Alignment is only a problem when people put the cart in front of the horse, metaphorically. Your RP defines the alignment, not the other way around. Just because I'm LG, for example, doesn't mean I'm not down for some serious hoodrat activities. I think there was a picture floating around that was able to make a convincing argument that Batman is every alignment.
I mean, the big issue is that AMF is called out in the rulebook explicitly as a rare spell, so this should not be a common effect to find, and having it wreck everybody's day thus is appropriate.
It doesn't really wreck anyones day per se. It just makes the fight take 8 million years (hyperbole). The fighter is less dangerous when the magic is turned off... which feels extremely counter-intuitive.
It took me a minute to figure out, but I think I finally got my biggest (personal) reason why I don't like that essentially all of a martial's damage is tied up in his (magic) weapon. It makes my Hollow Knight concept invalid.
To backtrack a bit, I have a few characters that I keep in my campaigns as a sort of recurring thing. They're basically a corrupted kind of einherjar - they can't exactly die, if they do so, they go back to their plane to await being called again. There's a restoration period they have to go, but that's not really important. There are a few of them, Hollow Knight, Silent Knight, Shadow Knight, etc. They all have auras of X on their armor. The Hollow Knight has an anti-magic field centered on his armor. If I were to use this character in 2e, the front liners would be swinging 1d12+str at each other... for 10/12 levels worth of hit points.
Do you mean the item turns you the opposite sex?
Yup. Sigh... good times. Much curse. I once placed a chessboard instead of our gaming mat because we were in a "wizards" tower. I had a key of the safe squares. There was one right path and the entire tower had a blanket curse of "Cast Blindness if anyone tries to detect magic".
So I was playtesting a Fighter alongside my buddy's barbarian... and it was my observation that it felt kind of weak. I was a fighter in fullplate and was more accurate than the barb and dealing extremely similar damage (I was a dwarf, barb was human). That... kind of bothered me and then I came to the forums where I discover that, allegedly, every class was intended to have more or less similar numbers.
Was anyone in PF1 upset that the barbarian outdamaged fighters? I always figured that came with the territory - a fighter has more AC, and the barb deals more raw damage and hopes the other thing stops moving first. So I look around and I do some thinking (as well as finding out that my playtest data was wrong - I thought a large weapon increased the damage die, which it apparently does not). Would it break anything too badly if rage gave another weapon die? It would be strong at level 1 - but so is everything else. Honestly my bard should die if I fail to notice a orc barbarian hiding in a tree with a greataxe above me.
Barbarian as of right now seems to not hit enough and when it does the damage dealt... is just unremarkable. Thoughts?
My favored cursed item is a girdle/ ring/ headband/ odd stick/ etc of opposite sex. Somehow, despite all odds, only one particularly PC of mine (like the guy sitting at the table, not his character) picks every one of them up and puts them all on. To be fair he's been getting decreasingly less irritated and more and more "yeah... I deserved that" about the whole thing.
We're going on like 8 times now.
Dave Justus wrote:
I don't think that's inherently true. Otherwise Cheliax wouldn't be a Lawful Evil society. Laws most certainly do not have to be just - Cheliax has a mind boggling amount of fine print and "it was public record, you could have found your house was scheduled to be demolished if at any point you went to the courthouse"
I would actually argue that a True Neutral society would not have rule of law the way you explained it either - the burden of knowing the laws would be entirely on the people. They wouldn't go out of their way to make sure the laws are easily understood, but they also wouldn't make the needlessly convoluted. It would probably have very harsh punishments because morality would have no place in their courts. The man who stole food from a starving family would be punished just the same as the man who stole food to FEED his starving family.
Everyone being equal under the law has a few IRL assumptions that would not particularly work in a fantasy world, for example, freedom of religion. Even if my homebrew country wasn't a theocracy, devil worshipping would probably strip more than a few people of any legal "rights" as we would presume them to have.
Okay good, thank you all. I want him to be Lawful Evil, but a fairly great guy. I just wanted to make sure that the whole "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" still pans out. He takes no pleasure in anything he's doing - and wishes it wasn't necessary, but he feels it is.
And MrCharisma you basically hit the guy on the head - he worships a goddess that is essentially a goddess of justice and magic - and the faith's biggest sin is allowing evil through inaction. The thought of standing by and doing nothing nauseates this guy. His adopted daughter is a paladin, and his greatest wish is for a world where people like him aren't necessary (though he finds his own wish idealistic and best, and naive at worst).
He also, in some twisted thinking, feels that murdering the children isn't only practical, but the MORAL thing to do. In his logic, he slays them while they are still pure as opposed to waiting until revenge has lead them down the same devil dealing path as their parents. By killing them, he's saving their souls. Whether or not that's actually true is irrelevant- he believes it with every fiber of his being.
Have a question about an alignment for an NPC I'm making. In the setting, he's a "Judge" wherein they are empowered to have full authority over being judge, jury, and if need be, executioner. As judges are appointed by the King personally, their word IS the law. Guy loves his country and is fiercely dedicated to protecting it against the denizens of the lower planes. However he ONLY shows a "respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings" if they are his countrymen. He DOES "make personal sacrifice to help others" if they are his countrymen, or anyone at all against the legions of hell.
However, he has no qualms of killing any one deemed heretical, and will kill children of heretics if he feels they are old enough to understand that his country murdered their parents - as they "will grow up to be an enemy of the Queen", even if they had done nothing wrong of yet. His guiding philosophy is he is willing to damn himself if it means no one else has to, and there are some things that the Queen is better off not knowing.
Not saying that at all :) Expressing discontent (In a constructive manner) is how we all get new content. I just feel that there's enough non-constructive criticism and a few of us need to just give a few atta' boys every now and then. Deadmanwalking's threads are some of my favorite, and he(?) pokes plenty of holes in the math of the system. Which just makes the game better.
What I was trying to say was that I feel that the people who would have responded the most negatively to the survey have already dipped out of the playtest, which in my head would naturally skew surveys to being relatively positive.
Mass props for the surveys. Although I would hazard a guess that everyone who throws up the massive wall of negativity on the boards aren't willing to sit through the survey. Only the people who WANT this to really succeed would invest the time. As an aside... Make Dragons Great Again*!
*(By making lesser dragonkin such as wyverns or drakes for them to use as mooks, thereby allowing a dragon encounter have numbers to help combat the action economy advantage players historically have over big solo dragons).
Salutations. I come before you because like many fans of fantasy, dwarves are... Nordic and follow Nordic gods, for whatever reason. Made me think, however, I've never really thought about the differences between say, Paladins of Odin, Heimdall, and Tyr (NG, LG, and LN). Any thoughts from the board? What sort of Paladin Codes would the three have?
Archimedes Mavranos wrote:
There's also a post floating around from Mark that clarifies it as such. Armor Class is a special kind of DC, and attack rolls and saving throws are checks.
Aaaand forgive my rapid fire posts, but for CR 5 it swings back to what I believe you intended.
Assuming that one +2 was put into Con, bringing our heroes up to 18 Con, a Level 5 PC's average hit points is 70.666(repeating).
The average crit of a combat CR 5 is 29.
So... if it rolls hot, or targets a squishier character (for example, that elf sorc who maxed out con would have 6+(3*5)+(6*5)=51 HP) Seems pretty.
Back. SO I averaged out the critical damage for the strongest attack on every combat CR1 monster in the playtest bestiary. If the monster had a conditional bonus (for example, the wolf getting extra damage on a flank) I averaged the damage between a regular strike and this "empowered" one. I averaged the hit points of the level 1 PC as if they had 16 Con (Note this does not take into consideration that say, elf really has a racial HP of 5 due to a racial penalty, and cannot actually have 16 con).
The average health of a level 1 PC with 16 Con is... 19 even.
I haven't gone further yet, but your proposal would effectively made any critical strike (at least on a CR 1, I'll be doing CR 5 next) a risk for an insta-kill.