If you recommend playing a Wizard to a player who wants to play Batman, you have no business making recommendations.
So it’s okay to run roughshod over someone else’s sensibilities as long as it’s not explicit?
Sensibilities are just that. Sensibilities. If someone was religiously against magic and people playing wizards or the DM pretending to cast spells as a bad guy upsets that person, then they can just deal with it.
Same if you have a problem with objective morality in a setting. That's a "you problem".
There is a vast gulf of difference between hurt feelings and taking care when explicit content is involved.
And when it comes to the issue of someone's feelings being hurt based on a disagreement about objective morality, then GOOD. People should have their morality challenged and be required to defend it. Is that fun at the game table? Well it should be. Moral crisis and conflict is about as pure as roleplaying gets.
This is worse argument I've ever seen as to why alignment should be gotten rid of.
It can cause hurt feelings? Are we being serious here? Everything can cause hurt feelings!
The alignment system doesn't make sense. It's a roleplaying tool. But it hurting feelings is no where near the top reason to not have it. Pffffff
What did he do with the cleric after this revelation?
Merely saving someone from an unlawful Lynch mob and patching them up is not a code violation.
Leaving the cleric free to wreak havoc would be a violation and illegally executing him is also a violation and illegal imprisonment is also a violation.
Level 13 wizard with Simulacrum. Major image raindeer. Make flying sleigh. Fabricate toys. Planar binding fey elves or Geas actual elves.
Make Simulacrum of self enough times to visit every house in one night. Spend a month or two of down time making the the toys.
Spend the rest of the time having your snowcones use scrying orbs you made to "watch you while your sleeping" and determine who is "bad or good".
Finance venture with coal mines worked by bound elementals or undead.
I don't see why contradictions in Ultimate Wilderness would effect how other rules work.
Your base familiar form is Mauler, the rest are improved forms that aren't. The class archetype actually prevents you from removing that familiar archetype upon gaining shapechange. Your forms are only ones you previously had, which includes the Mauler base form. UW "clarification" actually breaks the archetype and causes an error once you get an improved form because you aren't allowed to remove the archetype AND UW says you aren't allowed to have it. Nothing prevents you from taking a familiar archetype initially.
I'm not really surprised that UW's overall lazy writing, and shoddy design breaks the game in attempts to nerf things for PFS. If this is the kind of work we can expect for the future of PF, we might as well say this game is dead already.
I'm excited for the release of the Polymorphist in Ultimate Magic 2: "We can only make things with spells interesting"
Things we still need
1. A dedicated full BAB shifter class that is good and versatile at shifting.
2. An Artificer that generates most of it's utility and combat potential from the creation and use of magic items.
3. A dedicated summoner that only uses summoning as per summon monster or summon nature's Ally.
4. A pure skill Monkey that uses skills both in and out of combat. A mundane controller.
5. A monster Hunter that kills monsters to take special abilities from them via making equipment out of their parts.
6. A simplified magic class.
I still haven't bought a Paizo product since the crane wing nerf. (it's not always in my mind, but now I just associate negative feelings to buying something from Paizo)
Paizo's veers too much into making underpowered garbage to avoid overpowered stuff. Unless it's for casters. Prestigious Spellcaster came out last year and opens up tons of character builds.
Way too much unfun material in PF that serves no purpose other than being a trap (see shifter).
You know another book that only has one new class in it? Ultimate Magic with the Magus, Paizo's greatest contribution to the 3.x design space.
Expectations were high that paizo would be able to nail a much desired character concept because they have done so in the past. Yet what we get is basically worse than any other PC class in the game. And only arguably better than some NPC classes.
Paizo messed up pretty badly to let the shifter be released in this current state. It's a huge hit to their reputation.
All the shifting archetypes are better at shifting than the shifter.
Any class > shifter.
So yeah Warpriest is just better too.
and I would say that you didn't have to play a class with broken rules.
Expecting houserules or specific interpretations is being a disruptive player. Which is probably why they were playing a paladin in the first place...
Smiting evil is always good in this game. But the paladin falls at the GM's whims. The code is vague and any violation of it removes the paladin's class features.
As a GM, you dictate the paladin's actions. If she is disrupting the campaign, that's your fault. She's playing the one class you have complete intended control over.
In a rules light system sure. But this is Pathfinder. We don't have thousands of pages of rules so we can judge them individually and rewrite a game larger than the Bible.
Ryan Freire wrote:
IDK Dwight does get bullied a lot.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Then People shouldn't get defensive then when such accusations of "bad gming" are translated as "bad playing"
Ryan Freire wrote:
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. One might think calling kafkatrapping the class and warning free falls being ascribed to a bad gm touched a nerve.
I've played with munchkin paladins.
I would never let that code touch my table. Someone tried to bring that code for Savage Words as their miracle background sins. I told them they would auto-fall, so he rewrote it and we all had a good laugh at how stupid "act with honor" is as a restriction.
Ryan Freire wrote:
"Simulacrum is in the CRB. If I can't make a genie of one and get unlimited free wishes, you're a bad GM!"
"Wizard is a core class and high level spells have been in the game for decades. If you can't condone my specific abuses and limit my power in any way. You sir are bad at GMing. To hell with anyone else at the table!"
It is whining.
Basic reading comprehension let's a player know that their class features are active at the GM's whims. A mature player either accepts that or plays a different class.
An immature player ignores the resections the rules place on them because "this isn't faaaairrr" and will pout/rage at "bad GMing" because this game has rules and restrictions.
That is someone I wouldn't want to play with let alone GM for.
Ryan Freire wrote:
You are the kind of player that blames the GM for poorly written rules.
If the code is vague, any interpretation is fair and any violation removes your class features. If that isn't fun. Then you blame the rules not the GM.
Expecting the GM to be more than just fair in their running of the game is being an entitled player.
Bad vs Good GMing does not come from a GMs ability to write rules a good way. If the code is ambiguous and expects the GM to fill in the specifics and fall for any violation, your experience with the code and falling mechanics is reflecting of your GM's developer abilities not what they can do as a GM.
You are blaming the wrong people for fair rulings not being fun.
Matthew Downie wrote:
It's not the nice GMs I have a problem with.
It's entitled players that are calling others bad GMs if they don't get beneficial houserules.
The rules are very clear. Paladin class features are up to GM whims. Any other expectation is just being a munchkin.
ANY minor violation of an ambiguous code removes your class features and this was a deliberate change from previous editions. You want all the power of a paladin with none of the intended responsibility. You can't expect the GM to house rule in your favor. That's being a bad player. Which is evident by all the people here calling GMs bad if they don't change the game rules to cater to their vaguely good power fantasy.
I feel like contextually "grossly violate" and "violate" are more or less synonymous. After all, you wouldn't use "violate" for a minor breach or infraction. If you're reaching for "violate" you're talking about something that is not within the realm of ordinary behavior, something easily anticipated, or something for which one cannot easily make amends.
Negligence is an accident. Gross Negligence is a felony.
Words matter. And we can only assume that falling constantly is the intent given just how much stronger a paladin is then fighters and rangers in the CRB.
If Paizo didn't want it to work differently than 3.5, they wouldn't have changed the wording.
Ryan Freire wrote:
The 3.5 code was playable. It's PF that messed it up.
3.5 -- "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"
PF -- "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"
Ryan Freire wrote:
Bad gming is letting a player play a Paladin without re-writing that tosh code.
Claiming it's bad GMing to find the Paladin's code unworkable is a failure in literacy.
Oh people care because of PFS. I know in our group, you can use whatever Paizo thing you want, so a repeated worse version is ignored.
But most of our PF games rush to level 7 then slow down until the GM wants to rush to 20.
PFS isn't really Pathfinder any more than something like Kirthfinder with all of its house rules.
Shifter 1/Druid 19
Best shifter build. More flexible shifting, better shifting at higher levels. Lots of ribbon abilities like animal companion and full 9th level casting to make up the 5 bab loss.
Shifter 1/Beastkin Barbarian 19
Gets basically everything the shifter would normally get except wild shape is measured in rounds per level not hours. On the bright side you can pick your form for each combat rather than being stuck in forms. Much more versatile. Oh and you eventually get huge sized animals.
Focused Study Human Fighter || 18str 14dex 14con 10int 10wis 10cha ||Climb, Perception, Use Magic Device ||Dangerously Curious, Seeker
1. Fast Learner(Intimidate), Skill Focus(Perception), Combat Reflexes
2. Power Attack
3. Improvisation, Armor Training 1
4. Intimidating Prowess
5. Improved Improvisation, Weapon Training (Heavy Blades)
7. Defiant Luck, Armor Training 2
8. Skill Focus(UMD), Improved Critical(Falchion)
9.Inexplicable Luck , Weapon Training (Bows)
10. Critical focus
11. Iron Will, Armored Juggernaut
12. Critical Versatility
13. Familiar Bond, Armed Bravery
14. Martial Versatility(Improved Critical)
15. Improved Familiar, Armor Specialization
16. Skill Focus(Intimidate), Martial Mastery
17. Weapon Focus, Warrior Spirit
18. Greater Weapon Focus
19. Weapon Specialization
20. Greater Weapon Specialization
So inexplicable luck let's you and a +8 to one roll per day. This, with skill focus, trait, a circlet of persuasion, +4 Cha item, and full level 10 ranks yields +33 UMD check once per day or a 7th spell level scroll. +25 UMD on all roles allows for 3rd spell level scroll use.
Improvisation at low levels is suppose to give some low level skill monkeying and the rest of the build is to just keep the combat numbers big.
What do you think?
The Shaman wrote:
So, only the druid VMC if we go by official sources. Okay, thanks. Pity, I was hoping there would be something in the Ultimate Wilderness book, but I´m not quite looking for a shifter.
Don't worry, the shifter isn't a shifter.
It's a hybrid class between monk, warrior, and VMC druid.
Our group currently plays Pathfinder, 5e, and Savage Worlds. We have Starfinder books, but no one is running a game right now. I was going too, but then I noticed Savage Worlds had sci-fi, horror, and fantasy expansions. So I'm running in Starfinder's lore with Savage Worlds mechanics.
See this game actually has mech rules, second-hand cybernetic rules, and spaceship rules that interact with player rules.
I'm excited to see what Starfinder can become. I want to see weapon and armor creation rules (as in making new stuff to fill out the dead item levels) and other gear.
What I can't get over is how lacking the classes feel. Mystic and technomancers are full casters shoved into partial casters and I just don't feel like they get enough but they get more than anyone else. The rest of the classes are mundanes and just don't get many decisions per level. I've already built every class once and I just don't see a lot of variation yet.