Kamelguru's page

I added full BAB to the monk long ago. Now, two APs later, we still find the monk to be weaker than most other full on combatants (especially paladins, who stomp on the monk even in his "forte"), but at least playable. Also gave him d10 hp.

Did the same with the rogue. Full BAB and d10.

So far, I see no real problems. The players have used this to ease up on the min/max of stats in order to overcome design weaknesses. Been a while since I saw a character with multiple negatives. Which is kinda cool.

Zen Archer Monk for martial types:
- Flurry with bow, or Rapid Shot bonus feat if you like armor.
- Perfect Strike with bow
- Unarmed Strike for when you are caught in the bath, or get mixed up in a bar fight
- +2 to all saves
- Lots of useful trained skills like Acrobatics and Perception.

I dipped a level of Zen Archer with my paladin back in Serpent Skull. Was to get better archery stuff, unarmed capabilities and relevant skills (samurai flavor, before samurai class). Added bonus was +2 to all saves and a bonus feat. My wisdom score was garbage, so getting Perfect Strike instead of Stunning Fist was all good.

Kamelguru, I would argue (and have at length) that free will does not preclude an inherent alignment (good or evil), nor does an inherent alignment preclude free will.

The fact that a creature could be made out of evil, yet would choose good is possible in Golarion canon (and thus presumed possible by Pathfinder at large, although several wordings of things preclude this interpretation).

I know. But evil things turning good is a very rare exception to the rule, and if such a creature were to exist, it would very likely be outcast from its kind, and thus not a problem when the heroes come a-knocking.

And yes, it is a simplification. Self-awareness is earned at Int 3, and most evil humanoids have twice that. So they are self-aware, but they are also monsters. If we return to the Morlock: Their instinct is to devour their own kind. They require oversight so they do not eat their own siblings. This is not learned behavior. They are naturally predisposed towards traits that the game attributes as evil.

So, do they have free will in the same sense? Are they even meant to? An interesting argument, but if we are to entertain that notion, the alignment given the monsters in the bestiary becomes almost moot, as the very notion of innate alignments defies the principles of free will.

I argue for the simplification because it allows the game to stand as is. And makes the heroes (especially the paladin) that much more valid and heroic, standing against the darkness, and it dehumanizes the darkness so that we can have a jolly good time without waxing Nietzsche all night :P

Destroying a fiend is a good act. I cannot cite the source, but I am pretty certain I am right. And there is a huge difference between culling the creatures born evil without a say in the matter, and creatures that have a cultural disposition towards evil. I would consult the bestiary entry, see what it says about them, and decide on a case to case basis.

And regarding redemption: Only Sarenrae demands this practice. And even she is adamant that it shall be treated like the precious gift it is. You get ONE shot, and your life is in the balance. For if you do NOT repent, your sins are on the head of the paladin who did not stop your evil.

There seems to be a few amusing misinterpretations going in in this thread. And a few borderline malicious assumptions. So far, I am a racist that is full of poop.

Gotta make a mental not to tell that to my students next week. I am sure the principal will want to fire me from my job teaching refugees languages and computer skills when he realizes that I am a racist.

Kamelguru wrote:

1: So even demons would be safe from paladins in your setting.

2: From your response to 1). You insist on making comparisons between CE monsters and human prisoners in non-PF settings.

3: You are WILLFULLY disregarding large chunks of the code.

4: Being an evil monster in the bestiary, described as a horror that has no other purpose than to feed on those unfortunate enough to stray into its life. Not gonna report your slander, because I want people to see you for what you truly are.

5: My point is that comparison to comic-book characters under a different circumstance is pointless. Also, the setting does not have evil as a physical constant. Golarion has spells that use pure good to harm enemies of good. And vice versa. Judge Dredd has guns, mutants and tech.

6: That is wholly your opinion, based on your interpretation of the code, which is filled with fallacies that you willfully disregard.

1) What paladin turns down the chance to redeem a demon?

2) They are both helpless. Neither of them are your lawful right to punish. Your point?
3) No I'm not you are. (Try examples next time)
4) Doesn't give you the right to break your paladin's code.
5) Someone else was trying to make a point about that. I disagreed. Comic book heros are not paladins. Someone else argued that my standard for paladin was too high. Thus that debate.
6) That's just your opinion. (again use examples)

1: A demon IS evil. He is not just of evil alignment. Consorting with them is basis to fall. It is on the checklist of "Yo dawg, I heard you like smiting, so we put twice the smite in your smite to smite demons, dragons and undead, so you can smite while you smite" for a REASON.

2:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Emphasis mine. Not destroying teh satan himself given the opportunity is a complete fail of the whole last paragraph.

3: See above.

4: See above.

5: Then why use them so adamantly in further posts, if you disagree that they are valid representations?

6: My opinion is one forged from 20 years of GMing, extensive studies in the fields of ethics, reflection and legal legitimacy preparing me to work as a public servant, and one to which the bulk of the thread seem to agree. The "You cannot hurt me, I found a loophole" is a modern bureaucratic phenomenon, where the letter of the law is followed, while the spirit of the law is completely gone, in a corrupt world of manipulative lawyers, lobbying groups and redressing of once legitimate interest groups that long ago forgot their ideals.

So yes, it is my OPINION that a paladin is supposed to be a holy knight that crushes evil so the children can grow up to become something other than monster food, rather than a helpless parody that belongs in some modern drama like The Wire, who has to let killers and rapists go because "lol, you did not do the paperwork right".

So back to the topic. Can a non-court appointed paladin kill helpless prisoners and still be within their paladin code?

Or better yet. Can Superman break into a foreign prison and kill the inmates? Could any hero? Could anyone who calls themselves LG do such an act of senseless butchery?

OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.

Fallacies:

2: You assume that all things are equal, and should be held to the same standard. Basically, you demand that Satan and Saint Theresa are the same.

3: You give excessive weight to YOUR interpretation of a vaguely worded part of the code, while ignoring a clearly written one completely. Nowhere does it say he needs to spare evil prisoners, but it does say he needs to punish evil.

4: You assume superman, which was created to be a pro-American propaganda tool, is an appropriate representation of a paladin, and again suppose the killing of humans = killing of evil monsters. A more fitting comparison would be "Would <paladin equivalent> kill a helpless xenomorph from Alien?" or some other creature without capacity for good.

5: Again with the comic book comparison where the protagonist is held to a completely different set of circumstances and ideals.

6: OPs paladin is backed by his specific code, which is catered to fit the setting with situation-specific commandments. This involves the killing of enemies of his people, which is implied to be the innately evil humanoids towards which dwarves have the "hatred" or "defensive training" racial traits. He is NOT given free reign to dispense punishment to lawbreakers, nor slaughter prisoners wholesale when there is any question if they are damned.

In the end, your inability to consider anything but your binary take on the lawful alignment makes paladins a non-viable option if you ever were to GM, which is something I hope you warn your players about, so they do not go in under the false pretense that they will get to play an actual paladin.

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.

No.

Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.

Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.

You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.

Is anyone arguing that he should kill all the guards? Obviously, he needs to kill the psycho who MADE this law, or at least exorcise the fiend that clearly is possessing him if he is NOT a willing servant of darkness.

Kamelguru wrote:

What I say is that the ideals that a paladin MUST live up to has a higher standard than most real or fictional system of government.

Uhhhhhmm... no. A paladin can do PLENTY of things that would get people jailed IRL, without any negative consequence. For example, at least in my country, ANY deliberate killing of a born human is against the law, except in extreme cases of self-defense (as in, if I point a gun to the head of a cop and he aims and shoots directly to kill me, that's illegal, but if he shoots me a few times in the legs and arms first and I still try to kill him then it might be legal).

How is a paladin that can kill almost anyone it wants, because whatever it says goes, living up to a higher authority?

First, real life does not translate to pathfinder. Real life laws vs Golarion laws have to deal with wildly different problems. Real life laws does not need to concern itself with demon summoners, undead, black magic and intellect devourers controlling politicians to manipulate the world for their evil ends. The real world laws deals with humans, and western law considers humans to be self-determined and responsible for their actions, and thus there is a whole lot more leeway when dealing with them.

And in response: Of course not. In a city, governed by a legitimate authority (non-evil), he is GIVEN the option to bring people in for trials, thus giving the legal system a chance to show its influence and gain further legitimacy.

A paladin does his best to further LG laws and LG ideals. He will go after a clearly evil baron that has people killed in the street for minor tax evasion, or the lord who enjoys trying out his brand new weapons on the children get in his way when he is out riding. There is no working from the inside with such evildoers, and the only way to rid the land of their poison is to remove it entirely, and replace them with better rulers.

My 2 cents on authority:
LG: Respect and follow, serve as example.
NG: Respect and follow, improve towards lawful when possible.

LN/N: Respect and follow when not in conflict, actively attempt to improve towards (lawful)good.

Lawful evil: Actively try to improve, overthrow if fruitless.
Neutral evil: Enemy; overthrow or oppose.
Chaotic Evil: Enemy; overthrow or oppose.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

However, you are exaggerating the other side. I know it's hard to make Marthkus's position any more comical, but could you please try, for the sake of balance?

Actually, Marthkus didn't say proper duel, just "honorably", which apparently includes not aiming for the soft spots, not attacking unless the opponent has an option to escape and most everything else... So I exaggerated in words, but not in the actual result.

And isn't that the same case with the other interpretation? What's the point of the paladin rule of "must respect legitimate authority" when this is the attitude towards legitimate authority?

Kamelguru wrote:

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

Renitent Rover wrote:

But that's half the point, the Paladin is the legitimate authority figure, ordained by his god to make such judgments.

EldonG wrote:

A paladin is a legitimate authority figure...his authority comes from his god...that had better be legitimate.

If the paladin is the ultimate authority then most anything the paladin does will be acceptible. Torturing baby goblins is ahokay since the paladin can just sentence them to torturous death - and his authority comes from his god! Thus it's legitimate, and no reason for the paladin to fall!

I dislike the whole attitude of paladin's goodness having gone from "a paladin must act good!" to "however a paladin acts, is good!".

What I say is that the ideals that a paladin MUST live up to has a higher standard than most real or fictional system of government. And a paladin cannot be corrupt and still be a paladin, while a judge and jury can be corrupted to the core, and still maintain their position.

And torture is out for a paladin. He is given spells and class abilities as well as Diplomacy and Sense Motive to find his information. There is no justifying torture.

Routing noncombatants that are irredeemably evil is fine, but he needs to do it in a humane manner. This is harsh for real world people to accept, because there is no such thing as a genetically EVIL race in real life. The only self-aware, sentient life on earth is humans, and arguably some sea-mammals and simians.

Kamelguru wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

I take back what I said earlier, your sense of ethics is not just stunted, it is wholly nonexistent. You put the L waaaaaay over G, and make the paladin a construct with less self-determination than ED-209.

Being more true or pure to the idea of justice does not make you more legitimate. You are saying that paladins are basically Azatas while in fact they must behave more like Archons. Paladins must respect the law. They are not above the law.

Are you saying a paladin can be less lawful than Superman?

Respect =/= blind obedience and deference. A paladin is Lawful Good, not Lawful and Good. He supports good laws, and work to improve those that are not good. He will question the legitimacy of obviously corrupt rulers (much like superman) and destroy those who actively use law as a weapon to subjugate and terrorize.

He is JUSTICE, which is the ideal law can only hope to imitate, with its fallacies due to being crafted by humans, which means it is invariably corrupt. That is why he not only is above corrupt law, he is the ENEMY of corrupt law.

Renitent Rover wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

He is above the law. He only has to abide legitimate authority. Again, not further defined. Clearly Evil based laws are out, as our demon princes (even though they are the ruler of their realms), but probably LN, N, NG and CG societies would be included as long as they did not conflict with his gods.

And again, how is he not? His god gave him the ability in order to have an impact, not to sit by and let some lazy, corrupt hillbilly court have the say.

A paladin cannot lead a rebellion or over-throw corrupt governments. He represents law and good. He cannot deny one to better serve the other.

He can try to reason with hillbilly court, but if their are no higher courts in the land that is all he can do.

10/10: Would rage again

This troll is amazing!

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

I take back what I said earlier, your sense of ethics is not just stunted, it is wholly nonexistent. You put the L waaaaaay over G, and make the paladin a construct with less self-determination than ED-209.

The paladin IS law, he is the most perfect and incorruptible servant of justice you can imagine, and no decision he ever makes will be improved upon by a potentially corrupt court.

Heck...I'd let a pally use poison. Those ants are a problem? I think the local alchemist has the right stuff... :p

Are you KILLING defenseless and INNOCENT NON-EVIL creatures with POISON?! Immediate fall! You fall so hard your mother falls! Your fall is a fall that is heard around the world!

Sense Motive DC 5:

Guys, guys! I just solved all our problems!

Paladin Archetype: Best-Friends-Forever Happy Shiny Friendship Hippie

Why can't we be friends?(Su): This ability can turn one evil creature into a good creature. The paladin can use this ability once per day, and once more every 3 levels beyond first. This ability replaces Smite Evil.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

EldonG wrote:

slade867 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

How honorable is it to fight an enemy 4 on 1?

For that matter...assume you've built this amazingly tough paladin. He's 20th level, and regularly deals with Earth-shattering foes. He comes upon a farm, where the sole inhabitant present, a young maiden, is being harassed by a single goblin, straight out of the bestiary.

"Halt, evildoer!"

Now...the goblin has NO chance of hurting you significantly. It needs a 20 to hit, and in your adamantine fortified plate, maximum damage will just get your attention.

I wonder what the appropriate response is supposed to be. The goblin is essentially helpless, compared to you.

Except it's not helpless. The goblin can run away or not attack you. A prisoner tied up in corner begging for mercy is helpless.

No.

You're kind'of an @$$. Just to let you know.

Opinion.

Those HD could have been gain through fighting off other monsters.

Then it is not evil. Something that exclusively fights combat-worthy monsters to survive is not evil.

Drizzt the drow creature kills monsters to survive, and does not kill anything that is not a threat to himself or others. He is good.

Most any given other drow kills, then tortures the non-combatants for fun, and sacrifices even their own children to gain favor with demonic lords and evil gods. They are evil.

This can be applied to other creatures. A wyvern is not evil by nature, but it is intelligent and capable of evil. A hill giant is evil by nature, but capable of NOT being evil if it so chooses.

If you are playing morlocks and drow true to their nature, NO player character, from the spectrum of LG to CE should have any qualms about killing them. They are monsters, worshippers of a host of cruel gods, demon-consorts and worse. The drow are the epitome of evil, but thanks to the damage caused by Drizzt Do'Urden, people seem to think that drow are "misunderstood", rather than realizing that what makes him such an unlikely hero is that he comes from the worst of the worst sorts.

This is all irrelevant if you are playing a happy go lucky My Little Pathfinder edition, where there is no real evil, only victims of circumstance and tragic figures who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A magical world of rainbows and sunshine, where every villain can be turned to serve good, given the time and understanding that it was deprived of as a child.

The canon setting of Golarion has some horrifying stuff, just read up on the bestiary entries for ogres and goblins for confirmation, and the paladin has a holy mission to go forth and combat the terror that lurks out there, serving gods that embody the worst of sins, whose desire is to see the world filled with pestilence, death and ruin.

If the paladin shows mercy, and allows someone to keep their lives, HE becomes responsible for every act of evil that creature does from that point onward. In my game, letting an irredeemably evil creature live for any other purpose than being taken to a rightful trial, and subsequently imprisoned or magically atoned, would fall. It is a willful evil act to give aid to someone who will use said aid for evil.

Kamelguru wrote:

There is a reason very few of the long-lived races have paladins. Most creatures that live for eons tend to get colored by the evils committed against someone they know well, and get rather callous about the lives of their enemies. Human lives are very short, which allows them to be naive and grow up without knowing repeated wars against creatures whose whole purpose in life is to kill you, nor the fight for mere survival.

Torag has been around since pretty much the dawn of time, and seen gods rise for the mere purpose of opposing him and his people. Orcs exist to destroy dwarves and elves, unless I am mixing up my lore here. Why would Torag NOT demand their extinction?

And to top it off, this is Golarion, where several gods of unquestionable evil exist. It is NOT earth, where you can argue that <insert religion/system of belief> is or is not evil, and open for interpretation. You follow a god, and if you do not live up to his or her VERY narrow expectations, you are cut off from their favor, and no spells for you. Nobody thinks Rovagug is actually a nice, misunderstood guy that is just acting out because he does not know how to otherwise express himself. And it is no secret that theft, poison and murder is the domain of the evil god Norgorber. People who choose to live within the domains of a god to the degree that their alignment correlates... well, if you are a paladin and want to protect the goodly people, it is your gods given MANDATE to kill them. You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason. IF you worship Sarenrae, and ONLY Sarenrae, are you obligated to give them a shot at redemption. And if you read up on Torag, you will see that he considers her weak and foolish.

You Detect Evil, assess the situation appropriately and you Smite when necessary.

It doesn't work to Smite everything that pings evil. Not sure where you and a few others have gotten this stance.

Jeez, put some clothes on that straw-man, it is barely even humanoid.

That is not what I said, and you know it. My statement is that you get the power to destroy evil. You do not get the power to make evil magically turn non-evil.

No, you cannot smite everything that pings evil (and not just because you are limited to X smites/day), but everything that pings evil is corrupt, and warrants distrust. Depending on the god you follow, the next step varies. Paladins of Torag are obliged to kill everything considered "enemies of his people". Paladins of Sarenrae are obliged to give them a shot at redemption. But even they consider it a holy gift, and does not allow it to be subject of mockery or trifle.

In certain places, people have to live with evil, because evil is stronger, and have the upper hand. Societies can still exist, because people still have basic needs like food, shelter and so on. And most people are not heroes, and most heroes are not paladins. Thus, a lot of bad stuff needs to be accepted to survive. If a LE lord is the only reason the orcs are not violating your wife, sister and daughter, then you choose the lesser of two evils. If you are a paladin, you work your way up to reform or replace the evil lord, and become ruler yourself, for the good of the people. Or set out to destroy the orcs, so your people can unite against the evil lord. In no way is it acceptable for the paladin to do nothing and accept his people be kicked between two evils. Evil must be combated, for that is your purpose as a paladin.

Feel that it is important to point out that taking a few minutes to recover is hardly FREE healing if you are playing a dungeon-crawl. It is a choice: If you stay for a few minutes and rest, you are letting buffs that last X minute(s)/level run their course, and you will not benefit from them in the next encounter. While if you use magic to heal up pronto, you still retain the power of the buffs, and can enter the next encounter more powerful.

Exactly. The immersion would take a blow if you imagine ALL damage as severe, bloody potentially crippling hits. Most people think "what happens if a person gets hit IRL by <weapon>?" and the notion to rest off such damage by catching your breath IS ridiculous. But by that logic, a mid-level PC stands after taking up to a dozen "mortal injuries".

I see it differently. With this system, only the crits and failed saves are actual injuries. Which makes a TON of sense to me, as crits and failed saves tend to stack up serious chunks of your HP, as opposed to minor hits for single digit damage. Now, you are messed up when an enemy actually injures you, and fights become easier to imagine as well as more memorable. There is more flavor in the post combat healing, as the cleric is healing that specific injury, rather than refilling your HP tank like some gas-station attendant.

I have been toying with an idea for the fighter, inspired by the Tome of Battle from 3.5e. You know, the book they made with fighting classes that were almost on par with the casting ones.

The gist of it is that the fighter trains in the morning, and then chooses his bonus feats for the day. The feats you get from levels 1,3,5 etc are set in stone, but you can choose any feats with the rest as long as you have the requirements.

This would remedy a lot of "But WHY!?" scenarios in games in my experience. Instead of the GM having to alter weapons in game to fit the fighter, the fighter can change his feats to fit the weapons. It will give the fighter an air of fighting competence, as well as making their game mechanics reflect the fluff blurb and the "role" bit of the class.

I know it sound completely absurd, making the fighter the paragon of fighting, when he usually tends to be a sad one-trick pony with little to contribute when said trick fails.

A wizard can choose between being an engine of destruction one day, build half a kingdom the other day, summon an army of monster the third, and learn the secrets of half the multiverse on the fourth. And if he has time to make a bunch of scrolls he can do ALL of that during ONE day.

A fighter... can either hit something very hard or shoot something really well. Rarely both. The next day, he can do the same. Until he levels up, then he can hit a little bit harder, or maybe make a small monster fall over.

So, like most discussion on the internet, this thread has devolved from a legitimate question, which has received several quite decent answers, and become Rustlemania 2013, where the jimmies are howling with butthurt.

Man, I wish I could still have popcorn. This thread is gold.

Out of combat stuff that a fighter can do:

- Perform the strength checks to break open doors and such with DCs over 22.

- Climb up an incline, swim a ford or whatnot and toss over a rope to pull up/over the the party-members who cannot climb/swim at all, with his huge strength.

- Carry the stuff that the scrawny casters cannot (sure, you can remedy weight with bags of holding etc, but a 700lbs gold statue ain't gonna fit in the bag. And even if you were to cast Floating Disc, you need to get it onto and off the disc)

- Aid on skills as long as he puts 1 rank into the field of interest. Even the least charismatic fighter can on average make the DC10 aid check for intimidate, to stand there looking menacing with his big muscles and sharp blade.

- Go first and soak the damage from the traps, and make the poison dart fort saves, because you don't have a trap-finder.

- Craft magical arms and armor. Just costs you two feats, and you have tons.

- Forage for food, keep the party from getting lost, keeping them out of natural hazards. Survival is finally a class skill.

- Tend the mounts with Handle Animal.

- Prepare for the next fight. This is more a personal thing, but I find that the less supernatural stuff my character can do, the more I am able to make mundane plans and think of convenience. More often than not, it is my martial characters that remember to bring rope, sun-rods, antitoxins etc, because with casters I tend to spend too much of the prep time looking for spells and spell completion items.

Knowing stuff has always been part of the D&D stat "Intelligence" in every incarnation. There is no real mechanic in the game for reasoning. No skill, no check. You know, or you don't. The closest thing I have seen is what they do in Shattered Star, where you do Linguistics for word puzzles, which becomes a flat int check if you do not have linguistics.

Knowing stuff is KINDA part of real life intelligence, if you think of intelligence as your reasoning/acquiring ability. The more you know, the more stuff your brain can compare stuff to, and build upon. But there is an inherent intelligence that is different in people, which I think is what people consider "Real" intelligence. The kind that makes you consider someone "gifted" rather than "educated".

That said, the interpretation of what the numbers mean in PF is up to the individual. Even if we all come to agree on the definition of the word, what does the number mean? Int 7 is the lowest possible stat for a character with a class that sets him above 90% of the world and makes him effectively a super hero past a certain level.

With that in mind, I am reluctant to consider Int 7 as barely functional.

This thread is like a game of Word Disassociation.

One says "High level fighter", and people respond "Balor-summoning minutia."

My experience from high level play is that the best tactic is for the wizard to disable the enemy, so the fighter can kill it. A well made and buffed fighter will kill most anything it encounters on a full attack action. Boss monsters usually require two full-attacks.

A wizard or cleric simply does not have a spell on their lists that reliably does more damage than a hasted fighter. Virtually everything past CR12 will have spell resistance, immunities and so forth, so teamwork is the best way to go still. Nothing is immune to a +5 weapon.

Also, most APs tend to give out a maguffin weapon that does immense damage against the BBEG and the thematic enemies. (Suishen, Briar, etc)

I think what people inadvertently or intentionally do here is use words that are... inappropriate to describe the level of function a person with limited stats can achieve.

A person with Int 7 can never be a MASTER of anything that has to do with intelligence. He can be ADEQUATE, heck, he can even be GOOD with sufficient investment. But the MASTER is one with max ranks, relevant feats AND the good Int score.

Cha/Int7-12 fighter will never be a master of anything int/cha related. Without heavy investment, they will fail level appropriate DCs when skills are called.

Cha/Int 14+ fighter can be good, but still lacking due to his choice of class. He will be adequately skilled to be relevant at trained skills in which he chooses to focus (intimidate, engineering etc), but his class still limits his trained skills and potential to build on skills. So they will not be MASTERS of any skill without heavy investment.

But if you really want to be a MASTER of a skill, you play a class and have stats to support the claim. You can make a PASSABLE combat rogue or monk, but no monk or rogue will hold his own in melee with a well made fighter. (inb4 example builds of monks with "good" AC and 'what if the rogue has this or that item, is this or that race, its dark, underwater, upsidedown and the stars are aligned?' situations. Everyone damn well knows to what I am referring)

As for the "Fighters makes better strategists/tacticians". Sadly, that is not the case. They have no skills or class abilities that even imply that they have a higher understanding of combat on a larger scale than "my pointy end goes in enemy". Cavaliers on the other hand, have class abilities to imply skill in tactics, due to having a class ability called 'Tactics'. And yes, a dumb cav makes a good leader, mechanically. Because mechanics. There is no mechanics in PF to determine strategy or even tactics in terms of planning. So that point is kinda moot.

In the end, I am for the dumb fighter coming up with the solution. It is good comedy. Like Gourry from Slayers realizing stuff to everyones surprise, and have them facepalm for not seeing the obvious solution staring them in the face. Dumb people tend to go for the more obvious solution, and smart people have a tendency to overthink.

Betcha not a lot of people want to chastise the Int22 wizard for finding the simple answer, yelling "PLAY YOUR INT, OT GTFO!"...

Ilja wrote:

"The rules doesn't say I can't" is an immature response to give seriously in an actual social scenario, kinda like the obnoxious kids in my junior high going all "the air is free! the air is free!" while pushing their hands a centimetre in front of my face.

Sure, I can't force you to roleplay a certain way. But I am free to tell you "sorry, this doesn't fly at our table. Find somewhere else to play.".

Likewise, your players are entitled to say: "Hey, we disagree, let's talk about this or we'll just find someone else to run the game".

I am not holding up the extremism DM forcing banner that many have suggested, but your (collective, to a few posters here) unwillingness to even be open to the concept is quite unnerving.

Again, I don't approve of dump stats, heck I don't even use the attribute allocation system, but I don't think low scores should make some "handicapped" character such as a trained Fighter class character that can't figure out what flanking is.

Wolves use pack tactics, which implies flanking. Int 2.

If I had a fighter flank, and a GM were to tell me "Play your Int 7!" at that point, I would bring my trolling a-game. I would require people to help me open my cans at the table, not move unless another character told me, have my character poo and pee his pants and run around town having conversations with animals and start hoarding sticks and shiny stuff. He would spend all his money on turnips, pick up a club, because hell if he can understand the complexities of wielding a SWORD, which is among the most complex weapons to take to a fight. Derail the game, yell at inappropriate moments when NPCs are talking, and so on.

If we are just talking fighters and barbarians... then none of this matters. Because the Int/Wis/Cha 7 dude is likely never going to be in a position where his word matters unless the GM sets him up to fail just on spite. He is there to tear stuff apart, and withstand the damage of other things that would crush his more eloquent and intelligent friends. That is his sole purpose.

How many characters have any of you played that do not into social stuff, and then step up and speak for the party? How many times have your progress been halted because your melee monster does not have knowledges? Or if we flip the coin, how many Str7-8 wizards have you played that insist on going melee?

If you feel there is some manner of need to punish someone for min-maxing, then don't allow it. And if someone is playing their character with knowledge beyond their scope, then request a relevant skill check. But if you open that can of worms, prepare to require that check from EVERYONE who comes up with an idea, regardless of point buy configuration. Some of the most intelligent people I know regularly gets stumped when confronted with a problem outside their field of interest/education.

I just want to ask if 10-11 is average and if you had a 7 int then your %30 less intelligent then average. So by that your are Dumb by what most people would say. I am not saying that you cant be skilled but you are dumber then the average person. So a rogue with a 7 int would have 6 skill points and a rogue with a 10 would have 8 skill points. Now thats not to say that the fighter with his 3 skill points with a Int of 12 is dumber then a rouge with 7 int but the fighter is less skilled with noncombat skills (like feats). We need to remember that skill points do not show how smart you are just how skilled you are. But your Int dose show how smart you are. and brian now what else adds to damage with melee attacks then str?

Back in the 2e example I brought up "Knowledge" was part of the int sub-stats. So I will argue that your education comes into play. NOT going to argue that all people who complete an education are intelligent. But there is a whole lot between "Smart" and "Dumb".

Also, 30% is just one interpretation. Which is a valid one. Another valid one is 10% dumber, as those are the mechanical consequences. But the main reason I am a fervent believer that 7 is not "hurr durr, imma gonna eats me an rock" is because by the same reasoning, int 13+ would imply a godlike intellect. Also like to add that in the same way, I do not have people chase the cha7 dude with pitchforks, nor do I have them throw their unmarried daughters at the cha14+ bard.

As for melee attacks: Magical bonuses, weapon specialization, power attack, class abilities, buffs etc all factor in. My Jade Regent bard typically hits for 1d8+16 with his longsword (in two hands). Only 3 of those are from strength. 2 are from Arcane Strike, 2 is from inspire courage, 2 is from Good Hope (usually open combat by inspiring and casting good hope), 6 is from Power Attack, and the last one is the weapon enhancement.

I want to go on the record and remind people that there is a huge difference between saying you CAN play int 7 as the stereotypical slack-jawed idiot... and that you HAVE TO play int 7 as a stereotypical slack-jawed idiot.

There was a book I really enjoyed back in 2e that covered suggestions on how to roleplay interesting combinations of stats. Where one was a person with low int and good cha, that was able to SOUND very intelligent and articulate, but anyone knowledgeable on the topic would be able to see through his facade.

Kinda like the Eddie Izzard stand-up bit about the "Ich bin ein Berliner!" speech, which is grammatically incorrect, but since it was delivered well by a person that looked good delivering it, that was completely overshadowed.

So, yeah. How dumb IS a character with int 7?

I say "Tell me more about this character."

Heaggles: There are nuances that should be addressed. Like how Str alone does not determine how HARD you hit, Int alone does not determine everything related to knowledge and intelligence. You can have a good vocabulary, justifying it by having ranks in diplomacy and linguistics. You could have a good education by playing a class with lots of skill points. Your base potential alone is just one number in a bigger equation.

Are you claiming that Intelligence =/= intelligence?

Do you think the game designers meant for that stat to be a metric for intelligence?
If not, why did they use the word?

My 2cp: Because that is what they did in D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5?

An interesting note is that in 2E Players Option: Skills & Powers, you were given the option to partition Intelligence into TWO substats: Reason and Knowledge.

Reason governed your deductive reasoning, your ability to think abstract, solve puzzles and so on. Knowledge determined your level of education, governed you bonus languages and additional proficiencies, which today you translate to skillpoints.

Simplicity and backwards compatibility seems to me to fit more when applying Occam's Razor, rather than intent.

Also, back in the day, when the game was designed, there was NO mechanical difference between someone with Int 3 and int 8. The table even read "Int 3-8: 1 Bonus proficiency, no spellcasting". So for all intents and purposes Int3 = Int8 in the old days, when the game was made, if your character did not take any int based proficiencies.

Saying that a stat is more than what the table of modifiers imply is strictly up to the interpretation of every player and GM. There was a time when we were so spoiled with ability scores that we considered anything below 15 worthless. Because according to 2e tables... that was true.

Women IRL =/= Women in roleplaying games.

Most RPGs are idealized to the point where there is no difference between men and women. Even the real and legit differences (physical strength, bodily functions etc) are not covered in the rules.

It makes me chuckle every time some GM starts rambling about "historical <insert topic> realism" in a game where you can play an elf that shoots lightning from his or her fingertips to defeat dragons and magical beasts.

littlehewy wrote:

You're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...

My point was simple...I didn't mean the actions couldn't have social relevance...I meant they would not be done in a social manner. He didn't work out a logical position, and sit down at a table and debate it out, coming up victorious when the Runelord became a good person, seeing the light...he cut his friggin' head off.

A Cha/Int10 fighter/barb will not be socially significant either. Because he is not a socially significant class. He is slightly better at intimidating, which is only a facet of social maneuvering. A real social character has Lv+5 or more in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, something a barbarian/fighter cannot achieve without crippling his other ability scores and sinking several feats towards it.

People do not seem to realize that a cha/int 10 fighting type character will fail just as hard at social finesse and knowledge related endeavors simply because they are mechanically unable to keep their skills on par with the gradual increase of DCs by virtue of the design of their class. Having +1 or having -2 is irrelevant when the DC is over 20. Both fail automatically.

If you just cannot deal with people having 7 in a stat, cap the low end at character creation at 8, or hell, even 10. It is well within the power of a GM to do so. Give them a +2 or 4 PB at start to make up for it if people protest too much.

Seems it boils down to opinion. So instead of trying to apply any of my degrees in some vain attempt to show that I am more "right" than another, let me just say this:

By the same silly virtue that a Str7 has a fair chance to beat a Str20 in a contest of strength, due to the game being hopelessly inaccurate and simplified compared to real life, an int7 should not be forced to auto-fail endeavors of intellect.

If you go to the local gym, find the strongest guy there, and send him on a challenge run at the local elementary school, competing against the kids in contests of opposed strength, by the logic of Pathfinder RAW, he should have a win ratio of merely 75-80%.

The system is flawed for portraying life accurately, and it boils down to opinions. Mechanically, both statements "An int7 is a mere 10% below average" and "An int7 is effectively only twice as smart as the lowest possible sentient score" are true.

Here are some others:
"An int 18 is only 30% smarter than an int 6"

"The strongest human only has a 25% greater chance to kick down a stuck door."

"A 30lb halfling can throw a 300lb half-orc to the ground." (inb4 magical anime-tier jujutsu. NOT talking about a lv10 halfling monk vs a lv1 half-orc warrior, which those people invariably argues for)

The ONLY statistic that I find even remotely well thought out is carrying/lifting capacity on the strength table. As a str 10 simply cannot outperform a str 18 in that regard... buuuut, he can in virtually any other sense, if his d20 is willing.

By rules as written, anyone with int3+ understand language.

A dwarf that somehow manages to have Int 3 still knows Common AND Dwarven.

I fail to see how someone barely smarter than an animal can be bilingual, when most people I know would hardly qualify as proper bilingual.

So here is the breakdown as I interpret the RAW and official example characters:

Int1: The dumbest of animals or vermin, unable to be trained well.

Int2: Most animals, receptive to training.

Int3: Can understand language well enough to understand commands.

Int4: Where Paizo APs typically place "retards" (Auchs from Kingmaker, etc)

Int5: Minimum int of a player character that plays a race that has -2 int. Significant mechanical penalty makes most skills unavailable for you.

Int6: Lower end average of most uncivilized humanoids (-2 int), will make your character end up with a single point for skills if playing 2+int classes.

Int7: Same penalties as 6, minimum starting int for non-penalized races.

Int8-9: Lower average, no discernible mechanical difference. One deviance below average, allows for skill based classes to function if not reliant on Int (such as Ranger, certain rogues, druids etc)

Int10-11: Average. No penalties, no bonuses.

Int12: Naturally bilingual without being demihuman. Higher than average by one deviance (+1).

Int13: Capable of advanced sword-fighting that require an in-depth understanding of physics and a wide array of moves.

Int14-15: Natural trilingual, two deviances over average. Twice as skilled as most basic classes (2+int skillpoints). This is where I start consider what words I use when being "in character", so I portray him as notably above average.

At Int16+, you are inversely as far from average as a "retard", and it is reflected in significant mechanical benefits.

I've seen a lot of people asking about high level fighter play. I bring you Marcus Muri, Fighter 18. He was in my Kingmaker campaign, and he utterly destroyed anything he could physically accost. He could kill any boss by RAW in one full attack action at any level, even at higher ones. Buuuuut, he existed at the graces of the wizard and cleric, who were on hand to make sure he could reach stuff, and not be annihilated when reflex and will saves became a thing.

Basically, I found that what held true on low levels also hold true in coarse forms on high levels: The fighter kills everything it gets to full attack, most stuff needs 15-20 to hit him, he has staying power but NO versatility.

Sorcerers and Oracles have one crippling weakness in my book: They base themselves off a nigh useless stat.

Wizards get to base their stuff off INT, which makes them far better at their skills than a sorcerer can ever hope to be.

Sorcerer bases his stuff off CHA, which he does not really support as he has merely two charisma based skills trained, and not enough skill points to do both that, AND know what the heck he is doing in terms of magics.

Cleric bases his stuff off WIS, which supports several skills such as Heal and Sense Motive, and fuels his will save, making him a mental bastion that is mostly immune to most mind affecters, and thus far more reliable.

Oracles bases his stuff off CHA, which does nothing in terms of making him stay in the fight when someone tells him to NOT be. He has more skill points, which allows him to do some stuff with his social skills, but the strength of divine spellcasters has always been versatility, which he loses flat.

Not to mention crafting. Holee bovine are the preparing casters better. A wizard will likely have access to the esoteric spells needed to craft stuff, and if not? Then his spellcraft is the highest in the game, and the +5 DC barely even equalizes the playing field compared to a sorc that DOES know the spell. Clerics and Druids have all the spells on their list the next day, so they never have to deal with the dreaded +5 unless they are making a spell that they do not even have on the list in the first place.

Sorcerers and Oracles are more "unique" from one to the next, that I will give you. And I had lots of FUN playing a sorcerer. But in terms of being objectively "better"? Wizards and Clerics all day, erry day.

I never have a problem doing acro with my bard.

Dance 7 ranks: +7
Trained: +3
Cha: +4
Boots: +5
Circlet of Persuasion: +3
Good Hope: +2

Total: +24 @ lv7

Good times. And yes, I cast Good Hope in virtually every relevant combat. Too good a buff to not cast, when the sorcerer already covers haste. Never even intended to get good at Acro. All of the items were found in-game, and I took Versatile Performance: Dance because it had suited the image of my character. When I tallied everything and soared far over the head of the Ninja/Monk, I was kinda surprised. So was the GM when he called "Acro DC25" and I replied "Don't need to roll. Cannot fail."

I optimized my bard for buff/debuff without a care. Because all it does is make everyone else better. This is why I do not play classes like Magus, that can decimate CR>APL+2 monsters in a single round even at low levels. It just makes the GM frustrated and hogs all the action.

Not really fair to hate a class because of a bad experience with a jerk GM imho. I have had bad GMs make playing a cleric into an ordeal. It is still one of my favorite classes.

Of course, paladin is notorious for being subject to Bad GM Syndrome.

Honor is reflected in integrity, and is a motivator to act in accordance with ideals. If your integrity is shallow and self-serving(non-good/evil), you twist honor to be a tool for subjugation and self-preservation.

To me, honor is the sum of virtues, be they heinous or good. And a paladin is sworn to uphold a Lawful Good ideal, so his virtues must reflect this, and thus, his honor is measured by that standard.

Evil people will kill a girl that has done nothing but defied them, and claim she insulted their honor, or call it an "honor-killing". But that is perversion of honor. Just like applying unfair laws may be disguised as "justice", but most knows what actual justice is.

Atarlost wrote:

Honor is one of the devil's big lies (Asmodeus in Golarion, whatever devil is a big enough deal to merit the definite article in other settings). Honor is about pride and inflexibility and antithetical to helping people and punishing evil in most adventuring contexts.

Spoken like a true Chaotic Good/Neutral character. An LG one of course would probably disagree. I know mine do.

Toshiro, my tian Paladin/Monk of Irori would as well. Honor is the virtue that allows you to be all your can be. In service, in sacrifice, in guidance, in leadership... it compels you to honestly reflect upon yourself and your actions, to always measure your ideas and goals to a higher standard. It is what fuels the heart and moves the hand.

Played him in Serpent Skull. By level 5, he led the party without ever having to ask for it. By level 8 he led an entire expedition. Not once did he ask for it. But when he was required to step up, he did so without hesitation, and never betrayed trust. By level 10, the non-evil rival factions were so full of respect for him that he united them all to fight a common enemy. Then he got decapitated on a random Critical Hit card... honor does not help there :/

There are two big problems with the Paladin.

1) The code is toxic using the general European understanding of honorable conduct.

2) The class is not balanced against the other martials, with the excuse that the roleplay is a drawback. Either that or the designers forgot that most powerful enemies are evil.

The latter means GMs are encouraged to hammer the former to make up the power differential with other martials.

The solution I think I prefer is twofold.

1) Remove all references to honor. Honor is one of the devil's big lies (Asmodeus in Golarion, whatever devil is a big enough deal to merit the definite article in other settings). Honor is about pride and inflexibility and antithetical to helping people and punishing evil in most adventuring contexts.

2) Give all classes except the monk and the full casters two good saves. Barbarians should probably get reflex and rogues and cavaliers will. Fighters could go for either second save, but I think I prefer will. This reduces saving throw advantage so paladins don't need to be punished for being a powerful class.

Or you could replace the code with the first edition wealth restriction. If divine grace and weapon bond effectively come out of their magic budget they fall in line with other martial classes.

I agree to much of this, but the notion that paladins are more powerful? I dunno about that. as most fighters in any given game can out-trounce the paladin in 9 out of 10 cases.

Someone who is consistently successful in influencing others is SEEN as charismatic.

Just like someone who baffles others with his amazing math skills will be seen as intelligent.

Anything that can be improved by applying yourself is a combination your basic talent, and your obtained skill. I presume that if you look up Morgan Freeman, you'll see that he has had training in being a good actor.

Paladins are like alcohol.

If used responsibly, they can be fun and enjoyable.

If abused, they can lead to injury/death of a campaign, and people making a complete ass of themselves.

Some people are "fun" paladins/drunks. Others are mean and obnoxious in both roles.

What I fail to see in all this is that if you HAVE a bard, why should the monk try to do his job? You don't see the bard stripping down to his jammies and kicking goblins do you?

In the game I play in, it comes as natural to have the bard step forth and do the talking, as having the rogue lead the way in a dungeon that is full of traps, or having the ranger lead them through wilderness.

Everyone does not need to do everything.

My EXPERIENCE with monks of most sorts is that they have good "mook resistance", and is decent at mopping up remnants after a wizard has disabled them. But against a "live" enemy, who is at full capacity, and can strike back... not so much.

In a buff-heavy group, they get up to "ok". But in the same group, the actual martials get up to "amazing".

Sure, last session, the monk in our party did do some cool stuff. "Cool" not "efficient". And it made the GM chuckle to imagine the odd "critical hit deck" outcomes.

They are fun, but smacks of what I consider a "masochistic challenge" to play. Willingly limiting yourself to see if your system mastery and sense of tactics is enough to allow you to survive. Kinda like playing Dark Souls or some other hard game and not wear armor, just to see if you are a bad enough dude to get through.

The best monk I ever played was a paladin9/zen-archer1...