Maris_Thistledown's page

I, too, would also like some information on why the

Pathfinder Adventure Path: Mummy's Mask Part 1 - The Half-Dead City

is only for sale between $75 and $150 while all the other books are less than $20... what asshattery is afoot, PAIZO???

Why the racism? Why must I spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars of real money attending Cons in hopes of MAYBE getting a boon that allows me to play a race I love and am familiar with AND is already available in the same resource materials as other "legal" races?

I am beside myself with this nonsensical system of race. I cannot find any reasonable justification. Any ideas?

I sure would like Paizo to officially let us know why they make these map folios and what they intend them to be used for. Most of the reviews of these products are negative, or have a great many negative things to say. Especially this (carrion crown) folio which contains maps of places that are not even in the AP as well as leaving out maps of places that are. They can never be used for tabletop minis and can rarely be used as player handouts without heavily modifying them to cover up secrets. So in conclusion... Apart from sometimes being pretty works of art, How does Paizo intend these maps to be used in game?

Jumps don't count, as you aren't on any sort of 'ground' :p

But you are attacking from above... ever heard the phrase/motto "Death From Above"? There is a reason for it.

A leap attack was meant to be like a charge but with the added benefit of gravity adding to the force of your attack.

Can we get an OFFICIAL PAIZO ruling here? All the Attack modifiers on the Core Rulebook table are defined somewhere else in the RAW, EXCEPT on higher ground.

What "specifically" constitutes higher ground?

Is standing on a table "high" enough? If that is true, does a 7' tall orc get higher ground for attacking a halfling? Is sitting on your "high horse" high enough? Can a character make an Acrobatics check for a "long jump" and make a leaping attack then be considered as coming from higher ground or must a "vertical jump" Acrobatics check be made?

There are many instances I have seen on the forums of people discussing this and have only seen opinions based on house rules and various forms of logic.

For me, this is an issue because I had a 3.5 Barbarian with the "Leap Attack" Feat. I am trying to re-create her in Pathfinder and now I need to know the rules for "On Higher Ground". Preferably something official so I do not have to debate it out with my DM.

Can we get an OFFICIAL PAIZO ruling here? All the Attack modifiers on the Core Rulebook table are defined somewhere else in the RAW, EXCEPT on higher ground.

What "specifically" constitutes higher ground?

Is standing on a table "high" enough? Can a character make an Acrobatics check for a "long jump" and make a leap attack from higher ground or must a "vertical jump" Acrobatics check be made?

For me, this is an issue because I had a 3.5 Barbarian with the "Leap Attack" Feat. I am trying to re-create her in Pathfinder and now I need to know the rules for "On Higher Ground". Preferably something official so I do not have to debate it out with my DM.

A) Math equations, calculating how much xp you have, how much you need, the rate you're earning it, the difference between what you earned and the person who sat on your left/right, etc

B) The cool scenes your character engaged in and what scenes you might get to engage in next time.

If you answer A, then XP is an extremely potent and valid reward. If you answer B, then it's the roleplaying itself that is rewarding.

I've written plenty of 1-page backstories for characters of mine and I have NEVER been awarded XP for doing so in the past 15 years, but I still do it sometimes because I enjoy it.

Why must it be one or the other? Why can it not encompass both? By your explanations, gold pieces should not play a part in the game either because that is math, calculating how much you have, the rate you are earning it, saving up to earn the item desired. This is EXACTLY what xp is, instead it is spent singularly on "purchasing" a new level and all the benefits that go with it. I am sad you have not earned extra xp for 1 page backstories. Of course any good player will act the hero, flesh out their character, attend regular gaming sessions etc. all because they love the game and NOT simply to earn xp. But is it not a nice gesture to give an xp reward to a player out of appreciation for setting a good example as a player? I think not. It also encourages other players to try harder at being a better roleplayer or storyteller or attendee. How is any of that a bad thing? Obviously, extra xp should not be rubbed into the face of others. It should not be used to pit players against one another or to play favorites. It is a tool that, when used wisely and with moderation, is of benefit to the group as a whole. Of course this is only my opinion based on my scant 20 years of roleplaying.

If you want to play with a group were everyone gets a, "great job, buddy!" and a trophy no matter how well or poorly they performed, then that's your choice. Unfortunately it is a breeding ground for simply grinding through adventures in order to level and overall mediocrity, in my opinion.

Maris_Thistledown wrote:

I guess you know what side of the debate I was on.

"It's a nice idea, but not one I would be comfortable with"?

That was FAR more tactful than I was in the debate...

So how many folks here track XP individually, and how many do it collectively?

We recently had a HUGE debate over this issue in our gaming group. Some believed that group XP was the only "fair" way to do it, while others felt it was pure communism and that it would deter players from "playing above and beyond the call of duty" which is what heroes are supposed to do. It also eliminated any incentive to write creative backstories, draw character pics and ROLE-play since all you need do is show up, roll the dice and you get the same xp as everyone else.... BOR-ing...!!

I guess you know what side of the debate I was on.

I've seen some DM's screw over every wish to the point where the wish spell and all wish items might as well not exist. Maybe it would be better just to say, "I don't like how wish affects the game so it does not exist."

I agree here. Wish was not designed as a player screwer. It IS a double edged sword that should be used very carefully, sparingly and with great forethought. If the a character uses a wish sloppily or for purely greedly or evil intent, then they should suffer somewhat for it.

The DM should not punish a character with a wish, especially since the PC most likely (or should have) gone through a great ordeal to earn it.

In my campaigns, xp is awarded for excellect ROLE-playing, heroic acts of bravery and derring-do (i.e. making a great roll for a nearly impossible feat), and character development (i.e. writing a character background story or keeping a written "journal" of the characters adventures. Of course this is all in addition to killin' stuff.

Bluff, from what the skill description says, is used for one purpose to deceive. What other things do you use it for in your games?

Why is it so hard to understand that deception is not always an evil, malicious, dirty or otherwise reprehensible act? Why is it you focus on only one portion of the definition and ignore all others?

Closely related is the sense motive skill. It (again, according to the book’s description) is used to detect deceit and discern the truth the deceiver is trying to deny or mask somehow through lies or other deceptions such as feinting or hidden messages. What else do you use it for in your games?

You said it yourself. The skill encompasses many different uses and could be used for many more limited only by ones imagination. Why do you force a limit on the Bluff skill to ONE and only ONE use while other skills are broadly based?

To feint, you by your actions make the opponent believe you are going to do something that you know is not and never was your intention to do. That’s a deception. If it wasn’t it would not work and there would be no point in doing it.

*sigh* see my post about dodging a sword to the head. It exactly describes what you just said. So now Paladins cannot fight defensively nor move away from an attack as that is deception and therefore a "lie" based on your narrow-minded opinion on what constitutes feinting and lying.

So if you want to say paladins can feint because that type of lie is okay in your mind, that’s fine. Why not just say that? Why say paladins can use it because it is not a lie? It just seems unnecessary to put forward a viewpoint that a quick perusal of the rule book and a dictionary invalidates.

Mostly because you have no concept of what feinting in combat ACTUALLY encompasses. Nor do you grasp the spirit of chivalry, honor, knightly virtues and how the Paladin's Code is intended to function in a fantasy setting. So, there ya go, that's why I am compelled to write on this subject.

That really depends on whether or not our laws considered medusae to be people. Considering the fact that they turn people to stone, I seriously doubt they would be; in our society, they'd have been extinct centuries ago because our ancestors would have posted a bounty for medusa heads.

Example: There are a THOUSAND+ ways my human character could visciously and horribly murder your character. How am I any less a monster than a medusae? Medusae are intelligent, sentient beings just like us. How is it they do not deserve the same mercy and compassion?

IMHO Humans are far worse than most creatures in the Bestiary.

Wow, take it easy there Maris_Thistledown i only meant to state that a feint in game mechanics could be seen as lying since its based in the Bluff skill.

No...actually you stated as fact that...

As for a Paladin using Feint its not allowed by RAW.(I don't care about real life fighting and how it works either.) By the rules Feint is fooling your opponent, it is using the skill Bluff, and using Bluff is using a lie. Thus by the code of conduct no Feint, no Bluff, no lies.

None of this is fact. None of this is stated, as you have, in the RAW. When you make such statements like this, you are not saying "could be seen as..." you are saying emphatically "...Feint is fooling your opponent, it is using the skill Bluff, and using Bluff is using a lie." PERIOD. At no point did you say, "this is my opinion or this is how I interpret the rules."

I mean great job taking a valid argument for something and taking it out of proportion.

You made a blanket statement of fact in your post and that is what I had issue with. Making subjective declarations of fact is NEVER a valid argument.

I understand how a feint works in real life, but i speak of the game rules, since that is what is being discussed.

The game rules are written simply and are subject to interpretation. That is what I have been defending all along. It is not a black and white rule.

I mean really, a Paladin is lying if he tries to avoid a sword swing?

I know, absolutely ridiculous right? Just as ridiculous as saying there is only ONE way to feint and it is lying and therefore dishonorable. Bluffing is not JUST telling a lie. Avoiding a sword swing is no different than a Football player "jukeing" to avoid being tackled. IT IS FEINTING!!!! THAT IS WHAT FEINTING IS ABOUT! Making your opponent think you are going one way instead of another. There is NOTHING dishonorable about that. My example also shows that "Fighting Defensively" involves feinting as well... So now Paladins cannot fight defensively? See my point?

Bluff is a GENERAL skill that is utilized/roleplayed differently for different characters/classes, just like the Heal skill I made a previous example of.

I only offered my point of view on feint, i didn't say if you allow it in your game its dumb. I didn't say anyone else was wrong about their opinion, since well its their opinion.

You actually said NONE of these things in your post. Next time, try telling us this is ONLY your point of view from the beginning and avoid anyone thinking otherwise.

Honestly, your post leads me to think your "special" or something.

I AM special. But that has nothing to do with this thread.

I would go with evil -- but not alignment changing evil.

******
... the fact that the monk is doing this out of spite.
That is clearly not good to me, and well within evil -- he doesn't have law on his side, he doesn't have rational on his side, it's simply a chance to "get even" and "hurt her".

I second this entire post. It is a vengeance beating taken out against someone(thing) that has not intentionally hurt the monk. In our modern society, this monk would be convicted of aggrivated assault. If he is a wealthy white monk, then it would prolly just get dismissed as self defense.

Q: My paladin is playing poker. Does he fall?

*munching and spittleing popcorn* No, he always loses the game because he cannot raise on a poor hand.

Besides... gambling is teh Debbils work.

Dammit! I spilled my sugary drink!!

In addition, (as I was taught - this is by no means the One True Way) very few combat feints are 100% ruses. The way feints usually happened on the strip and tatami when I was involved is: You start an attack. If opponent doesn't respond, you hit. If he does, you turn it into a feint and move into the next attack. Rinse, repeat. Throwing a shot without any intention of hitting is a waste of time and motion in combat.

This is EXACTLY how a paladin can feint. The Core Rules DO NOT define feinting as being uniquely deceitful or lying.

Feinting is a GENERIC rule that is ROLEPLAYED according to the character using it!

A feinting rogue might say "look over there" and sneak attack, a monk might fire off a few mock jabs towards the face then kick them in the jimmy, a Paladin would simply move to strike their targets head, and when the enemy raises their shield to block, shifts his momentum and swings for the exposed waistline. THESE ARE ALL FEINTING maneouvers!!!

Just like the HEAL skill. A fighter character might "heal" with bandages and slings, a driud with herbs and natural salves, a cleric with a silent prayer and some holy water... IT'S ALL THE SAME HEAL CHECK!!! ...Get the picture?

I love it!

It almost sounds like a paladin would not set scarecrows out to make the enemy surrender to a perceived larger force (mundane solution)TOZ did you butter the popcorn?
***whistles innocently******

BETTER YET! According to "Brain in a Jar"s logic, a paladin could never set a scarecrow in a corn field because it is lying to the crows and fooling them into thinking they are real people. He also could not fish, because he is lying to the fish by fooling them into thinking his feather fly is a real bug. He also could not create a realistic piece of art in fear of fooling/lying to the viewer that it is not real. He could not wear a tabard or any clothing to cover his armor because that is a disguise that might fool/lie someone into thinking he is not wearing as much armor. He could never ride his horse more than 100' away from ANY creature so that he does not appear to be a centaur (which would be a lie). He also... AND I CANNOT EXPRESS THIS MORE EMPHATICALLY... can NEVER duck a swordblow to his head, because by moving out of the way he made his opponent THINK he was going to stay in one spot, yet DECEIVED him by moving at the last second!!!! THAT LYING DIRTY PALADIN LIED TO ME AND MOVED FROM WHERE HE MADE ME BELIEVE HE WOULD BE!!!

That's right kids! Ducking & weaving, "jukeing", stutterstepping, etc. are all forms of feinting. So now paladins must ALWAYS be counted as flat-footed because you cannot deceive your opponent by letting him think he can hurt you. Cuz that is a lie. So suck on that you Paladin lovers!!!

Since he threw in definitions to extrapolate theory from... here's mine:
feint
n
1. a mock attack or movement designed to distract an adversary, as in a military manoeuvre or in boxing, fencing, etc.
2. any distracting maneuver (as a mock attack)
tactical manoeuvre, - a move made to gain a tactical end
juke, fake - (football) a deceptive move made by a football player

THIS ALSO MEANS PALADINS MAY NEVER USE INTIMIDATE SINCE IT IS A "DISTRACTING MANOEUVER" and therefore LYING!!!

There are so many more ways to point out the ridiculousness of this train of logic, but I am exhausted. Life is not black and white neither should this game be.

OK, Rule #1: ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR

No.

How wonderful it must be to be so all knowing that you can definitively tell me "no".

The quote is still valid. All is fair. Just because all is fair does not mean that one will choose to use ANY means necessary. One can choose some or all means they wish to implement. That is where individual codes of conduct come in to play.

-- I think some people are confusing honor and goodness. The two are very different things. Anybody who doubts that should Google "honor killings".

I agree with this and most of all the other points you made too!

-- IMHO, that is why Paladins have a Code of Conduct, not an honor code.

I see what you are saying. My take is that a code is a code is a code. Code of Honor / Honor Code is fine too. The bottom line is that the code is just a list of ideals, Alignment is what drives the ideals of the code. A Paladin and an Anti-paladin can both have similar codes of honor, but it is their inherent good or evil that defines them.

Thank you for agreeing.

YAY! =)

Perhaps a compromise? I like the idea of a general code, but what if there were additional strictures added based on sect? I'm not saying as a way to punish monks, but more as a way to define them and add depth to their individual orders.

Great idea! There is no reason not to include lists that might have more of a western civ flavor or eastern civ flavor or Native american flavor etc.

Lets make this happen!!!

Pretending to be someone or something that you are not is just as deceitful as lying; arguing that it is not "technically" lying is a form of equivocation.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of this. However I respect your right to your opinion. There is nothing more I can say to you about this.

I have never heard them say my stupid son has no honor either.

Wow...ok... I am obviously not being clear. You win.

your statements.

Try reading the WHOLE citation before you run the sarcasm... it might help.

That is not true at all. They spread the word as if it were true so peasants would not shoot them, but those same knight had no issues running peasants down using a mount.

First...Those are not the knights who I am refering to as Paladin-like. Secondly, riding someone down with a horse is still "close combat" and not the cowardly form of shooting someone from afar.

While there is no honor in being a fool it is not dishonorable on its own.

Um...YES being a fool IS dishonorable when you are needlessly risking the lives of your own people.

And being a fool dishonors oneself, ones family, ones teachers, ones country, etc. Being foolish inherently dishonors someone or something. When was the last time you heard someone say, "My son is a complete fool. He brings honor to our family." Yeah... didn't think so.

Unfortunately, the use of the word has degenerated to get used to by rank and file 'regular' army, who have obviously taken the rangers shiny toy and played with it int he mud too much, if they think the word ever meant 'go to hell'.

Oh Rangers and their shiny toys... and their unfailing belief that they are entitled and better than everyone else... if only it were all true... =) (if they were so special, their berets would still be black)

I tease. I was in the 75th at Benning, so I am allowed. =P

Concerning Sun Tzu not being "honorable", having read the Art of War myself, I'd like to point out that seen in a different light, Sun Tzu's writings do emphasize a few points that might be honorable.

I was not implying that "ART" was a manual of dishonor. I was saying that there are ALSO methods and techniques that definitely "take advantage", "fool" or otherwise make use of shadowy, or less-than-honorable practices.

I would also like to see something detailing the different monastic orders of Golarion, and their orders codes of conduct.

Happy gaming everyone!

Happy gaming to you too! =)

Why canonize something that does not need to be and subsequently takes away from the DM, the ability to "create his own" flavor?

As a counter-proposal, instead of saying "Monastary X follows Y code." why not make a generic list of attributes and moralities so that the player or DM can create their OWN codes of conduct? Seems more flexible and useful to me.

And, yes, the great folks at Paizo should get on this! =) Pretty please, with sugar!?

Do you seriously see a difference between these two acts? A moral difference between them that makes one of them a violation of the Paladin's Code and the other perfectly acceptable? Paladins are supposed to uphold the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. Splitting hairs and strict legalism are the province of Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good.

Explain how wearing a disguise is a violation of "the" Paladin's Code?

If a Paladin is allowed to don a disguise at all, he must surely be allowed to lie to maintain it, especially to the people he is disguising himself from.

Why? That is what makes the paladin a challenge to play. Using a disguise and roleplaying your way past the guards without lying is AWESOME!!! If your disguise is not convincing enough because you can't lie, then any proper paladin would grunt, "I knew this wouldn't work," throw back his beggars cloak and proceed to kick ass...

Wait a second, here. You think telling a necessary lie is against the Paladin's Code, but committing adultery-- especially with the wife of your liege-- is a gray area? I cannot fathom the moral reasoning that produces this statement.

What necessary lie? I already stated that a Paladin CANNOT tell lies.

And THAT is why it is a gray area.

I think the problem here is the idea of "Honor" in the context of D&D.

These include the Cardinal Virtues:

Agreed except that the Cardinal Virtues were more for clergy than crusaders.

Now, my purpose in stating all of this is to say that a feint maneuver is a deliberate lie to another. It uses Bluff. In effect a feint is using your cloak to hide the motion of your blade, or even saying "look over there" and then stabbing them. As such it should be disallowed by the Knightly requirements to remain pure.

You do not understand the definition of feinting as it applies to weapons of a knight. In this case feinting is moving or swinging in one direction to make it seem they are attacking from one angle/direction and quickly switching to another attack point instead. It could be as simple as a glance in one direction or a shift of the head, body or arms. This is NOT lying, cheating, stealing, murderous, underhanded or otherwise unlawful. It is a BASIC fighting technique. Ask any modern group that studies and practices historic martial fighting techniques INCLUDING KENDO (for those samurai fans)!!! It is a method of defeating an opponent more quickly and allows the knight to defeat more evil on the battlefield instead of becoming exhausted in the first 2 mins because he announces each and every swing of the blade (which is then parried or blocked) and therefore can only defeat his opponent with sheer endurance instead of martial skill.

As for being a general, understand that eastern and western warfare do vary on points. Can you be a general and not deceive your enemy?...

Of course! European armies rushed towards each other and fought head on at face value for CENTURIES! Only the "clever" tacticians like a William Wallace type are remembered because they did NOT follow the status quo.

Is something true just because Sun Tzu says it? Or has your Paladin even heard of Sun Tzu?

It's been a while since I read it, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the "Art of War" mentions that ANY of it's tactics are officially honorable.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Paladins running wars do not need to telegraph their intentions on the battlefield and cede all intelligence advantage to their enemies. That would, in fact, be acting dishonorably to the people under their command for whom they are responsible.

How so?

<Playing devil's advocate for the moment.>

You dishonor your men by being a fool of a general and putting their lives at needless risk.

But he's under no obligation to tell the truth.

Actually, yes he is. Paladin's do not intentionally lie. However he is NOT obligated to answer any questions posed to him that might compromise the security of himself or others.

Treachery is forbidden by the Paladin's Code. Tactics are not.

I disagree, partly. Treachery is defined as: "act of betrayal, an act or instance of betrayal or deceit"

A paladin can set an ambush(deceit) against evil. A paladin can wear a disguise (deceit) and pretend to be someone he is not. But if asked directly, "Are you a Paladin in disguise?" then he could not lie and say "no", but he could say any of the other available non-lies like, "do I look like a paladin in disguise to you?" or "surely you have more important people to harass than me." etc etc.

Betrayal, however is the gray area here. You can betray someone without lying. If a Paladin falls in love with the Queen and she welcomes his affections, he is not, technically, lying to the King, but can be considered betraying the King. But what if the King is mean to the Queen? What if the Queen was forced to marry the King and she does not love him? Does this make the Paladin "bad" or "wrong" as far as game mechanics and rules go? No. It only tests the boundaries and rules of roleplaying taboos of society and the codes of conduct of that particular character.

Paladins have always been, at their core, based on the romantic (and devoutly religious) knights of European lore. They fight evil, defend the innocent and work for the glory of their diety. The Kinightly codes of conduct vary, but the current incarnation of them are (mock me if you must, but it's true) the Boy Scout Law which lists the attributes and conduct of an honorable young man and, in effect, a mundane form of paladin.

Honor is a very subjective term. What counts as honorable to one alignment is not always the same as another. Even within the SAME alignment, honor can be defined differently. Societal norms, regional laws etc. affect this. Lawful Good means following the laws of real world western civilization and religion, i.e. christianity. What is defined as "good" is also subjective, but in the pages of this game, they are defined as what modern western civilization deems "good". Equality, no murder, no rape, no stealing, essentially "do unto others...".

There have already been presented many ways to avoid telling lies, Paladins will NEVER need to lie about anything. Not even "white" lies. Withholding the truth or simply ignoring the question will ALWAYS be an alternative.

Feinting does not have to be dishonorable combat. It is an essential part of any martial form. What many people on this thread are confusing is the difference between feinting and "fighting dirty". Not even SNEAK ATTACK is fighting dirty. The only time there is such a thing as fighting dirty is when there are established RULES governing the combat at hand. There is a reason for the old addage, "All is fair in love and war." The original knights of yore believed that bows were dishonorable weapons and only hand to hand weapons were considered righteous. Some believed that you did not fight an unarmed opponent and of course some granted mercy to those who simply asked it. Now, this is WHY specific diety dogmas are not created in this game, because it should be left to the PLAYERS to decide what their own rules of engagement and code of conduct their own character lives by. Ifa DM wants to create in their campaign, the Paladin ORDER OF THE ANALLY RENTENTIVE O.C.D ZEALOTS and incorporate all the fun rules of playing such a character in that order, then the "rules" for conduct are established and the player can, again, choose to follow them or play something else.

Finally, as far as strategic war tactics go, this has also been well covered. There are ways to fight that fall within the realms of some and not to others. Paladins must use their OWN code of conduct and act accordingly within the Core Rules of Lawful and Good.

The bottom line is that this is a fantasy roleplaying game. You can play it however you like as long as everyone is on the same page, so to speak.

-Maris

Why is it that the casters have to waste their feats so that non-casters can get cheap magical items?

If players are looking for "cheap" magical items, then they are playing the wrong game. You are SUPPOSED to go out and adventure! Seek out powerful magics and when that fails, loot everything you can and sell it so you can afford retail magic prices.

Sounds to me like lazy players want other PC's to make them cheap magical goods for them.

Specifically the "Fire Bolt" of the Fire Domain, but applicable to many other Domain special abilities...

Does the use of this (SP) domain ability cause attacks of opportunity? Do they ever require Concentration checks? If so, then what is the DC formulae? Do targets get to save vs. this spell-like attack? If so, what is the DC formulae? There is no "spell of the same name" that I could find in the Core Rulebook, so I seek guidance here.

Thanks in advance!

They are demons... they are from some of the firey planes... like devils...Some are from the cold places of hell and some from the hot. But a "hot" succubi immune to fire makes more sense to me than ice. Granted this is purely an opinion based on aesthetics, but it is my take on it.

I want to know if I can start a subscription with back issues? I need to start with the Second Darkness series. Is this even possible? Thanks!!