Grey Star's page

When PF1 introduced a +1 point mechanic every 4 levels I was stunned. Whoa, this is really revolutionary!

It was in D&D 3e. Paizo didn't invent that and others games already have mechanics to increase character stats before D&D 3e.

The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3.

In the 80's most people rolled 3d6 six times and I think some of the players still attributed their results in the same order as they rolled. The first roll was for strength, the second for dexterity, etc. For D&D, at least.

I'm not that good at statistics

Yes. If you want my advice, the average measure of something is not very useful in most of the cases. Build some high-level characters and see if they have 18 in all of their stats. It will be more helpful to apprehend the mechanic of the game than making random empty math.

Grey Star wrote:

Secret Wizard, how many D&D 5 games have you played and with how many different players? I have played an honorable number of games with the system with more than 25 different people and we never encountered any problem related to STR or DEX. If you have experienced a STR/DEX disparity, was it only one time with a specific group of players or was it at different tables?

This post is not about disparity.

Disparity was one of your points in the original post. If I replace «disparity» by «problem» in my post, can you give an answer to my question?

Secret Wizard, how many D&D 5 games have you played and with how many different players? I have played an honorable number of games with the system with more than 25 different people and we never encountered any problem related to STR or DEX. If you have experienced a STR/DEX disparity, was it only one time with a specific group of players or was it at different tables?

Grey Star wrote:

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players.

You have a very reductive conception of the market. The past decade has seen the hobby evolve. Try to take a look at all the games Powered by the Apocalypse edited recently, it will be a good start.

I've only been blogging about Pathfinder and D&D. So, everything I say is in that context. I have on rare occassion played others, like Middle Earth.

I don't really have time for anything else. I'm perfectly happy with the experience I've had with Pathfinder.

If you can admit your experience of the market is thin, can you stop talking about the market like you know everything better than everyone?

Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players.

You have a very reductive conception of the market. The past decade has seen the hobby evolve. Try to take a look at all the games Powered by the Apocalypse edited recently, it will be a good start.

I think I might get tired of their system because it does look too simple and there just aren't enough choices: not enough classes, not enough races, not enough spells, not enough playing materials, not enough books in general, etc.

Most of the people I game with don't want to buy a deluge of books for only one game. Plenty of books is not inherently good. In the opinion of the majority of player I know, WOTC publishes the right amount of book.

A ton of options is not a synonym of a ton of choice. When an option is mandatory, it's not a choice anymore. Pathfinder has plenty of option, but the majority of them are never chosen. D&D 5e has less option, but most of them are playable and I have seen them be played. For my taste, fewer options, but more meaningful options is a valid choice of game design. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy 5e more than the actual PF1 and I enjoy other games more than both of them.

Grey Star wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

I'm sorry folks, I can't hear you over the sound of me burning my PF1 PDFs to ashes.

Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.

Or sell it to buy beer and a new game.

I'm fine with PF1. Don't need a new game. I will watch PF2 with curiosity, though.

I've watched the RPG market for a long time -- probably longer than either of you have been alive.

The kill it off mentality is killing this market in general. People get pissed and leave.

Nothing is dying. People still play old edition all kind of game and the market was never in such a good shape.

I looked at your recent post historic and your commitment to Pathfinder seems disturbing. Maybe you need to try a new game. Don't forget that no game is the best game, all game has his own quality (except F.A.T.A.L.) and not every game have to be followed by a deluge of supplements to stay alive.

I'm sorry folks, I can't hear you over the sound of me burning my PF1 PDFs to ashes.

Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.

Or sell it to buy beer and a new game.

willuwontu wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

Quote:

Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character.

Could you elaborate on why?

preferably without using terms or things of the nature of "exclusivity" or "tradition" in your explanation.

I am not sure that people who wish for LG-only Paladin and enjoy their character striving to follow rules imposed from outside can avoid referencing tradition (a deeply Lawful notion)

Sometimes I feel like I did cast Detect Law and Detect Chaos on this thread :-D

They could reference the aspects of their character that removing alignment restrictions makes them unable to play.

Ex: opening up paladin to all alignments prevents me from being the LG righteous defender of justice, because ____.

I'd like to answer this. But first I want to say thank you for taking the time to listen to the other side, it is most appreciated.

I'm going to answer this in two parts, but first I'd like to comment on the question. I'm not prevented from "being the LG righteous defender of justice" per se, it's that you'd gut the class of meaning to me. Let me quickly explain...
GOOD: A Paladin who is not Good, is not a Paladin. The Paladin is the Ideal of Good. That's how I see them. I look at the 5e Paladin and grimace at what they've done to the class. Sure, I can play an LG Paladin but they've gutted/lost the core flavour of the class. It's like taking a beautiful, expensive piece of art then dragging it through the dirt. You can still see some of the beauty behind the dirt, but its ruined. That's why I will be ok with an Any Good Paladin at the MINIMUM. I will fight tooth and nail to keep the class "clean".
LAWFUL: Paladins are Restrictive. That's how they are, and that's how I like them. It's HARD to be the Ideal of Good, and that is how it's supposed to be. Opening them up to Neutral or Chaotic loosens the reigns of the restrictions. Honestly, I find that cheapens the class. I'm learning...

I don't agree with you about the Lawful part as a restrictive thing. It can be easier to be lawful than chaotic. A chaotic good paladin will have to fight a whole system for the greater good and most of the time will have to refuse to use the advantage and the coziness said system provides. I have seen several paladins using the lawful part of the alignment to don't make themselves in danger, because the law was permiting the bad thing they didn't wanted to fight.

For me, and I think many others, it's important that the name Paladin be associated with Lawful-Goodness.

So, I'll try this again. I am aware it's not perfect, but with such fundamentally opposed sides, nothing could be. Here goes, with adjustment for the fact that 4 Corners seems to me the most likely alternative to only LG.

Class in the CRB: Champion
(Basic class intro) Champions are Holy - or Unholy - Warriors who not only dedicate themselves to a deity, but also a Code of extreme Principles. Their resolve and drive comes from both of these, and it is not a path for the faint of heart. These Codes are so essential to their being, that oftentimes Champions are known first and foremost by the Code they follow.
The Paladin devotes himself to upholding goodness, first and foremost, and then the importance of laws, traditions, and honor.
In a similar way, the Vindicator is devoted to all that is good, but then departs greatly from the Paladin, in that she always safeguards the freedom of the individual and cannot abide tyranny, no matter how minor.
A Tyrant, like a Paladin, is a defender of law and order, but is a servant to evil instead.
Finally, the Antipaladin is, appropriately, the antithesis of the Paladin. Selfish. Cruel. Always going out of her way to hurt others and spread evil and chaos.

Each a champion. Each in his or her own way.

As for what features they share and which are unique, well, someone more qualified than me can figure that out. :D

Liberator makes a better name than Vindicator for a chaotic good paladin. It carries more a positive meaning than your proposition.

I also think that the CE paladin needs a better name. We can find a specific name for the CE evil variant that doesn't only exist as a direct opposition to the LG variant. CE evil paladin can be more than that.

TheFinish wrote:

jimthegray wrote:

Unicore wrote:

IT seems like no archetype can be applied from level 1 now. Is this true?

PIRATE DEDICATION

Prerequisites Dexterity 12, trained in Acrobatics and Sailing Lore

this should be easy enough at level 1

Yeah but, again, it also says Feat 2 in the header, which to me means it's a 2nd level (and onwards) Feat. So not doable level 1, unless Feat 2 means something different than what I think it does.

I really wish that this was clarified. I can see it as one of two ways:

A): The 'Feat 2' signifies that it is Feat 2 of 6 (the Pirate archetype has 6 different feats).

or

B): The 'Feat 2' signifies an additional prerequisite, in that it cannot be taken before 2nd level.

Personally, I am really hoping that it is option A (with as niche and specific as the archetype is, there are some Pirate feats that I would probably want sooner than others, and wouldn't want to wait 4 or six levels to gain).

Sorry, two different feats presented in the blog have the «feat 6» thing. I think it's a hint in favor of option B.

By my experience, nothing is more chaotic evil than a loyal good paladin. They kill without hesitation and arrogates themselves the right to be judge, jury and executioner. It's hard or impossible in some cases to be a paragon of anything if you have meta-objective, like gather gold to have the right equipment for your level, to play the game how it intended to be played. How can you build an orphanage when you see all others players in your group using their gold to buy awesome stuff?

Grey Star wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

This would perfectly fit a Chaotic "Paladin" IMO but not a Lawful one.

Why doesn't it fit for a lawful one? They have a strong conviction and it drives them into the specific path of a paladin. Differents paladins just don't have the same motivation and conviction but they have one.

It is because I read the "personal code" as something belonging exclusively to the Paladin and not as a code coming from outside

I might be wrong in this interpretation because as a non-native speaker I maybe mistranslated your post and missed a crucial nuance. My most heartfelt apologies for any offense I gave you here. It was not intended

I am also a non-native speaker, and I could have made my point in a better way. By "personal code", I mean a code made by the player. It can be a code enforced by an order of knight. So we can have more interesting code for the side who like the personal side of a code of conduct and the side who want a code that has a meaning on a larger scale.

This would perfectly fit a Chaotic "Paladin" IMO but not a Lawful one.

Why doesn't it fit for a lawful one? They have a strong conviction and it drives them into the specific path of a paladin. Differents paladins just don't have the same motivation and conviction but they have one.

Sorry for restarting an argument about paladin alignment. I just wanted to make a joke about a strange bicarbonate/vinegar claim made in the discussion.

Now, about the code, I think the player who plays a paladin, need to define what is the conviction that drives his character into being a paladin. If he acts accordingly whit his conviction, he follows his personal code. If not, he is a risk to falling. I think it's more simple than a universal code and that open the road to a more interesting character development.

I have made a groundbreaking discovery. Good bicarbonate and chaotic lemon juice react with each other. The paladin chemical reaction happens with CG character! I want my Nobel prize!

5. I do, and I'm going to continue to argue the points until the CRB goes to print. Paizo has stated goblins as core are not set in stone. I'm taking them at their word for that. And again, Golarion is not my world. It's an expansive world that I want to see remain consistent. I don't want to see the universe...

I don't think Golarion is a consistent world. They already add anything they want in the game if someone thinks it can be fun. Don't forget Golarion have a spaceship with advanced technology and people with guns. If you talk about consistency, that element would have already affected the whole world in a meaningful way. Pathfinder never was about coherence or consistency, it's a setting where everything is possible if you want it to happen. It's one of the strong and weak points of Pathfinder. With this concept of design in mind, you have to accept that sometime they will integrate thing you dislike and don't forget that the setting is what you want it to be when you play the game at your table.

HWalsh, what is the place of the paladin in the world? What have they done that is inherently part of Golarion and need them to be LG? Can you provide the reference?

I'm excited about an old concept of CG goblin paladin I want to play since 3.5. He will be epic with a flaming sword granted by the new rune mechanic.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

It's in an AP. If you eat something offered to you, without knowing it is Angel meat. You instantly fall.

What AP? This sounds like one of those situations where there are mitigating factors to the situation that often get left out in discussions like this (for example, when one is offered mystery meat by known demons, one is not entirely innocent of the idea that it might be something terrible).

I actually don't know - I believe it is in WotR, but I am not at that part yet as a player and don't want to spoil it for myself. Someone spoiled it in a forum post.

Not a really good argument so.

I tink your GM don't understand the difference between «strike first» and being the first ready to take an action.