 3 or less. So I choose the Doppelganger race and want to play Cha based character.

Now I am stuck on either playing a Paladin or a Bard.
20 Pt Buy
Str 10 +8 [18]
Dex 15 +3 [18]
Con 13 +2 [15]
Int 12 +3 [15]
Wis 11 +4 [15]
Cha 15 +3 [18]

I would have 2 class levels.

What is best for the Doppelganger style shapechanging. I do like the Mind Reading, the ability to use any armor, weapon, spell trigger object is nice and allows for some fun play on either style of character.

Doppelgangers are typically N so LG is one step in both directions.

Depending on how your GM treats Paladins...well, I think it would be reasonable to say a Paladin would fall for shapechanging to gain enemies' trust, whether to spy on them or to kill them.

So...Bard would be a better choice IMO....

Stage Combatant. Not a good value, because its niche is way too small (and it even has a Weapon Focus feat tax).

But remove the feat tax and just require proficiency for it to be usable, and it has some niche uses, particularly to deal nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon but also a very small niche that can be very useful in a campaign with enough intrigue (e.g. infiltration), and that is to deal no damage while seeming to wield and strike normally. If the one apparently attacked has enough Bluff skill, they can look like you really hurt them and thus could appear to take them prisoner (or even that you killed them), when actually they were pretending to be on the other side and this is their way to "disappear" from the bad guys (or, if apparently prisoner, even get the bad guys to exchange something for their freedom).

Options are good. Let's have 100 classes each with 30 archetypes, if possible. Ignore the ones you don't want to use. A GM may not be familiar with them all, so if you end up with such a situation, show the GM the set of rules for what you want to play, and the GM can disallow it if it's judged unbalancing.

Meanwhile, people get as close to the options they want, which is good. The whole problem with a class-based system is how it can be constraining (but to eliminate classes would be too radical of a change and make the game something totally different, not that it can't work in other systems); but the more classes and archetypes, if well thought out, the more you get to choose what you really want out of a class, meaning you get the best of both the class system and classless systems.