Krasg's page

Yes immediate actions can occur between events feather fall is an excellent example you cast it on a character after they start falling but before they hit the ground. If you have contingency set to immediately cast a spell when you take damage you have already taken the damage it does not retroactively change the past.

I pointed out the resiliency example because the talent has no text indicating it grants you temporary hit points before you activate it.

Anyway I have derailed this enough I will restrain myself from further posts.

So the contingency could be if you are touched by the endpoint of a lance, before it penetrates your armour?

I still have a small issue with classifying it around losing control or discipline, because it implies that all Chaotic alignments lose control over themselves, or all Lawful people are disciplined unless each are individual class expressions of Lawfulness or Chaos. Imo you can have extremely discplined evil and undiscplined/lazy law-abiders.

Activating this ability is an immediate action that can only be performed when she is brought to below 0 hit points.

This part is the key text here.

The damage takes the Rogue below 0.

But this Resilience can be applied while the damage is happening, to prevent the outcome (death). Or maybe it happens AFTER the damage but before death.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Excuse me but what species of fish are you talking about ?

I was thinking about Bards in the context of the Least Favourite Class thread and Bards came up to me. They seem to have been geared far too much for a passive slightly-buff-others approach rather than the much more interesting jack of all trades, master of none type where they get to have their finger in every pie, plus some unique abilities. Does anyone else agree there is too much focus on musicality and not much on the Adventuring part of bards?

that was basically my point. focussing on the benefits is fun but if it's obsessive then a lot of flexibility is possibly removed from games.

It's incorrect Krasg. MinMaxing in and of itself detracts nothing from having fun and role-playing.

In that a wide variety of skills and abilites are ruled unacceptable to use.

General Discussion is a MinMaxers paradise and this would seem to detract form having fun and role-playing. Is this a bad or good thing? Lol

The one thing that I find disturbing, and would undermine my ability to have fun in PFS, is the idea that failing a scenario due to not having the proper roles in the party since I have no control on what players bring to the table. It would basically be like rolling the dice to see if I even had a chance to try to succeed.

I disagree. The alternative to not having uses for certain classes means this: You think, "Any campaign or module should be a 'walk-through' no matter which class you have."

Then classes become entirely pointless in the first place.

#2) The Cleric: Powerful but BORING.

Cleric/healing classes have always been boring imo. I don't think there is anything you can do about it. They become interesting when they are pushed and controlled and manipulated by their deity or deity's follower's. That's about it.

My 2c. I think the designer definition applies best. What has happened since though is players have created more ways outside of those definitions to play a character...Anti-Paladin, for example.

The reason why it's hard to conceive for a Neutral or Chaotic Paladin is because A) Paladins follow a rigid code of rules/laws/morality and hence would lack *Greater Purpose* being anything other than Lawful Good or Lawful/Chaotic Evil. The rigid Purpose of a Paladin define the class as much as the content of it.

Otoh, I can see monks outside of Lawful because they might belong to some cult outside of normal societal rules. The Discipline argument for Lawful alignment only is compelling but doesn't adequately cover the entirety of the Lawful alignment (obeying societies laws). I can see monks as being neutral and not caring either way very easily because they are taught outside about matters 'greater' society's rules.

I don't have any problem with Assassin's being evil though, but some could also get by as neutral if they declined some targets. To be a true Assassin (getting back to the 'flavour' argument and the designer's conception though) I can't see an Assassin as being anything but evil because killing others outisde of ritual combat (ie while they sleep or nap) is their entire Purpose.

On Barbarians, I think it goes back to the barbarians are savages idea. The true, untamed Man. In this way it's easy to see them as Chaotic. But I could see them as any in much the same way as the monk. It's possible to conceive of a law-dominated, early civilisation that could not make metal armour and without written word. But it would also have to want the lawful domination of the rest of the known world. The rarity should dwindle the more a player wants to move from the Chaotic template imo (maybe a campaign specific setting might allow a lawful barbarian player). EDIT: Wanted to add though, that it is possible that those warriors from that primitive lawful society still count as Fighters, but don't have access or training in metal armours. And then therefore the Barbarian class are exceptions within that society as well, and the freedom/chaos/rage/wild component makes the barbarian what it is, despite what society it comes from and therefore, still not Lawful (Chaotic being it can't follow laws of society in almost all cases or when under duress..to me then only a Neutral Barbarian in addition to the Chaotic might be conceivable, and this one is happy to follow laws or not-he would have to be somewhat cultured perhaps).