Isonaroc's page

Matthew Downie wrote:

In a world where everyone has access to a dozen magic items, and you can fall two hundred feet onto pointy rocks and still punch out an elephant, it's basically anime.

(Whether the anime martial who can cut through walls and defeat dozens of foes in a few seconds can keep up with a flying teleporting mind-controlling angel-summoning wizard is another question...)

Western fantasy is deeply rooted in mythology.

Like, say, The Tain. Where Cuchulain goes friggin' super Saiyan and does all manner of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense.

Oh, but they'll say that Cú Chulainn (or Heracles or Gilgamesh or whoever) was a demigod and isn't comparable to "mundane martials." No nevermind to the fact that a 17th level martial should be anything but mundane.

EDUT:

The King In Yellow wrote:

Sixth, this isn't an anime. Martials shouldn't be doing anime stuff, unless they have access to magic. The game world should be (mostly) internally consistent. Guy with sword may know all kinds of tricks with that sword, but in the end, he's STILL just a guy with a sword. Not an anime character. (Note, I watch a lot of anime, but if I want to play with anime characters, I'll play in an anime-themed RPG. - That's what BESM and TFOS are for.)

My problem with this is that there's no point to a level system if that's the case.

A level 20 fighter is hundreds of thousands of EXP higher than a level 17 wizard. If the level 20 PC wealth fighter is a CR 20 encounter, he is worth more EXP than TWO fully equipped level 17 wizards.

Nobody in their right mind would ever choose to fight 2 level 17 wizards instead of the level 20 fighter unless the fight takes place in a dead magic zone because fighting something with a really dangerous full attack is not particularly hard for competent adventurers but fighting two enemies with 9th-level spells is a nightmare even if you know what you're doing. Most people wouldn't prefer to fight ONE level 17 wizard boss as opposed to a level 20 fighter, because the former has the power to stop time, summon tyrannosauruses, and then teleport away to fight you later while the other has a good critical hit and a small amount of damage reduction.

Why are these both being presented as equally viable classes if it goes without saying that getting all the way to the peak with the one is still much less powerful than getting most of the way there with the other?

If a level 20 fighter is a regular guy with a sword, a level 20 wizard should be a slightly better Houdini, not Doctor Strange. Similarly, if a level 20 caster is functionally a demigod from the PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER of their magics, a level 20 martial should similarly be capable of godly feats of prowess.

It feels extremely inconsistent to me that an orc fist-fighter can kill a...

This. Basically all of this.

It’s pronounced like the g in gif, of course.

Yeah, like I said, hard G.

If I understand your goal, you might find it simpler to buy a Sharding gauntlet.

Yeah, but that's not as cool as your gauntlet literally flying off, striking, and returning back to your fist.

I still want a class that revolves around something like a caster gun from Outlaw Star. (And, no, that's not the spellinger. The class I'm envisioning is NOT a casting class), or a class that uses magic armor to enhance their abilities (something like the Guyver, or Iron Man, though not necessarily with the same abilities). I'd still also like a hybrid class that incorporates Paladin and barbarian, synthesizing their flavors into something new.

Thing is, most people weren't looking for an MMO combat simulator when they bought a product labelled "Dungeons & Dragons" - they were looking for a roleplaying game...

I don't know about you, but when I played 4e I did just as much roleplay as when I played 3.5/PF. Then again, back when I regularly played MMOs I did roleplay with those too.

Vermithrax Pejorative has always been my favorite dragon name.

Yeah, if you run it right the "gargantuan creature with multiple individual parts" thing can work pretty well. I've done that with krakens and the Armageddon Engine before and it was fun. Single monster battles, iconic as they are, are nearly impossible to run effectively otherwise unless there's some sort of puzzle mechanic at work too. The action economy is too one sided, and if you bump up the monster to compensate they get too deadly too fast.

The Ring of Ultimate Survival

Ring of Prot +5 50,000
Greater Ring of Inner Fortitude 66,000
Ring of Regeneration 90,000
Ring of Energy Resistance (fire) 44,000
Ring of Energy Resistance (cold) 44,000
Ring of Blinking 27,000
Decoy Ring 12,000
Mind Shielding 8,000
Force Shield 8,500
Ring of Sustenance 2,500
Ring of Feath Falling 2,200
Ring of Ferocious Action 3,000

Yours now for the low, low price of 490,800 gold. (Tack on an additional 66k per resistance if you feel you REALLY need acid, sonic, or electricity resistance)

Never seen anyone go quite that far, but I've seen close.

Not exactly the same, but I had a Paladin make a single use wondrous item that popped greater angelic aspect, banishing blade, fire of vengeance, eaglesoul, sacred nimbus, greater stunning barrier, deadly juggernaut, and a delayed blaze of glory (I think, I don't have the list at hand) after which the user is reduced to dust as per the disintegrate spell. I called it her "last stand in a can." She hasn't had occasion to use it, yet.

Can y'all just agree to disagree? Because the historical connotations of honor aren't really relevant to PF, which uses honor colloquially to refer to honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions.

I am guilty of this....but I want to emphasis that despite their pretty decent roll, role play is an important aspect of the game and comes first and foremost. Decent roleplay can even not even necessitate a roll with me.

I'm not going to say I've never rewarded a player for good RP rather than a roll, because I totally have, but it's metagaming. Mechanically, roleplay really shouldn't matter, rewarding a player for RP rather than making them roll a bluff check (or punishing them for bad RP regardless of their bluff skill) is no different than a player knowing where the traps are because they've played the AP before or knowing monster stats when their character would not.

It's tough, because (in my opinion) the game is greatly enhanced by good role play and it should be encouraged, but I also think it's unfair to give a mechanical advantage or disadvantage based on something that isn't mechanical in nature.

The odds of something hostile stumbling across your camp by random is vanishingly small, and if it does the chance that it will be of a CR to actively challenge you is also pretty small.

A level 1 commoner with a scythe and a Str mod of +1 sneaks up on you while you are sleeping and CdG you, assuming middling damage (say, 20, all told), that's a DC 30 fort save to avoid dying outright. That's something that can potentially one-shot a 20th level character. When you are helpless there are very few things that are to low CR to be a threat. Hell, your basic goblin straight from the beastiary using standard kit sneaks up on you and CdG you with its small short sword, rolls middling, deals 4 damage. That's still a DC 14 fort save, which is enough to get about a 50% kill rate on any level 5 party member who isn't fort focused.

I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet, and I'm not going to reread the thread to check: I hate when DMs punish players for being bad at talking. I'm talking DMs that force you to roleplay diplomacy checks and punish you for not being as charismatic as your character that has a +18 to their diplomacy check. I don't see you forcing the Barbarian's player to actually break down a door. Yeah, it's fun to proper roleplay, but not everyone is good at it. In fact, people who aren't good at it might be drawing to charismatic characters for that reason, to pretend to be someone who is witty and socially adroit.

Same goes for DMs that punish their players for not being as intelligent as their characters.

Same way you get to Carnegie Hall.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code

This is the worst thing to ever come out of a Paladin thread. There is always ALWAYS a chance to fail a save because a nat 1 ALWAYS fails. It doesn't matter if it's a DC 15 Will save and you've got a +27 to Will. If you roll a nat 1, you fail. That isn't the Paladin's will being weak, it's getting a bad die roll.

It's definitely in the bottom five, but I still think "a Paladin falls for killing anyone for any reason" is worse, as is "thinking about something evil makes your alignment briefly shift to evil, thus a Paladin falls if they ever think an evil thought."

I've never understood the whole 'poison = evil' maxim.

I know it's been around since the first days of D&D paladins, but I've never agreed with it.

It's not that poison is evil, it's that it's "dishonorable." But, yeah, I think it's silly too.

It was extra amusing when they introduced ravages in 3.5. "No, see, these poisons are honorable, because we called them something different so you can use them!"

It's pronounced "Throatwarbler Mangrove"

I managed to die twice before the AP even started.

The GM instituted this weird rule where you roll for your age category, then your age. He forgot to factor in the different aging rates of nonhumans. I ended up rolling a goblin who was 80 years old. The GM ruled that my goblin started undead, in order to avoid having me make a new character.

The first thing the paladin does to the zombie goblin? Smite evil. With a greatsword.

Probably should've just had you reroll taking the different aging rate into account. I hope you poured a drink down the back of the Paladin player's shirt.

We didn't invent ether until the mid-19th, early 20th century. That was the earliest form of anesthetic.

Uh, what? We've had primitive forms of general anesthesia for millennia, the Chinese surgeon Hua Tuo used general anesthesia for complex operations about 1800 years ago, and there are records of GA use going back 500 years before that.

Plus there are published things that would work just fine as GA, blue whinnis springs to mind. And sweetdream sounds fairly similar to midazolam (fun fact: when you are having some procedures done, particularly ones where it would be dangerous to actually induce unconsciousness or where they need you to follow commands, you're not actually unconscious, you're just riding the Versed train, which prevents you from making new memories)

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

djdust wrote:

it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.

Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code

That's ridiculous. If the gods were so concerned about such things they would grant Paladins immunity to mind affecting effects at 1st level rather than 17th. You might as well argue that a god should strip a Paladin of their powers for missing an attack roll.

With great power comes great responsibility.

BAB does not come from the deity. and BAB is retained when Paladinhood is lost. plus missing an enemy doesn't break the code.

If being mind controlled breaks the code (it doesn't), then you could as easily contrive a missed attack roll breaking the code. You miss an evil doer, they escape and go on to commit more evil. Your actions have caused evil to flourish. "But they didn't actually commit the evil, it wasn't their fault." *points at mind controlled Paladin discussion* Apparently that doesn't matter. A Paladin who is mind controlled, effectively, isn't a Paladin, they are a meat puppet piloted by whatever is controlling them, they cannot willfully do anything, let alone commit evil. Failing a save is not grounds for falling.

With great power comes great responsibility.

*looks pointedly at 9/9 spellcasters* Oh, yes, clearly.

djdust wrote:

it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.

Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code

That's ridiculous. If the gods were so concerned about such things they would grant Paladins immunity to mind affecting effects at 1st level rather than 17th. You might as well argue that a god should strip a Paladin of their powers for missing an attack roll.

I hate that 90% of campaigns almost immediately devolve into wacky stuff. It's rare that there's a group that plays things serious. Don't get me wrong, I like the wacky stuff as much as anyone, but not Every. Single. Time.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

A Paladin can use poison as long as he tells his enemies beforehand that he's using poison, because using poison without knowledge of the one he's applying it to in an attempt to gain a hidden advantage is considered dishonorable, which is the reason that most people would say poison makes them fall.

That would certainly be a nice rule to have in the game.

Yeah, while I'd probably allow it in my games (honestly, I don't really care if Paladins use poison at all), by RAW the code specifies that using poison violates the code, not secretly using poison.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I don't think you ever can roll it again on the same creature actually.

CRB wrote:

Try Again? No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place

It says it represents what you know about the topic and that's it. Doesn't matter if you encounter another ghoul a day later. If you failed the knowledge check on the first one you can't identify it with a knowledge check.

What you can do is go "oh we fought something that looks like this before and it could paralyze people with it's attacks" or "we fought something like this yesterday and my fellow party member identified it as a ghoul".

RAW you're probably right, but that's a big limitation on Know checks. For instance, Level 1, you attempt a Knowledge check, say nobility, to see what you know about the Royal Family. You get a 11 (avg result). Now, fast forward a few in-game years, and you level up to Level 10, you become a rather well-respected member of the adventuring community, but....you don't know anymore about the Royal Family than your 11 at Level 1, even if you've put in, say 10 ranks in Knowledge Nobility?

No, it just means you didn't already know the information. Nothing is stopping you from consulting another source to learn it. You don't know much about the royal family, so you chat up a courtier who tells you that the crown princess has gotten herself in some trouble by spurning the advances of the Duke of Higgldeypiggldey, creating a diplomatic incident. There, now you know more. You can't identify a ghoul by your knowledge roll, so later you hit a library and research "stinky corpse thing that paralyzes people" and now you can identify a ghoul.

You don't even really have to go that far, if there is downtime or a timeskip, just tell your DM you're researching something and they'll probably give you a lot of pertinent information.

Isonaroc wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

FamiliarMask wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

NielsenE wrote:

Base type: dullahan. (Which should not have physical immunity, but I don't know if it was modified by the scenario)

They are undead (which shuts off cold damage)

Where do people get the impression that being undead makes you immune to cold damage? Is it a holdover from 3.5? There's nothing under Undead Traits for cold immunity...

pretty much everything but zombies and normal vampires and ravener get cold immunity some undead even get electrical immunity as well

Not sure where you got that. The banshee, bodak, crypt thing, draugr, dullahan, ghost, mohrg, mummy, shadow, spectre, wight (with the exception of the frost wight), wraith, and zombie are all affected by cold (though one or two have resistance). That's most of the classic undead.

the majority of that list are just variations of zombie, the rest are incorporeal undead which i'm not sure why incorporeal undead don't have immunity to cold i thought they did how else are we suposta have space ghosts if they don't have immunity to cold....

Uh, if by "variations of zombie" you mean "dead body that is now moving around," I guess, in the same way that a lich is a wizard zombie or a vampire is a weird shapechanging zombie. But in practical game terms they aren't anything like zombies. All the corporeal undead I listed are intelligent, with various abilities and motivations. After poking around, essentially every corporeal undead is affected by cold, with the exception of the lich, the revenant (because revenge is best served cold, I guess), skeletons (though not every skeleton-like creature), nightshades, Urgathoa's herald, and undead that are specifically cold themed/subtyped.

As for space ghosts, as far as I can tell vacuum would have little to no effect on them.

Vacuum uses the same rules as underwater

Underwater deals pressure damage, which is not energy damage nor is it magical, so the ghost ignores it. And cold water, interestingly enough, doesn't deal cold damage, it deals non-lethal damage, which undead are immune to. So space ghosts are still good to go.

I've had more than one GM say undead traits include cold immunity, which I know is wrong, but I've stopped fighting it....

Maybe they're getting tripped up by the fact that some cold spells have associated effects with fort saves, which undead are immune to (they still take the cold damage, they just don't have to save to avoid being slowed or take dex damage or whatever). That or they just extrapolate from the skeleton that they are all immune.

FamiliarMask wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

NielsenE wrote:

Base type: dullahan. (Which should not have physical immunity, but I don't know if it was modified by the scenario)

They are undead (which shuts off cold damage)

Where do people get the impression that being undead makes you immune to cold damage? Is it a holdover from 3.5? There's nothing under Undead Traits for cold immunity...

pretty much everything but zombies and normal vampires and ravener get cold immunity some undead even get electrical immunity as well

Not sure where you got that. The banshee, bodak, crypt thing, draugr, dullahan, ghost, mohrg, mummy, shadow, spectre, wight (with the exception of the frost wight), wraith, and zombie are all affected by cold (though one or two have resistance). That's most of the classic undead.

Eh...I GMed a campaign that had two mystic theurges in it (both wiz/cla) and together they pretty much roflstomped everything. I honestly don't know how much improvement they need, any more improvements and they're almost just a gestalt class.

Weaponizing stars (and wormholes) just leads to an escalating arms race that no starfaring culture can win. I've seen it for myself.

Ah, so you know something about wormholes. By all means, enlighten me. Have a seat in my chair and we'll...discuss the matter. At length.

SmiloDan wrote:

...and we just got a Deck of Many Things, which I consider a curse, and everyone else squealed in glee when we got it.

Oh. My. God. The deck of many things.

That item has cased the end of three separate campaigns over the years.

As both a player and a GM, I absolutely HATE that thing.

The first time we found one, back in the AD&D 1e days, all of the PCs drew cards. One PC totally lucked out and got amazingly good stuff (gems, their own castle, a level bump). All of the other PCs got totally boned: One drew the Donjon (imprisonment), one drew Ruin (lose all wealth and property), one drew Death (fight a Minor Death) and died right there, and one (me) drew The Void (trap the soul, gem on another plane). The one PC still alive was the fighter, and had no magical means of resucing any of the other PCs, so we just ended that campaign.

Many years later, I was with a different group (either AD&D 2e or D&D 3.0). We found a deck of many things in an abandoned temple of the goddess of luck. Again, everyone drew. This time, I was one of the lucky ones and got some good stuff, but half the party pretty much died (or worse). Again, this totally derailed the campaign: We ran two or three more sessions where the remaining PCs (and some replacement characters) tried to resuce the others, but we lost the momentum of the campaign and decided to end it.

The third time was in D&D 3.5. This time, my PC (a paladin) was the only one who chose NOT to draw.... and he was the only one who didn't die. End of campaign.

As a GM, I will NEVER include one of these damn things in any of my games, ever.

There was a campaign where a great wyrm gold dragon allowed each of the party to take a single item from her hoard for services rendered. In the hoard was a DoMT, my character was savvy enough to know what it was and I buried it under a pile of random stuff before the Kender noticed it and never spoke of it to anyone.

I still really don't understand what the folks who are dead set and determined that the Paladin shouldn't be changed ever are going to lose if something should change. As I've asked before, were you this mad about them dropping the race restrictions, gear restrictions, the tithing requirements? Will CG Paladins suddenly mean you can't play LG Paladins anymore?

I'm amused that I always end up in these discussions, because I don't even want to play Paladins of other alignments. I love my LG Paladins, they're my favorite class. But I'm not under any illusions that having other alignments available for other people's use would somehow lessen my characters.

Isonaroc wrote:

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Bill Dunn wrote:

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

That's why I said Paladin-ish. Gawain isn't the perfect Paladin (that would be Sir Galahad), but much of his character is Paladin-like. And, it should be noted, that after breaking his word he sought penance and received absolution from both the Green Knight and King Arthur, which is about as close as you get to an atonement spell in Arthurian legend.

As I recall Arthur and the other knights actually thought he was making a fuss over nothing, which is both not atonement but also, not very Paladinlike of them.

I don't know that I'd agree with that. It strikes me as fitting that a paladin would be even harder on himself than his companions/superiors would be.

I mean sure if your completely ignore the context

But having an affair with your hosts wife and lying about it out of cowardice is not nothing and those guys who thought it was nothing were paladins too (if your subscribe to the equivalency, which I don't), so unless you think Paladins are of the attitude that they should follow their code, but no-one else, including other Paladins should, then I don't know what you mean. And if you are of that opinion then I don't understand the point of your version of a Paladin, "I'm a beacon of law and goodness, which I encourage you to ignore".

He did not have an affair with his host's wife, like, at all. The only thing he lied about was failing to mention the girdle he was given.

Early in the thread I said the Chivalric equivalent of an affair. I was on my phone so couldn't be bothered to type that out again.

Yeah, but you also mischaracterized it. It wasn't an affair, chivalric or otherwise, he didn't lie about it (giving the host the kisses he received was a key point of the story), and the only time he showed cowardice was when he failed to disclose the girdle, which he was punished for and forevermore wore as a symbol of his penitence.

What tactics? Any tactic more complicated than breaking down a door and going head to head with the bad guy can be considered "dishonorable". Scout ahead to see where the bad guys are? Dishonorable! Disguise yourself and infiltrate the bad guy organization? Dishonest! Slit the big bad's throat in his sleep? Murderous! Mindscrew the bad guys into oblivion with save or suck arcane magic? Cowardly!

It goes beyond invalidating literally any forward thinking strategy, Paladins also make it impossible to play any class with any kind of moral gray area: Rogue, Inquisitor, Slayer, Alchemist, the list just goes on and on. No player should have that kind of power over other players, so f--k Paladins.

All of those problems are deliberately manufactured by bad DMing and players not understanding Paladins. Plenty of us have had Paladins in groups with rogues, slayers, alchemists, and inquisitors without incident.

Isonaroc wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

The variant algnment paladins were in fact different classes with their own ability suite not paladin's with the alignment restriction stripped off.

Ehhh...not that I recall. I was referring to the AD&D ones, and I don't remember them being particularly distinct. Yeah, there were some differences, but they were all recognizable as Paladins. Regardless, the idea that Paladins are and have always been "lawful good holy champions" is forgetting that originally they were "lawful good human holy champions who eschewed most material goods." Those were traits every bit as intrinsic to the class right up until they weren't. Things change.

I am referring to the exact same ones, and yes they were very distinct to the tune that, for example, one used Druid spells among other things.

Why is the ability to be specifically a non lawful good paladin necessary to have a non lawful good holy champion? Still waiting for that answer.

And I'm still waiting for an answer as to why Paladins should only be LG other than "because that the way it is."

Honestly I haven't had too many problems with CN in particular either. I've found that problem players are going to be problem players regardless of their character alignment. Honestly l, the only alignments I can't recall ever giving me trouble are NG and LN (because essentially no one seems to play LN, so it hasn't had the chance).

That's why I said Paladin-ish. Gawain isn't the perfect Paladin (that would be Sir Galahad), but much of his character is Paladin-like. And, it should be noted, that after breaking his word he sought penance and received absolution from both the Green Knight and King Arthur, which is about as close as you get to an atonement spell in Arthurian legend.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Edward the Necromancer wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

I am sure this is not new ground so am happy to be linked elsewhere on this but :

I can't get my head around why (other than for 3.5 legacy reasons) the Paladin is a core class.

Because the idea of an Honorable Holy questing knight as a character concept is one of the most recognizable and oldest story ideas dating back all the way to Legends of King Arthur. The Knights of the Round Table were not JUST warriors, they were Holy Knights traveling the realm, following a code of honor, serving the church, and defending the helpless.

THAT is why Paladin is a core class, same reason Wizards and Druids and are, they are a very old and classic character archetype.

except they weren't

In fantasy they were.

only in a few most of them don't have any dealings with codes or even defending people they were basically suped up arend boys sent to find magical artifacts

Lancelot is the ur-Paladin (and the first example of the fallen Paladin, depending on the source). Galahad is the prototypical Paladin, the example from which essentially every "white knight in shining armor" character is derived from, and was imbued with super human abilities due to his purity, piety, and honor.

Before jumping into paladin, players may want to try a lawful good fighter or wizard. If they can handle that without any major intra-party clashes or alignment changes, then give paladin a whirl. Navigating alignment-based differences between characters is tough enough without the added incentive of losing your powers if stray too far once too often.

In my experience it's only tough if someone makes it tough.

Well on the first part. To me it is a lot more impressive to have a moral fiber to do the right thing even when you would benefit from not doing so and not having consequences for it. Than the alternative where you have this axe hovering over your neck in case you are naughty. The latter is being good cause they will be punished otherwise, or they might still be good but then they did not need the incentive anyway.

Or the chose to become a Paladin because they already followed the tenants of the code. Generally people don't decide "I'm going to follow this monastic code because I want the power, it's going to suck though." They do it because they already think it's right.

Well it might not be a deity, but they are handed a code that is put up by an external force.

Or, y'know, they decided to take up the code because they think it's the right thing to do.

They did not figure out themselves what is good and what is wrong.

Uh...yeah, they did. Paladins aren't just handed a code and say "Welp, I guess this is what's right and wrong." They take on the code because they've already decided what is right and wrong. EDUT: BWO put it a little Bette than I did, the Paladin chooses the code, not vice versa.

A paragon of good that never questions their own morality or the authority over them, yes truly am example to be followed.

Broad brush, much? Why do you assume that a Paldin never questions what is right or wrong? Paladins are people, as such, they may have to think long and hard about the morality of things. Some may do what feels right in the moment, others may have devoted years of study into ethics, moral philosophy, and theology. EDUT: BWO also brings up the fact that apaladins have more to lose, and that they may well one day choose to give up even their very faith if it is what is required to do what's right.

Yes Paladins spoil everyone else's fun.

Not in my experience, I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a Paladin cause significant trouble in a game, let alone "spoil everyone's fun."

The worst is trying to play a Rogue or Inquisitor with a Paladin in the group insisting that we fight fair and don't do anything dishonest, like sneaking around to scout for enemies, sneak attack the bad guys, or disguise yourself as someone else to infiltrate the bad guys.

In most games I've played a Paladin or seen a Paladin played there has also been a rogue or similar sneaky character. The only time it was ever a problem is when one player (and that player was usually the rogue) decided to be deliberately disruptive and try to cause drama. We handled this pretty handily OOC. If you actually have players who are claiming that scouting or infiltration are somehow outside of the Paladin's code, someone has a fundamental misunderstanding of what is or is not fair.

Having a Paladin in the party is like inviting cops to a rave: you're just not going to have any fun with them around. If I ever GM a Pathfinder game, which is something I'm considering, I am banning the Paladin class for sure.

Which is a pity, some of the most fun games I ever played in had Paladins.

The Code of Conduct makes things a real challenge for the player, the GM and the rest of the group. Things can so easily devolve into arguments and debates over whether they should or shouldn't do things

In my years as player and gm, the only time I've ever seen the Paladin code be a problem is when a disruptive person deliberately makes it a problem. Paladins can be more difficult than, say, a fighter or a barbarian if you don't know how to play them, but that generally just takes a little coaching.

Paladins tend to be trouble mostly in debate on forums. The reality of it is that Paladins aren't any more difficult than any other class 95% of the time, and those rare 5% moments make for good role play.

I am not certain what I was hoping to achieve with this post other than perhaps asking how other people deal with Paladins at the table?

I deal with Paladins the same way I deal with any other class: if the player is disruptive I handle it OOC; if the player doesn't know how to play that class, I help them learn.

Honestly the biggest problem I encounter with Paladins is with brand new players who don't understand the class and play them like a fighter, forgetting most of the nifty abilities.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

With Apostate Devils, Paizo at least exercised mercy and/or poor planning with the thing by not giving it access to any divination SLAs or extra vision abilities beyond see in darkness. Sure the thing could hypothetically slap people through a brick wall or from a lounge in Hell, but he has no way to actually tell where anyone is.

That said, he can still end basically everything by just traveling around incognito and preaching people into madness in addition to have vastly inflated combat stats for its CR (too bad most other outsiders don't follow the thing's example of wearing armor).

It doesnt need to see you. That would defeat the point of it being able to attack you from anywhere.

It just needs to be aware of your existence. I would say it still has to deal with concealment, but it does not have to guess which square you are in.

Otherwise what does the ability actually do when someone is in another plane, which is specifically called out as something the creature is able to attack?

It specifically calls out using divination magic in that case. While the wording is a little ambiguous, the way it's written looks like it means aware as in "knows the creature is there" rather than "knows the creature exists."

Tacticslion wrote:

Sauce987654321 wrote:

Firewarrior44 wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

Firewarrior44 wrote:

How in 4 pages of posts has the Zygomind not been mentioned yet? It's an entire campaign hook in itself even if you discount the fact that it's a walking existential crisis.

Erm,

Tacticslion, earlier this page wrote:

I find the zygomind similarly horrifying.

:I

EDIT: I mean, it was, like, the second post. XD

My bad. I Searched "Zygomind" but it came up with no result's. I assumed they were accurate >.>

Yeah, weird. It doesn't for me, either.

That's... weird. It... didn't for me, either.

Oh well~! XD

have you guys looked at the 1st page? it's not there

Why would it be on the first page? It's on page 4

blahpers wrote:

You're the GM. You decide how much time, energy, research, and funds have been put into ensorcelling the crap out of the phylactery.

If you want the lich to be unfindable, it'll be unfindable, but you don't need a lich to do that sort of thing. Make it challenging, not impossible.

Bwang wrote:

I wish more dms would take that to heart! We had one that decided that no one else could reach the BBEG's lair because it was his personal micro dimension.

Planeshift is a thing.

Slight tangent, but while technically by RAW this would work, it really shouldn't. Technically a spell components pouch has all focuses required for spellcasting, including the infinite number of tuned forked rods required to plane shift anywhere, but it really makes no sense that anyone other than the lich would have the correctly tuned rod (maybe spirits of knowledge, deities, or really adventurous astral explorers). Personally I hold that you can't just buy the key to created demiplanes in any general goods store. Gate would work fine.

If we're talking DnD not just Pathfinder, then I have to say my favourites have always been Beholders. Just something about them with their multiple eye beams of death, flyingness, big eye of you can't cast that now, and generally large gnash teeth.

Such cool critters.

If it's only Pathfinder....anything demon

Well, opening that up, I really like mind flayers.

lemeres wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

Wizards are the scientists of magic. Their use of magic is an analog for how we might use technology to manipulate things like heat and light.

Yes. But that doesn't answer the question- from where?

A hand tool is powered by hand. A steam engine uses steam. A motor uses gas. An electric motor uses electricity. If you treat magic as a science, then you need magic to answer the basic question of cause and effect- what caused this effect to take place.

The simplest solution is 'they harnessed some natural energies to get the spell to work'. But if we accept that answer, then it applies just as much to bards- the bards also found ways to manipulate that same ambient powers. It is just that bards are more limited in means and methods.

I've always viewed magic as just another fundamental force like gravity or electricity. The spell is just a way to interact with/manipulate that force. Wizards and other prepared arcane casters had to learn how to do it. Sorcerers and other spontaneous arcane casters, even though the spells and forces are the same, can do it instinctively, thanks to their bloodline/whatever (similar to how say, a professional athlete can instinctively hit a baseball, but couldn't do the physics calculations required to plot its trajectory, whereas a physics major could do the calculations to figure it out, but would require a bit more work to actually hit the ball).

Just so, and I quite like that example. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Magic isn't science any more than light is science. Wizardry is science.

I mean.....

Technically (technically) the table given is just an example.

PRD (Planar Traits) wrote:

Erratic Time: Some planes have time that slows down and speeds up, so an individual may lose or gain time as he moves between such planes and any others. To the denizens of such a plane, time flows naturally and the shift is unnoticed. The following is provided as an example.

So, (technically) you could create your own table, with a 99% chance of 1 year=1 round, and a 1% chance that 1 month = 1 round.

Yeah, but that's a DM tool rather than a player tool. Nowhere does it indicate that CGD lets you design a table for erratic time.

And at that point the DM might as well just houserule how timeless works and skip the shenanigans.

What Bob said. The best you can do consistently if flowing time, which will get you a 2:1 gain. Erratic time could do better, but it's even odds you'll do a lot worse.

One blatantly exploitative thing you could do (assuming your DM will allow it, I wouldn't) would be get a timeless plane, cast time stop while you are there. At that point you have infinite time and don't have to worry about the negative effects of time catching up with you. You will, however, need a way to escape when you're done (dispel, plane shift, or another greater demiplane spell).

I'd be surprised if it were allowed, it's super cheesy.

Tacticslion wrote:

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I know right!

these guys are much scarier than pit fiends.

You ain't just a whistlin' Dixie.

I don't know what this means but I feel like I like it.

Quote:

That particular creature is so powerful that it easily represents more of a campaign-ending threat than a mere (1\year) wish spells (+everything else the pit fiend gets).

The thing is horrifying for lower level parties - sure a lot fiend is, too, but properly planned lower levels could hypothetically take it out. This one casually and even incidentally wrecks half your party (Paladins and clerics and inquisitors and Druids and such made nearly worthless nearly instantly) and had solid attacks (or AC) against others. Most notably, it has touch of idiocy. What's that? Your wizard was your last hope? Oh well! Too bad he's in Avernus while he attacks. Or maybe 100 feet away in a brick bubble. Also your GM hates you! Yay!

I find the zygomind similarly horrifying.

They feel a bit like the Empyrean angel compared to the solar to me.

I think Pit Fiends are ranked higher because the majority of the deimavigga's abilities are wasted on lawful evil creatures, and the Pit Fiend could floor a deimavigga, because they actually can scry and fry right out of the can. Still, I would think an apostate devil would be more reasonably seated around CR 20 as they would be incredibly effective against, like, 90% of parties.

Empyreans are kind of an oddball. They have lower raw combat power, but higher hit dice. They specifically say they exist outside the standard hierarchy and generally don't respond to callings, so maybe their less regarded (or possibly rarely even known) by mortals.

With Apostate Devils, Paizo at least exercised mercy and/or poor planning with the thing by not giving it access to any divination SLAs or extra vision abilities beyond see in darkness. Sure the thing could hypothetically slap people through a brick wall or from a lounge in Hell, but he has no way to actually tell where anyone is.

It would be laughably easy for a creature of that level to obtain access to scrying through magic items, or something like prying eyes. Hell, if it threw on a headband of vast intelligence keyed to UMD, it would suddenly have a +27 to UMD checks. A few scrolls later it could wreck your day from essentially anywhere.

I don't particularly like it but I think the Apostate devil is weirdly powerful.

46 AC and DC28 will save speech based powers with wisdom drain attacks

On a CR 17 just seems unusually strong.

Crap on a crutch, that's pretty dang nasty. I have no idea why it's that low a CR. I guess they're assuming a party of level 15+ Should be able to shut down the extraplanar attack shenanigans, and earplugs will shut down the wis drain. Still, though, that's a pretty beefy ability set for a CR 17.

EDUT: also it can permanently shut down Paladins with that ability that ability that forces an alignment shift (Will 28) that can't be changed without a modify memory, wish, or miracle. Yuck.

Leadership can actually be really helpful if you have an understaffed party. The times I've been in parties with leadership the DM ran the cohort, workingwith the player who picked the feat to build them. I get how it could really cause problems, but the actual experience has generally been pretty benign.

Going to go with the Drakainia fron Bestiary 4.

The body horror aspect gives you an angle for creeping out the players. The spawning ability means that it can be an antagonist to any party at any level. In fact, you could spend the entirety of a campaign just dealing with its disposable children.

I can also see it as a great setpiece moment, as the living goddess of some dark, secretive fertility cult. There's also the fact that a creature so evil and so alien is so strongly connected to the aspect of life. She is a surprisingly capable healer. That's pretty interesting to me.

I'd love to run it as a social encounter at some point.

** spoiler omitted **

Ooo...never saw her before. She's pretty badass.

A chaotic neutral-leaning-good martial prestige class. Social anarchists. Possibly modeled after azata. Tend to work independently rather than in units.

Man, I was really expecting the trolls to have hit this thread by now. Keep up the good discussion, guys.

In my experience here, the threads on "controversial" topics like sex, race, abortion, etc seem to go relatively smoothly with only occasional trolls (granted, I haven't read every thread, so YMMV). It's the rules things that seem to really get things heated. Jumping over a 10' pit, hide in plain sight, anything about Paladins; those are the dangerous threads.