Issues of OGL and copyright aren't exactly on my mind now, I'm more concerned about the fate of 3.X mechanically.
The books are still there. They're fine. Nobody hurt them. You are free to use them to your heart's content.
M W 641 wrote:
Dude. I found the preorder books on amazon and did a google search that brought me here. It would have been nice for a link instead of someone telling me im in the wrong place..... Even a stranger on the side of the road can point a finger. Thanks for nothing.
Thread necromancy is poor netiquette everywhere. It would be more appropriate for you to apologize, then ask.
Be a Wizard.
Have a contingency that will teleport you out of range if he comes within reach.
Use wall spells to encircle the Paladin. Wall of Iron in particular. Start with a Quickened Wall of Iron via metamagic rod to encircle the Paladin, then use the metamagic rod in your other hand to drop a maximized Cloudkill, which will do two points of constitution damage per round even on a successful save.
On followup turns, maximize a Freezing Fog via rod. 18 cold damage isn't enough to harm the wall of iron.
Then, when the Paladin starts attacking the wall, whatever side he attacks, cast Wall of Force on that side, which will be much harder to get through. Three walls of force and he's stuck in a much stronger cage.
All those options ignore spell resistance, and the only thing that offers a save still does 2 Con damage if it works.
If you can get Fogcutting Lenses approved, this becomes much easier.
Have a bunch of Dispel Magic ready, and you just have to hold him in the cloud long enough for him to die of Cloudkill and DoT, and dispel whatever countermeasures he has in the form of magic. Your spell slots will outlast his.
Brother Fen wrote:
You are free to scroll right on by, friend.
Also, that ain't the kind of attitude that builds a community.
How do you dig into the character options?
There are a few ways.
The normal and expected way? You start with the core book, maybe plus one. You pick a race, class, skills, feats, maybe some spells, and some gear. Class, feats, spells are the parts that require some measure of system mastery, but ultimately, you start small.
Once you're comfortable with that book, you spiral out to other books.
Most classes can nominally do well with just their book of origin and the core rules, setting aside the divide between casters and non-casters, and the rest is just more toys. There are also guides to almost every class and places you can get together with folks that have the ridiculous encyclopedic knowledge, which can point you to spiffy options you may not have considered.
But character creation in Pathfinder is not just a means to an end. It is, itself, a game. If you do not enjoy fiddling with character creation, you probably won't enjoy Pathfiner. Or Exalted. Or Shadowrun. Or most really heavy character creation systems.
Bad. I don't care if you don't want to lose, you shouldn't be looking up stuff like this. That's cheating.
Golems have infinite spell resistance. Magic Jar has to oppose spell resistance. It automatically fails.
This is not the question of someone who doesn't want their ass kicked. This is someone who wants to cheese their way into having a stupid overpowered toy. If the goal were to not get your ass kicked, you'd be looking for ways to beat, bypass, or negate it. Not take it for your own.
I strongly suggest you apologize to your GM for cheating.
The paladin's code of conduct is literally the definition of what a paladin is. You've just named one reason I refuse to use 5th ed as toilet paper, and a reason I likely would refuse to touch pf 2.0 if they implement that. You take away the CoC, you've literally destroyed the founding concept of the entire class.
Literally all the core deities that can have paladins take away the code of conduct.
And then replace it with their own, different code of conduct, which varies wildly from god to god. Which is good. Instead of the code being this abstract, nebulous ideal of benevolent warrior dude, it's a specific relationship with one's god.
Also, Pathfinder has multiple ways to remove, broaden, or modify a Paladin's code of conduct. Like, say, the Vindictive Bastard. Which is literally saying "no" to falling. Do you refuse to touch the current Pathfinder?
5e does not remove the paladin code. It changes and renames the paladin code. You have your oaths, which form the nature of your relationship with your ideals and your god.
Here's the thing that happens every time the game has the lawful-good must-be-within-one-step-of-deity Paladin. Someone will raise a perfectly valid point about a perfectly valid character. Like, "I want to make a holy warrior paladin of the Elven people. This is a neat, perfectly reasonable character concept that should exist, but all the elf gods in Faerun are chaotic/good and can't have paladins!" and the devs turn around and say, "Here's the paladin of freedom! They're exactly like a paladin but with some really minor tweaks and they're chaotic/good! Now make your Paladin of Corellon Larethian who already would have worked just fine if we hadn't written the Paladin into being one-size-fits-all!" Or the blackguard. Or the anti-paladin. Or the paladin of slaughter. Or the paladin of tyranny. Or the gray paladin. Or the paladin of still being a really nice dude but sometimes using poison. Or the paladin of tax evasion.
Here's the thing. All of those are the same thing. They are all the holy warrior committed to an ideal or deity, whether that cause is the violent justice of Iomedae, or the oppressive tyranny of Bane, or the nebulous general benevolence of the Sovereign Host, or being the pretty warrior who fights for love and justice. They are all paladins. What's important is, what are their ideals and their relationship to those ideals. Because what it means to be a paragon is very different under Torag versus Shelyn.
What fifth edition does remove is not the code, but the mechanic of falling, because that is and always has been a deeply problematic mechanic that deserves reconsideration. The interesting thing about the paladin is their relationship with their deity or ideal, and their quest to live up to it. But falling as a mechanic turns the friend and guide that the code is supposed to be into a hammer, where if you slip up, you are afflicted with a fate literally worse than death, and become an NPC warrior. That is, was, and always has been a terrible idea as a game mechanic, and is the root of many of the root of decades of bickering and alignment wanks.
"Must be lawful/good" and "fall if you commit an evil act," are boring, uninteresting, and unessential to the notion of Paladin. It's much more interesting to make the consequences roleplay-related instead of taking away all of a PC's class abilities.
You know what is interesting?
Here's the code for Paladins of Torag.
"My word is my bond. When I give my word formally, I defend my oath to my death. Traps lie in idle banter or thoughtless talk, and so I watch my tongue.
"I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.
"I respect the forge, and never sully it with half-hearted work. My creations reflect the depth of my faith, and I will not allow flaws save in direst need.
"Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
Now, here's the code for Paladins of Shelyn.
"I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
"I am peaceful. I come first with a rose rather than a weapon, and act to prevent conflict before it blossoms. I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
"I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
"I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.
"I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm, unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
"I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world’s potential for beauty is lessened."
Putting two characters side-by-side who aspire to these completely different ideals, who sometimes stumble but always try? That is fodder for an interesting Paladin story and character dynamic. What's more, the code of Torag endorses and even requires some very morally questionable behavior in times of war. That "offer no mercy, accept no surrender" mindset promotes many acts that may normally be considered evil and worthy of falling for other paladins, but which are appropriate to the ideals of Torag, and the relationship between a paladin of Torag, their god, and their community. And the exact opposite of what a Paladin of Shelyn would be expected to do. This is a dynamic that feeds good storytelling, rather than shutting it down or punishing it.
It's infinitely more interesting than...
"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."
Which leads to situations like, "You lied to the BBEG's border guards to get into the evil empire and liberate the people. You violated the code. Rules explicitly dictate that you lose all class abilities until you can receive a fifth-level spell and go on a quest to atone," or alternately, the paladin shuts down the plan to trick the border guards for fear of falling due to their code.
And it means another party member's entire build won't get shut down because someone decided to bring a paladin, and instead, the group gets to play around with an interesting character dynamic. That makes for a better game, and a more entertaining party dynamic than, "I am required to either refuse to associate with or slay this other PC or I lose all my class abilities."
So, in conclusion? No, removing the code as a mechanic is not insane. Disagreeing with you is not madness. Calling disagreeing with you madness is not conducive to discussion. Removing or altering the code does not ruin the Paladin. And your specific vision of the Paladin is not the only valid vision.
I disagree with Lady J on many of her points about paladins and alignment in other threads. That does not make her insane, nor does it make personal attacks appropriate.
Actually, on Earth, almost everyone says that their deity is the best and most powerful, and that only their faith worships their deity in the right way, and everyone else is going to Hell . . . including players of role-playing games who can consider the concept of different deities -- although fortunately this doesn't seem to have been on their radar for a while, it's only a matter of time before it is once again . . . .
That's a fairly Judeo-Christian concept. Down to the notion of "their deity."
More faiths admit to being polytheistic than claim to be monotheistic. And the D&D concept of having your one god, just as a regular person rolling around, in a polytheistic setting? That's just weird. Generally folks venerate many, many gods.
But even then, offering the most veneration to the most powerful god was pretty rare. Among the Olympians, yeah, Zeus was generally acknowledged as most powerful and given respect and worship, but Hera was far more widely worshiped because she was more relevant to folks' day-to-day lives.
Then you have cases like Shinto that, yes, has some big powerful gods, but places much more emphasis on small gods.
Also, the dogma of D&D-style gods doesn't really incorporate an idea that worshipers of other, similarly aligned gods are wrong, or damned, and it's objectively established that they're going to some variation of paradise when they die.
Actually, Sara Marie, this is an advice thread, which means that if somebody gives an answer that is inherently untenable, such as simply getting rid of an inconvenient class restriction that is a pivotal part of the entire class, this SHOULD be pointed out so that the person asking for advice - or anyone else coming here for suggestions on a similar issue - don't think that this is actually a feasible course of action. As a Piazo representative, you should be FAR more concerned with the insane suggestion of doing so than the person who politely pointed out the flaw.
Then target the talking points, not the person. And yes, there were direct attacks on the person.
And at the point where you are arguing with the mods about how they should be moderating, perhaps it is time to step back from the keyboard.
"Dead" is generally considered negative, and it is on the list of conditions. It was added in previous editions because once upon a time, there were no listed mechanical consequences for "dead," so if you wanted to be super pedantic, it didn't actually stop you from doing anything.
That said, you'd still have to pay the reagent cost of Reincarnate to cast the spell, and if it doesn't trigger within the duration of the contingency, the reagents are wasted. Breath of Life is generally the better option for a Contingent Spell.
Clerics of philosophies were already introduced to Pathfinder.
In the core rulebook.
In the entry for the Cleric class.
Kyra is literally pointing to the paragraph that says it.
As to the perception? Pathfinder has always been a highly unbalanced system, and off-theme material is a selling point for Pathfinder. There are space elves and laser beams and planet-hopping adventures and there are character classes for Dr. Jeckyll, Sherlock Holmes, Korra, and friggin' Batman. There's an archetype for going full-on mahou shojou, complete with glittery magic transformation sequence and cute animal mascot. Paizo gleefully throws everything into its kitchen sink fantasy while wearing its heart on its sleeve, and it is gloriously cheesy. So anyone who accuses a product of being unbalanced and off theme as if that's new really hasn't been paying attention for the last decade.
Pants off dance off.
Maybe the sphinx is bored and demands something to entertain them after the PCs leave. How the PCs solve that is up to them, but something like a big ol' pile of books could work. Or maybe they insist on something immortal to keep them company.
Or perhaps the sphinx already has a big ol' pile of books and is a total fanboy/girl of a particular author and wants their autograph. Said author may already be dead.
Is it really a problem though? After all, 4th Edition showed everyone what balanced characters looked like and PF exists because of how many people didn't like 4th Ed. ;)
Yes. Yes, it is really a problem. And your position is not remotely valid.
The problem with 4th edition is not that it is not that the classes are reasonably well balanced.
The problem with 4th edition is not that it is a bad game. Of the various iterations of Dungeons & Dragons, it is the one edition that knows exactly what it wants to be, and executes on that vision well. It is a good game that is exactly what it wants to be.
The problem with 4e is that it's not the type of game people wanted it to be. This has absolutely nothing to do with game balance, and using 4e as a means to shut down the topic of game balance is a fundamentally either dishonest or ignorant stance.
This fundamentally does not work. The reason you can't just excise the magic items and scale down the challenge is why things like Big 6 and automatic bonus progression exist.
Magic items are fundamentally baked into the math of the game.
Attack bonus and hit points inherently scale with level. AC and damage, by and large, don't, or at least not to a degree sufficient to compare to the AB and HP scaling.
The issue is not that you lower the PCs level of power when you take away the magic items. It's that you've broken the math of the game.
The reason this is not an issue in 5e, or 4e (sort of), or 13th Age, or hopefully Pathfinder 2e is not that they've done away with these bonuses. They haven't. They've simply moved or modified them, such that some things don't scale as much and others actually scale with level and class abilities, but that's fundamental to the design of those games, not just ripping it out whole cloth and improvising from there.
Also, this does not hit the classes evenly, or even close. Worse, the classes most in need of help are hindered most, and the classes least in need of help are affected least. Take away the big six from a Druid or a Sorcerer and they don't particularly care. You could send them into a war zone butt naked and they're still fairly close to full efficacy. Take away the magic from a high level Fighter's gear and they are completely irrelevant compared to any caster.
We have one guy adamant about sticking with PF, he bought all the 3.5 books months before 4th edition came out and now is made that he spent all this money on PF only to have them come out with a 2nd edition.
While this is a normal emotional response to a change in something of deep personal importance, it is both irrational and unfair, and your friend needs to learn to manage his feelings. Pathfinder 1e had a ten-year run. That is an extremely long run for any roleplaying game. An update is due, and necessary in order to keep Pathfinder from going the way of RIFTS.
Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Lancelot, and Conan are not twentieth level characters. Some of them might be, like, fifth.
A twentieth-level character is a CR20 monster. They are defined as being an equal to a balor or a pit fiend. They are, personally, as great a threat as a demon prince of Hell. Their personal might is relevant on a cosmic scale.
That is not Robin Hood. That is not Sherlock Holmes. That is not Lancelot. Those are much lower level characters, and that's fine. You can have big, huge, epic adventures at low levels, but when you then turn around and act like nonmagical characters should never go past those lower tiers of power, while standing next to magical characters who fundamentally alter reality, it becomes a serious team balance problem.
Even something like Hercules is maybe mid-level.
For what a coherent level 20 Fighter should look like, you're talking about some crazy, over-the-top, Exalted-style anime shenanigans. You're talking like a Roronoa Zoro, here. Like, you miss with your sword and accidentally chop down a tower a hundred feet a way, if you're talking about someone who can coherently stand side-by-side with a being who can casually stop time and summon archangels and waltz between planes and command vampire hordes.
no avatar because paizo only allows pre-generated avatars with no ability to import your own,
The selection is huge, and varied, and of reasonable quality. There are a few in more common use, but choose one of the less obvious ones and you are unlikely to find someone with the same avatar. I've yet to run into someone else using the griffon, and I've been on here for quite some time. More importantly, the avatar isn't for your sake. It's for everyone's sake so that we can keep these conversations straight more easily.
Anyone who could help you knows what Archives of Nethys is. However, as a courtesy to those you are asking for help, it is polite and expected to link the abilities in question, especially as many folks like to paraphrase and many abilities have different, similarly or even identically named game elements running around.
Also, please do not open up by strawmanning and insulting the very people you are asking for help. It is likewise bad form, and has a strong chance of chasing away people who could otherwise help you. Also, optimization exists on a spectrum. To say that a build is mechanically ineffectual and should be strongly reconsidered is not the same as saying a build fails for not being the most powerful thing ever.
1) Your question is not about the Blind condition. Your question is about the Gaze monster power. A blind individual, as the power is written, can be affected by Gaze abilities if their eyes are open and uncovered, and they are looking in the direction of the gazer. However, for all practical purposes, there is almost no reason to ever treat a blind character as if their eyes are open.
2) Various spell effects, and some environmental nonlethal effects, most notably death saves and assorted negative energy affects and ability drain/damage, but that list covers most of the things you'd roll Fortitude for. Regardless, it is not remotely worth a feat. Great Fortitude is a +2 to all Fortitude saves and doesn't require that you figure out whether or not it applies every time you roll a Fortitude save. The only part of the feat you reference that might be worth a feat is the halved need for sleep, but that's only for very specific types of games.
3) Just take Iron Will. You'll get twice the bonus without needing to know if it applies, and intimidation and feint are things you seldom need to worry about to the same extent as "all will saves."
4) I find it highly unlikely that the feat would give a +5 to most Will saves.
5) Yes, Feint can still work on blinded characters. Feinting can be more than visual. Any blind character who is not flat-footed by their blindness has some means of tracking enemy movement, and that movement can be deceptive to them the same as anyone else.
6) The abilities specify how they interact. One grants or doubles. The other grants or increases by ten. Use whichever is more favorable. And that does not mean 60'. Sensory Mastery either grants Scent at its default range of 30' or doubles it if you already have it. Blinded Blade either grants Scent at 10' or increases its range by 10' if you already have it. The most favorable is 40', which is Sensory Mastery granting you 30' scent and Blinded Blade increasing the range by 10'.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Six skill points per level is just not good. Especially since skills themselves aren't very good, and many of them are easily obviated by low-level spells. Woo, enough points to match an Int 10 Barbarian off of a worse skill list~
More importantly, I'm not pointing to Paragon Surge as some achievement or boon of the casters. It's a terrible mechanic that shouldn't be in the game at all. My point is, give it to a caster, and they're some absurd god. But giving the exact same trick to muggles and they can barely keep afloat with that. It is telling that you're saying a Fighter needs to Paragon Surge juggle just to have some trace of the flexibility they're billed as having! What's more, Paragon Surge just takes a second-level spell slot and one second-level spell known, which both become easier to spare as you level up. You could even get that spell known as a favored class bonus for some races while your Fighter is getting +1 skill rank with theirs. Or, you can offload it onto a wand or scroll. Meanwhile, the Fighter has to spend a feat to do it once a day, level 4 at the earliest, then another feat to get a second use per day at level 5. Which last a minute a pop.
You are extolling two feats to get two minutes of a worse version of a single second-level spell as something that makes the fighter flexible and viable outside of combat. If that's not damning, I don't know what is.
And what makes it all worse is... Fighter is one of the better muggles. Especially with the apology patch that is the Weapon/Armor Master's Handbooks. Brawler stands about equal and the Barbarian and Slayer are a cut above, but you've still got the Rogue, Monk, Ninja, Cavalier, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Vigilante.
Now, as to disposable income? First, there are nine ninth-level casters in this game. Only three of them- the Wizard, Witch, and Arcanist- have to pay for spells. An even smaller portion of the sixth-level casters have to pay for spells.
Second, no. No, scribing spells to your spellbook does not cost nearly as much as the magic weapon/armor treadmill unless one of two things happens. Either you try and scribe ALL OF THE SPELLS, which is a colossal waste of money, or the GM is actively going after the spellbook/familiar and you need to make backups or replace familiars. In this case, the GM is not playing fairly, unless they are also going after the Fighter's magic sword, equally without recompense in terms of wealth by level. That is also a terrible idea, since destroying expensive permanent items essential to character performance without compensating wealth breaks the design assumptions of the game.
But no, maintaining a fat spellbook/familiar is not expensive relative to magic weapons/armor, even setting aside the fact that most casters don't need it. And I know. I've played more than my share of Batman witches and wizards. Yes, the Wizard wants the stat boosting items and the save-boosting items that everyone else wants, but again, everyone else wants those. For the Fighter, it's in addition to the weapon/armor treadmill, and the magic items they need to not be completely pigeonholed.
You don't need insta-kill spells.
You have tons of spells that remove the enemy from ability to be a meaningful threat, either by denying them the mobility to reach the fight in a meaningful length of time or denying them the ability to act as they choose. If you are in a four-person party and spend one round's actions to deny half the enemy the ability to engage for two rounds, you've done an entire party's worth of work in terms of action economy.
There's not just save-or-die and save-or-suck. There's save-or-lose.
The quote you give is something of a PR piece to the Batman-style Wizard. It implies something not-quite true.
It implies that killing the enemy is winning the fight.
In reality, for all practical purposes, the fight is won long before the last HP is gone. The fight is decided in the first couple of rounds, and the rest is just cleanup.
Part of a mage's job is providing tools, but a larger part is denying them to the enemies. When the enemy has been effectively neutralized as a threat, DPR and where the damage is coming from become largely academic questions because the fight's already won and the Fighter didn't even show up. They get the glory shot of killing strokes, but that's not influencing the outcome of the fight that was won two rounds ago.
What's more, most two thirds or full casters are legitimate martial powers of their own if they so choose to be.
Of those nine ninth-level casters and twelve sixth-level casters, not counting unchained and archetypes?
Two of the ninth-level casters, the Cleric and Druid, are classic unstoppable wrecking balls of martial madness that is CoDzilla if you choose to build that way. The Oracle and Shaman aren't difficult to turn into CoDzilla, either.
And the sixth-level casters? Literally all of them either are or can easily be turned into legitimate martial forces to be reckoned with, possibly excepting the Mesmerist. In some cases, mainly the Summoner, this is by proxy, but that eidolon is one of their main class features. So it's not like by being a mage, you're sacrificing martial ability. In a lot of cases, you're way better at it than the dedicated martial characters.
What happens in play much of the time is the casters will choose as a courtesy to be bad at mixing it up in close quarters, but when you're building around design flaws like that, there's a design flaw to be built around.
normal summoner was on t1 right below wizard, cleric and sorcerer, unchained summoner is down at t3 somewhere in the middle unchained summoner is nowhere near any of the t1 classes.
Normal Summoner was not remotely a tier one class. It never had the nigh limitless diversity that defines tier one. The eidolon is a ball of numbers that, while nice, is not any amount of diversity that can elevate a 6th-level spontaneous caster anywhere near tier one.
Unchained Summoner brought some things in line, but didn't alter the root of what makes Summoner highly potent at what it does with a moderate amount of flexibility on the side. It went from tier 2 to tier 2. Just lower within the tier. Still the most powerful sixth-level caster in the game, and the only one that can hang with any of the ninth-level casters. Namely, the spontaneous ones, like I said.
And even if it had landed in the middle of tier 3, that would just mean the "neutered" version is on a level of performance alongside the most reasonably balanced classes in the game.
But that is itself a violation of a good alignment. As for the rest, a paladin is required to balance law and good. As you yourself said, if faced with an Evil law, a paladin tries to CHANGE the law, not ignore, change, implicitly by lawful means. What is Good takes precedence, but doesn't ignore the law. As for whether or not the lynching was legit, if it was it would be called a hanging, and mobs wouldn't be involved. If you are in a state of mob justice, you're not exactly going about things legally. Mendev is in a tricky spot, because it's essentially frontier territory, where the Queen's law doesn't really extend beyond her capital. Had the priest actually been going to be lynched for a reason beyond "cleric of Asmodeus, I would agree that the mob was in the right. As is, they aren't.
Doing something that is not necessarily good is not the same as willfully performing an evil act.
As to the response to an evil law or leader? That's a very personal question to the individual. But revolution is not out of the question. After all, paladins don't fall for committing chaotic acts.
There is no singular "right" way to play a paladin.
she should have based on raw a raw that i chuck right out the window when anyone plays a paladin because paladins by raw can not function and have some of the dumbest restrictions in the game. also anyone who self proclaims them selves as vitreous and then goes around killing thing is both dilutional and a hypocrite you cant be a being of virtue and be a murder hobo.
Murder hobos kill, but killing at all does not a murder hobo make.
Nearly every society on Earth has among its foundational lore some version of the virtuous warrior who fights and slays evildoers. This is fantasy; that is the narrative the paladin explicitly draws on.
There are contradictions baked in the rules, and there are contradictions introduced through interpretation.
You are interpreting the rules of the game wrong.
Conveniently, as we are playing a game, the all killing is evil must be an incorrect interpretation in the context of the game when there is an entire class built around being a paragon of virtue who kills things with swords. (Or what have you.) Sure, there are nonlethal options, but they are not the expectation, and certainly not what the iconic is depicted as using. We get plenty of art of Seelah slaying things with that sword, yet she's not fallen, therefore "all killing is evil" must be an incorrect interpretation of the definition of "evil" used in Pathfinder.
Going to Hell is not necessarily a bad thing in this cosmology. A sufficiently powerful soul can gain great power within Hell and roll that right back into lasting temporal power, entering an eternal power struggle instead of facing eternal torment.
Deities have different aspects, and most of the evil deities have a more palatable aspect that can be focused on.
Killing an evil person is not, in and of itself, a good act. That leads to the serial killer paladins slaughtering productive law-abiding citizens because they ping on evildar for having selfish motivations.
Anyways, once you've incapacitated an enemy, why do you even need to kill them? It's fine to take prisoners, or even let folks go. Genocide is not a productive route to heroism.
This is basically coming down to, "Fighters suck less if you use a different version of Paragon Surge juggling to exploit unintended consequences," when Paragon Surge juggling is an absolutely broken trick for Sorcerers that's pretty much always banned, yet still doesn't manage to make Fighters actually good at doing things.
The source does not make that an accurate assessment. The style of play seen in all official material (PFS modules and APs) does not do what James says it does past the lowest levels.
He is factually incorrect that the problem is the fifteen minute adventuring day, and that the mages' resources are significantly limited past the lowest levels, especially when we're not looking at the Wizard, but rather the Druid, Summoner, Witch, or Shaman, with their various sundry all-day abilities and pets. Staying power, as implemented in the system, is a failed notion as a balancer, particularly because the classes supposedly limited by it gain so much staying power so fast and can do so many different things.
He says casters have to be careful about using up all their resources at once, but you really only need a spell or two an encounter, and you get way more than that real fast. And you literally can't spend all your resources at once.
Also, James is literally obligated to maintain the party line.