And thus would be something other than a paladin. Not a paladin with the lawful good removed.
They have holy champions. They just are not paladins but different holy champions.
Lincoln Cross wrote:
Seems almost to me that the shield till does what it did before but there is additional utility for it as well; you can also choose to expend an action in order to block or something similar. Might be wrong about that ...
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Being able to buff is great, but when the only thing a class can easily do is buff, there's an issue. Even Clerics and Oracles, some of the biggest support classes in the game, have better options for other routes than the bard, who basically has to stick to buffing unless he's an Arcane Duelist or Dervish.
Being able to buff is hardly the only thing a bard can do. They aren’t the BEST at alot of things, but are able to meaningfully contribute in many.
Diplomacy should be a scaling dc though since by raw, diplomacy check with demigod wouldn't be much harder than diplomacy check with a dragon if they don't have absurdly good charisma :P
No dc will be scaling per se, but PCs will generally be trying more difficult things. For example higher level PCs will often be trying diplomacy against stronger willed high level people. So in a sense there is scaling - but it’s scaling in what is tried. The dcs go u because you are trying to jump fifteen foot pits instead of ten, not because ten gets more difficult.
Vic Wertz wrote:
The action economy is not where I am worried about the stripping down. I like the action economy. Leery of the hints I’ve seen on skills, for example.
It is kinda what some of the verbiage when combined with ‘simplification’ sounds a bit like. I think there is at least a decent set worried about it becoming fifth ed 2.0. Which is a fine enough game for what it is, but not what they play this one for. Now it might not be that, but there are plenty of things that kinda sound like going that way.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
For most that dislike the mix it isn’t a matter of ‘believability’ but that it doesn’t give them the ‘feel’ they look for when playing ...
Matthew Downie wrote:
But you could ‘get it’ in pathfinder through the same method of talking to the right GM ..
Have to disagree with your ‘proof by assertion’ argument.
They are ALL flawed games - they just have different flaws, and creating a flawless game would be impossible - eliminating some flaws would create others.
If you're going to try and apply moral relativity to a setting, you can justify/do whatever you want. You don't need to ask whether something is okay. Just justify it however and move on.
That isn’t moral relativity. It’s moral objectivity. Actions are good or evil based on a combination of intentions and consequences. Starting a fire is good. You are trying to warm up freezing refugees and give them a meal. Starting a fire is evil. You are burning down their homes. Moral issues are rarely x=1.1*y-z.
Come now. You can also hit exactly zero hp.
“The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.”
I would submit that getting a guard to attack his king would be one that would be at least somewhat difficult to make sound ‘reasonable’ at least unless the guard harbored some resentment toward him to begin with...
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
On th. Other hand if you specifically said you wer3 looking to see if he died of wasp stings, and he did, that might be a bonus because you are specifically looking for something which is in fact there rather than a generic ‘something’
Warped Savant wrote:
If they can provide a good and creative reason that meshes with their character background why they might know more about this thing, perhaps.
“Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.”
It may not catch all cases, but tiny or smaller uses dex instead of strength for climb and swim.
A roleplaying encounter, for me as a GM, has several ‘components’. Content, tone/approach, and ‘zing’.
Content would be where, for an intimidate for example, you might bring an. Bonus up the guys sister and that you know where she lives. Now you can inform me that you are doing this by shakespear, or my just telling me. But it could be worth a bonus.
Tone/approach is the place for ‘in a low, hissing voice. Or I whisper into his ear, or ‘I start out conversational then move into more and more pointed questions. Or anything else having to do with mannerisms, body language and delivery. Again you can inform by doing or inform by telling. Either might be a bonus.
The third, zing, is something like ‘the perfect line’, the perfect stagecraft, wordplay - and while it’s possible to get this by description it’s really not as easy. It could still be a bonus. And the shy players are generally ok with that. They still have ways to ‘get theirs’ and still appreciate the zing as much as anyone else.
Yes you mean they’ll say the truth? Since he was one? As was, say, Hercules? And Gilgamesh. Quite explicitly.
But part of the issue is the spell matching the scenario.