Gwaithador's page

115 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why does player A believe that helping others and having your act together are mutually exclusive? What constitutes a "freak?" I think that's a bit narrow minded, and to be blunt, a rationalization for being selfish. Sure, he's not obligated to help solve player "T"s problems, but he doesn't have to be a jerk about it.

"Growing up" and "maturing" doesn't mean one has to become self-serving, ruthless and uncaring. And those traits simply do not make a person "respectable with a future." As for "T", the person has come out and identified; so be strong about it. Sounds like they both have a lot of growing to do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My group has multiple characters organized into different parties. Each on their own plotline that helps shape the world as a whole. Thus, we move from group to group advancing each story line which keeps it fresh and fun. They also feel like they're contributing to shaping the world nothing is static.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anlashok, I think you misunderstood. A fighter might be able to cleave through a platoon but that doesn't equate to the power of the wish spell or something similar. No matter how good I am at swinging a sword or firing a bow, it can't duplicate the power that comes with altering reality like a wish or stopping time, etc. A fighter's personal power is limited by the reach extended by his weapons. A wizard's reach is much further than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The classes don't have to be perfectly balanced. I know some people take the position that class and concept are distinct and they'll dip here and there for levels to create numerically what they want but I don't see it that way.

I see your class as part of the concept; its part of the foundation. When I play a class, it's a selection based on some sort of concept I have for the character. I don't expect him to be "just as good" as the wizard at high levels. It wouldn't make much sense to me. Magic is suppose to be powerful and awe inspiring, those who wield at high levels are different, frightening and dangerous in many ways. I'm okay with that, in fact, I like it. I think it gives the setting the right feel. It's why those high level liches become terrifying foes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't take "basic survival skills" lightly. Knowing how to survive, what flora is dangerous, what's edible, all that stuff encompassing the survival skill is significant.

In the definition of intelligence within Pathfinder, reasoning is part of it. With a -2 modifier, your reasoning skills at INT 7 are not good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of peoples conceptions of the stats are out of whack. 10-11 is that of the average common man. It's "stat inflation" to think 18-20 is "peak." A 7 intelligence is not the end of the world, but you should play him with some poor reasoning skills and learning some knowledges like "engineering" would be very difficult and frustrating for him. He might have trouble understanding the concepts in knowledges that require abstract thinking.

Poor reasoning skills doesn't mean he always makes the wrong decision. If he has decent enough wisdom. He may know how to survive in the wilderness, find the best hunting grounds and otherwise do well in terms of basic human survival. Those poor reasoning skills might be a cause of various frustrations, perhaps leaving him to solve his problems by expressing his rage, rather than trying to problem solve. He likely doesn't have much appreciation for books or scholars but he knows a fine coat of mail and a well made sword. And really, isn't that's what important in life?

I think the character is playable. It would be neat if he obtained magic that improved his intellect. How would he react? There's some excellent roleplaying material right there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame Twilight. First Vampires sparkle and now, we have happy hippie liches of groovy good alignment, plane traveling to listen to the latest Phish show.

Up next, leashed werewolves trained to sit and eat Scooby snacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mr. Sin,

That feat requires the druid to be neutral evil and worship an evil god, which is different from the original poster's question about "atonement" presumably because the druid in question is not one of those druids tied to the "dark heart of the forest."

Yes, there are druids that commit "blasphemy" but I think other druids would not look kindly upon them. Death is a part of the cycle of life. But undeath is something else entirely.

Come on now, taking part of my sentence takes it out of context! That should be a penalty call or something! :)

It's a given that most decisions are "up to the group" or the DM. Never mind the mechanics of things for a moment, I'm talking about the flavor. If you have one PC who's a good vampire, and he/she roleplays it well, I think that can be good stuff. But if the player is like "I'm good" and there's no drama to it, no struggle against the cravings of living blood, the urges to kill, and all that fun stuff that comes with vampirism in the game, it just turns being a vampire into another collection of powers. Being a good vampire should come with some good story to it- its a plotline that shouldn't just be a mechanism for the player making an OOC decision.

If some group doesn't care, and everybody is running around being Lawful Good vampires, never worrying about drinking blood and all that. Well, that's their business but I think it loses something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Somebody with overweening pride (hubris) doesn't lack in confidence. But that individual can lack in charisma.

Also, the original poster misspoke about "punishment", people need to give him a break with the jabs and sarcastic comments. New DMs learn from others and from experience. It is unproductive and unnecessary to stomp on him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins are tied to a particular code that is ethical, honorable, dutiful and righteousness conduct. They uphold certain principles and virtues of "humanity" such as justice, morality a "common good", compassion, charity and so forth. Codes by their nature are part and parcel to the concept of Law. It's not a "sometimes I follow the code" or "I follow it when it suits me." Neutral Good characters might compromise part of the code if they felt it was necessary, chaotic good characters would be hard pressed to follow a strict code the impinges on their personal freedom,and the fact is, the paladin's code often impinges on their personal freedom in order to fulfill their duty; "strict code" and "chaotic" are antithetical.

The code though, is not morally neutral. A paladin must consider "the good" when following the code. Lawful Neutrals simply adhere to a code, the law perhaps with honor but without consideration of "the good." Javert from Les Miserables is an example of a Lawful Neutral adherent. The law is all that matters.

Other religions might have holy or unholy warriors and that's the niche filled Battlepriests, Inquisitors and the like. The Paladin though, is rooted in not only the early editions of the game (D&D) but in the mythology and loose historical conceptions of such heroes as ( in no particular order) Charlemagne, King Arthur, St. George, Roland, Galahad and the like.

So, NG paladins? CG paladins? LN paladins? No, not for me. They might be holy warriors and noble (in terms of spirit, not social class) but they're not paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scadgrad, I don't find the rules "beyond the pale." If somebody else is using them, I play with whatever rules are at the table without a fuss. When I'm GMing, I don't use them.

What I find is in most cases, the purchase of magic items is generally not as fun and not as entertaining as adventuring, questing, rewarding or under some circumstances, creating magic items. I think its more interesting for a PC Paladin to go through some major adventure to acquire a holy avenger than to just purchase it like a Snickers Bar at a quickie mart. There are exceptions. For example, introducing an NPC that has access to magic items and sells them to boot, that can be fun to introduce if there's not one on every corner. In those instances, the dealers of dweomercraft might want something other than gold as compensation, becoming a sort of a patron to the PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't use the magic shop concept. There's no magic item economy in every single city and town. The majority of the items my players have they've found on adventures. A few have created some items; mainly a couple of wands, lots of potions and a some scrolls. There are a few places in the world where it's possible to trade, buy or sell magic items but it's unlikely you're going to waltz out such a location with +5 armor and a +5 sword.

I often create backgrounds for magic items they find. Generally, they either adventure and find them, quest for specific items or magical items are gifted by kings, queens, religious figures, etc.

Yes, that mean a player can't come to the gaming table "fully optimized and accessorized." There's also a few items that are generally rare compared to others. Ioun Stones are such items. Those are very hard to find.

I know what Pathfinder assumes but, I find the "just buy it" method completely unsatisfying as a GM and as a player. Because of the elimination of "magic mart", my players also see the value of cohorts and followers. The extra swords or spellcasters make the difference when you're not 100% accessorized. This adds to the role-playing experience as the players develop relationships with their cohorts. Throw in a few story seeds in a cohort's background and further enriches the story.

The best way to handle the "magic shop" problem is not to have a massive magic item economy. In the creation of magic items, pay attention to not only the gold value but include specific components, some of which might be hard to acquire. If a player wants to create a crystal ball maybe he needs the "an eye of a Rakshasa" or something like that as a key component. Justify it as most people want to keep magical items and implements. A longsword+1 isn't "longsword+1 number 532 of 56,034." It's a family heirloom handed down from generation to generation after the ancestor of a character slew a terrible troll and the blade was forged by the dwarves victimized by the troll in thanks. Unfortunately, the last bearer of the blade disappeared in a nearby ruin 25 years ago and the sword was lost. Until your party slays the Giant Spider and recover the blade from the cocooned corpse of its previous owner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let them have fun with their new found powers for a bit. Keep careful note of every obvious revelation that they are in fact undead in particular, vampires to boot. Once there's sufficient evidence, start bringing the carefully constructed party of vampire hunters against them- a group with a paladin, cleric, Inquisitor, ranger, etc. All geared to cleansing the world of vampires. Play them smart. Gathering intelligence first; learning where the vampires rest and striking as dawn breaks.

If the vampires are being absolute terrors, it wouldn't be improbable for the ole village mob to form or maybe a local lord starts hiring parties of adventurers as well. There was a reason in Vampire: The Masquerade that one was admonished to "remember the masquerade."

Speaking of vampire the masquerade, consider some of the themes from that game. It could be a bit of fun if you added some sort of "humanity" mechanic; so to hammer home the "curse" aspect of being a vampire- it's not all superpowers and coolness. You could also add your own hidden vampire society with its own rules or expectations, with the older vampires who have remained hidden not too keen on these whelps drawing lots of attention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my day, we walked up hill both ways carrying 100 lbs of dice and we never used a fandangled word like "toon" to describe our characters! Gamers today, why, it's a sad state of affairs, a sad state indeed!
Good Day to you sir, I say, G'day!

Wasn't "Toon" used in the film Roger Rabbit?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a wizard wanted to pursue creating healing spells, I'd let him. There's a trade off because if you're memorizing healing spells, you're not memorizing other sorts of spells the caster and party might need. In which case, you're going need all the healing you can get...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why DMs just let players "build" the characters however they see fit? All +4 items? The gear that "so happens" to give the maximum AC benefits?

I don't see it as "rule X is broken", I see these issues as issues of mini maxing to the nth degree. Personally, I feel it cheapens the thrill of finding magic items during the course of the story or as reward for services, quests and so forth.

A 24 Dex? There's no story there. It's metagaming calculations. People play for different reasons, no doubt. What's cool around my gaming table may not be cool around your gaming table. I get that. But I don't think we need rule changes to classes or the other elements because people have found ways to completely exploit the rules.

I even hate the idea of a "dump" stat, that you intentionally make something as low as possible just to boost another stat to astronomical levels for another "+" just doesn't make sense. When the rules for improving attribute points came out in 3e, I remember my players and I thinking it was extraordinary that somebody could conceivably have a 20 in an attribute. When you read through the boards, people routinely post builds with 20s, 22s, 24s. The idea that a score of a 12 gave you a +1 bonus use to really mean something, since in 1e and 2e, a score of a 12 or 13 really didn't give you anything to celebrate. Now it seems "just a +1" is laughable.

I think solution is to place limits on starting characters. Make them adventure for the good stuff! Make the magical items meaningful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree this particular's player in game justification isn't a good one, and I think the DM's decision is legit. Wyverns in Pathfinder are also different from wyverns in AD&D. In Pathfinder, you stand a chance of parleying with a wyvern and coming out with a fair arrangement (Wyverns are neutral) unlike AD&D in which wyverns were evil. "
Evil" is not just a relative term in most fantasy settings. After all, you've divine beings of absolute good and evil. You have spells and powers that can detect auras of evil. It's not hypothetical, it's not relative. It is. Nothing would obligate a paladin to accept a chaotic evil demon worshipper's parley or surrender. A cannibalistic demon worshipping gnoll who cast aside its sword begging for mercy could receive the paladin's coup-de grace. And as a DM, I would not say the paladin fell.

Good isn't stupid. And evil in the game is real. The moment those demon worshippers decided to raid farms and sacrifice farmers to their demonic lord, was the moment the paladin could refuse quarter.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gwaithador wrote:

The third inquiry concerned a Ranger character. The writer

claimed that his or her DM combined with a lawful good Ranger to
insist that a wounded Wyvern was to be protected, not slain, unless it
attacked the party. Here is a classic case of players being told that
(lawful) good equates with stupidity. To assert that a man-killing
monster with evil tendencies should be protected by a lawful good
Ranger is pure insanity. How many lives does this risk immediately?
How many victims are condemned to death later? In short, this is not
“good” by any accepted standards! It is much the same as sparing a
rabid dog or a rogue elephant or a man-eating tiger.

If good is carefully considered, compared to and contrasted with
evil, then common sense will enable most, if not all, questions
regarding the behavior of Paladins and Rangers to be settled on the
spot. Consideration of the character’s deity is of principal merit after
arriving at an understanding of good. Thereafter, campaign “world”
moral and ethical teachings on a cultural basis must rule. These
concepts might be drawn from myth or some other source. What
matters is that a definition of “good” is established upon intelligent
and reasonable grounds. Viewpoints do differ, so absolutes (especially
in a game) are both undesirable and impossible.

-Gary Gygax, Dragon Magazine Issue 38, June 1980

I think that Gary said it best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins certainly can commit a coup-de-grace. Recently, my paladin committed the coup-de-grace on dying Mindflayers. Considering the atrocities he witnessed (holding people in thrall, eating brains, etc.) He believed doing so was for the greater good not just of his society but the greater good of "humanoid" society.

With regard to the specific circumstances of a chaotic good paladin killing the wyvern, I think an atonement is appropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Gwaithador wrote:
The fighter is fine as is.

Now that is two threads that I have seen you make a useless unhelpful comment.

Bravo! Keep up the good work.

I admit to a certain level of frustration and weariness with the "rogue sucks" and the "fighter is lame" threads. Thus, my short, to the point posts. My apologies for that. I let the frustration get the better of me.

I don't see the classes as "broke", "weak", "unplayable" or anything of the sort.

I think the Pathfinder classes are far superior to those designed in 3.0 and 3.5. I think all the core classes are fun to play. My player who is interested in rogues keeps making rogues, enjoys the play and has been effective in different situations, so that's how I measure if that particular class is effective. The rogue is my group is very good as doing the things rogues do well: sneaking, eliminating traps, sneak attacking, using his skills to solve obstacles and so forth. The Dwarf Fighter is the best fighter in the group from what we've experience with all of his nifty feats that make him excel in combat.

I take Paizo at their word. They put the labor into play testing this stuff to the nth degree, so I'm trusting in the product and warily looking at all of these suggested changes as really potential game breakers rather than game fixes.

Then again how my group plays might just be different than some of groups out there. My group will take a feat that may not optimize the character but certainly fits the character. Even weapon choices and armor choice is driven by culture, look, motif or storyline.

Too often I look at these threads and get a sense that if something isn't fully optimized or you can't come to the table with great saves in all categories, the best BAB and crazy amounts of damage, there's something wrong with the class and the decisions to play or not a play a class are based on pure number crunching. It's video game syndrome.

When a player sits down at the table with me, I don't want to see "optimized stats" and "cool powered builds" I want to hear about his backgrounds and motivations. Who does he love? Who does he hate and why? Even the numbers should tell a story. Not every fighter should come to the table with a charisma of 10 because charisma is just not important to the character class. I think even the numbers should help tell the story of who the character is. Elric of Melnibone is a perfect example. He was a great swordsman, but his strength and constitution are low without his drugs and later his dependence on Stormbringer. His numbers help tell his story. Cleary he's not optimized for fighting with a sword.

The rules as written have allowed me and my players to create the stories we enjoy and the mechanics have not impeded that storytelling. Thus, I'm intensely leery of those who tell me "it's terribly flawed" and offer "fixes." It smacks of Stygian sorcery!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Old age. Conan is mighty, but he ages through the books. In his 60s when he sails to the west...unless he finds the fountain of youth?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Axial wrote:

The only problem I have with Psionics is that if you're running a campaign that also has magic, you have to explain what the difference is between them and how they interact.

Sort of like if the Force existed in the Harry Potter books. It gets...complicated.

I look at this way: divine magic comes from the gods. Arcane magic comes from "without" part of the fabric of the reality; an energy that can be harnessed. Psionics comes from within; the potential of the mind completely unlocked.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I vehemently disagree with the characterization of the fighter as "lacking in intelligence, charisma" or whatever else to prevent the fighter from being the central villian of a story. Perhaps because my "Pathfinder" roots emerged from the soil of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons where you looked forward to becoming a 9th level fighter, gaining the title of "lord", building a keep and gaining followers.

In terms of a fighter "lacking in intelligence and charisma" I think that's hogwash. That's metagame stuff. The average intelligence is between 10-11. The same with charisma. A fighter with an average or even an above average intelligence of 12 and a charisma of 12 is perfectly capable of possessing the raw intellectual ability and the personal magentism he needs. Intelligence and magentism however, aren't the end all be all of what really makes a fighter a successful villian. His backstory is more important. A narrative in which the fighter has had success after success in his military campaigns or in marrying the the right lady or lord, all of these factors can help establish the fighter as the central villian in a long story arc. If your just looking at the mechanics of what makes a successful villian, I think that misses the point of the central villian in the first place. The central villian compels the plot, and it's not that he's a wizard/antipaladin/lich with a kung fu grip that makes him or her interesting.

In one of my campaigns, it was fighter who usurped the throne with the support of the "old religion" against the temples of the new god that were doting the land. Noble born, with the support of a circle of less than savory druids and key family alliances, he engineered a successful plot to kill the king, a supporter of the new religion and a number of rivals. He troops were the best equipped,trained and experienced. His study of war and tactics (his skills in relevant areas were better; always the great equalizer in comparison to "raw" ability) proved the advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just looking at the Corebook's female iconics. Barbarian? exposed adomen, the rest is furs, wrappings and some metal. Cleric? Dressed from head to toe, not even the hair is exposed. Druid? full armored/clothed from neck to toes. Paladin? Fully armored. Rogue? Fully armored. Only the sorcerer has revealing clothing, showing off her body art/runes of power.

I note the male monk has as much midrift exposed as does the barbarian, perhaps a bit more.

Going deeper into the book page 198; female fully armored. Page 203 female, fully clothed and armored. Page 377 female fully clothed. Page 385; female, fully armored. Page 390 female, fully clothed. Page 393 female, fully armored.

I fail to see how Paizo is being sexist or catering to hetero male audiences just by examining the core rulebook's iconics. Not a chainmail bikini among them. I'd argue that by far, the art selection is tasteful and thoughtful of the character's origin, class,etc.