Ratfolk Troubleshooter

Hrodwulf's page

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 30 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 31 Organized Play characters.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
CaptainRelyk wrote:
SebsVesk wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Phaye wrote:
I can't make the live streams! Some one ask about a character sheet redesign for me!!!
OMG YES! An RPG character sheet should never resemble a Scantron form...
I can't agree harder, the PF2e sheet is so ugly I go out of my way to use alternatives made by other people.
It’s why I’ve only used pathbuilder.

I actually rather liked the character sheet from the playtest myself. But in the end I'm a big fan of using Pathbuilder and cutting down on my paper usage. (and saving me from having to erase and re-write about 2/3rds of my sheet every time I level)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Congratulations and cheers to all of the Union members, happy to hear this news!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Micheal Smith wrote:


I liked lets give the Paladin all the extreme alignments. I hate the fact that I have to be LAWFUL GOOD just to play a Paladin.

As I see discussions on the Lawful aspect I find myself wondering what other's definition of Lawful is. My groups have always taken a semi-fluid definition of this. For some examples, my LG Cleric, there was God's Law and Man's Law, when the two came into conflict God's Law always won was our decision. Another odd one I did was a LN Rogue, had quite a few in my group balk at the idea of a Rogue that had to "follow the law", but the way it was worked out between my DM and I was the rogue was knave for hire, and he always kept the word of his contract, this was the "Law" he followed and bound himself to. Which of course led to some interesting situations when the contract would eventually work against him and put him in hotter water than he wanted. But that was all in the fun of the role.

Now granted that's not something that would fly in every group and is always up for interpretation, but just something I thought I'd float out there.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
If the mechanics end up interesting me I'll probably still end up playing a Paladin since despite what some people seem to believe Lawful Good is not some special snowflake alignment that is extremely difficult to roleplay.

I agree Lawful Good is no harder to play than any other alignment, but depending on the rest of your party's makeup it can lead to some interesting roleplaying. In a campaign I played in as a LG Cleric filled CG characters we ran into some interesting conflicts of personality.

My favourite was the when we had to give aid to a group of Vampires that were being framed for a series of murders. For the greater good I understood the need for the alliance, but the idea of working with undead made him bristle. As such we saw this shift in the group dynamic from him being the Diplomat to the Rogue filling that role as he was just a provocation away from declaring, "I shall not suffer thy Undeath!"

My DM had a lot of fun pushing that boundary between his devotion to the greater good and his party, and the tenets of his faith. (For the record I had a lot of fun with this dichotomy as well.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Another reason to ban poison use from Paladins is that it essentially allows the Paladin to hit and run and wait for the poison to debilitate their opponent. I think there's a strong argument that this is not an honorable way to defeat your enemy.

I agree, the only possible thing I could think of that would be "ok" for a Paladin (and this is going to be a super bad example), is if they used something like Drow Poison (see bad example but was the first Sleep poison that came to mind without pulling up a chart), to incapacitate a foe with minimal violence and injury to the target.

Or perhaps to prevent the young prince from leading the armies against the demons, that he will surely die in, so that he may remain safe to lead his people while you take his place on the battlefield.

These seem like very far reaching stretches of the idea "Honorable Uses for Poisons", but about the only things I think of that I would even consider possibly allowing at my table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
willuwontu wrote:
I remember it was mentioned in a stream or interview that paladins would be allowed to lie if needed, but their tenets seem to shut that down.
Blog wrote:
For instance, if an evil king asked you if innocent lawbreakers were hiding in your church so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet forbidding you to lie is less important than the tenet prohibiting the harm of an innocent.

The way I see it Paladins will be allowed to lie when needed, they just can't lie on a whim, at least not LG Paladins. (Yes I fully believe that Paizo will releases tweaks/Archtypes for other alignments down the road). Which makes sense to me, a Paladin shouldn't be allowed to lie because they feel like it, but because lying is actually the only Morally acceptable solution in the current situation.

But that's just my though process on the matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Dastis wrote:

You have officially made good > law..... Paladins are now Asimov robots free of making moral decisions. Great....

I would like the option to choose law > good. Otherwise we are just Good kinda lawful not Lawful Good.

Glad to know other paladin alignments will be considered. Asmodean Paladins ftw(a great example of law>evil).

That is a good point about the tenets leaning more towards Good vs. Law. Now that I think about it, when I run the playtest I may give any possible Pally's the option of re-ordering the priorities at creation (once set it's set) to give them the choice of Law > Good. But with some of my players it may be best to just leave them with the RAW. Might be something I do based on the specific player. (House Rules FTW!)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:


Pretty much. Killing does not necessarily equals murder, despite what many pacifists say :)

Yeah I'm sure a lot of people would take it that way too. I just have a habit of stating things as neutrally as I can. It comes from playing in a game one night a week, and then running a game in which the DM from the first group is a player, a second night.

We both generally agree on rules and meanings and what have you but every so often there is something we interrupt differently. Sometimes we come to a consensus and other times we just do our own thing because we feel our interpretation fits better for the campaign we are running.

Though it also makes things interesting when, if you were to, describe our styles he's a True Neutral DM and I'm very much Lawful Evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Darkorin wrote:
Wermut wrote:
Darkorin wrote:
I'm quite disappointed to learn that the Paladin does not seem to use the anathema mechanic (which seemed perfect to build Paladins of all Alignments), or at least a version of the anathema mechanic.
Blog wrote:
Paladins are divine champions of a deity. You must be lawful good and worship a deity that allows lawful good clerics. Actions fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. A few examples of acts that would be considered anathema appear in each deity's entry. You and your GM will determine whether other acts count as anathema.
What I meant was that Anathema does not replace the Paladin's code. The Paladin's code and Anathema serves the same purpose, tell you what is accepted or not accepted for your belief/code/god.

I think the reason for both is to save on text. The "Code" is something that is universal to all Paladins regardless of their deity. This is your default settings. The "Anathema" is additional lines to the code that are Deity specific.

I mean sure they could have rolled it all into one thing but then you would have to restate several aspects of the Code/Anathema when it would be more efficient for print space to do it as they day. My big question is with the prioritization of the different tenets in the code where does the Anathema fit? Does protecting Art for Shelyn supersede protecting an innocent, or vice versa?

I mean realistically you'll probably be very unlikely to run into a conflict between the two, (unless you have a diabolical DM *shifty eyes*), but seeing as how they added prioritization I'm curious to see if Anathema fits into it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
111phantom wrote:
What's the line between Commiting Murder (the highest restricted tenant) and smiting evil foes?

Phantom I think the distinction (or at least how I was distinct them at my table) would be intent and context.

Killing an Evil Warlord in his sleep so that he can't burn a village of farmers to the ground in the morning would be Murder.

Killing that same Evil Warlord in the fields outside the village as you do battle with his forces to protect the farmers and their village would not.

But that's just how I would read it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Since everyone is talking about Monk, one thing that has always bothered me is the way some weapons work on Monk. A specific example to the type I mean is "Brass Knuckles". I could never fathom why I would want to give up my damage on Monk to 1d3 except possibly at early levels to bypass DR (like Silver Brass Knuckles... Silver Knuckles?). I always felt that with a Monk they should give a bonus like +1 to damage or at the very least let me use them to add additional magical effects to my Unarmed Strike, such as Flaming. (How else am I going to perform a Shoryuken?) Granted there is the Amulet of Mighty Fists but then I'm giving up an neck slot for something I feel the Knuckles should be able to do.

In short the option to perform your Unarmed Strike Damage or Weapon Damage when using a Monk Weapon is a change I was happy to see in D&D 5E and would be very happy to see in PF 2E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

When 2nd Edition was announced I was curious about getting the Playtest and experimenting with it and see how it all worked out. Now that I've seen a peek at how magic is going to work I can't wait to get my hands on the rules and start planning out characters. Sadly though I likely won't remake my Ratfolk Wizard. Need to to keep things fresh in the group... Ratfolk Alchemist!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

So I know this doesn't tell us a tonne about the game just seeing some of the changes to the sheets but I still feel like a kid on Christmas opening up these zip files!