A different model could also be applied to the game mechanics, similar to the old idea of "breaking up traps, so that traps aren't boom-you're-done." In this mode, the Quest for Knowledge becomes a series of puzzles and parts of the story, instead of one roll.
This is closer to actual research and knowledge quests, and may let you do story reveals, and plot twists based on what they uncover.
Think of it as the difference between gorging yourself on a cookie very quickly, versus enjoying a series of local foods as you embark upon a historical tour of Rome, led personally by Patrick Stuart, as he reveals the turns and twists of the Roman Empire.
A scientist back in the 1930s could have rolled 32 on his or her knowledge check, and known just how much that dinosaur dragged their tail, and talk about theoretical climates they could survive in, because they were cold-blooded.
Because that was what was known and published, and therefore available to that scientist's knowledge check.
That same scientist today could come to a different conclusion with that 32, because different things are known today.
Knowledge checks don't uncover 'the absolute truth', they uncover 'possible facts known, based on what is generally rumored and your background' and so on.
For this reason, academia remains in pursuit of the works of old authors, and the acquisition/discovery of new, primary sources is a cause for professional backstabbery. Although it's possible to score a 32 on what's known NOW, there's always that much more to uncover and find...the acquisition of which can rocket you to academic stardom.
An academic character may understand that--that the more you know, the more there is out there TO know. That is, a knowledgeable character should realize just how vast the world is.
They may also put two and two together and realize that if, with all their learning, all they're able to come up with is some rumors and conflicting stories, then that makes whatever they're trying to solve more intriguing. More...let's say, worthy of tenure. That professorship.
There is fame in uncovering, discovering the unknown.
It may also point out to them that there may be reasons it hasn't been studied, and they may wonder why that IS. Perhaps they heard of expeditions that died trying to find the truth. Perhaps they heard of an old rival of their teacher's who died after uncovering just what little IS known.
it's intentional. Apparently the people that make the rules (or at least enough of them) don't like that extra X feats exists and wish they could remove them, thus they are either not going to make them or to nerf them pretty hard like the kineticist.
Hey, there. Could you provide a cite for this? I'm not doubting you, just am curious about the context.
Thank you.
I dont have the links but I know it had to do with the Vigilante playtest. People asked if there was going to be am extra talent feat since the class is talent starved.they mentioned it is unlikely since they believe the prior feats were mistakes that should not have happened.
This also explains why the kineticist feat had so many restrictions vs other feats.
it's intentional. Apparently the people that make the rules (or at least enough of them) don't like that extra X feats exists and wish they could remove them, thus they are either not going to make them or to nerf them pretty hard like the kineticist.
Hey, there. Could you provide a cite for this? I'm not so much doubting you as curious about the context.
So I have been looking at the Unchained classes I like the rogue but Im not sure about the others what are the boards thoughts on all four of these classes?
Unchained Barbarian is fine by itself, but is a garbled mess when you try to stick any non-Core options onto it, and even a fair number of Core options create gigantic rules snarls with it. I personally hate the class for these very problems it creates (meanwhile I love the basic Barbarian), and don't allow it in my games BECAUSE it creates so many headaches that stop the game dead by trying to figure out the interactions.
Hey, there. Could you elaborate, please? I have been looking for more reviews along this line.
Is it intentional or unintentional that there is no Extra Ki Power feat? If it's unintentional or planned for later release, I was going to implement one while working on some other updates. If it's unintentional, why? I have a few asking this question and am interested, myself.
Just sitting here and having some coffee, browsing the site looking for interesting tidbits to read while i caffinate myself. And i thought, because pen and paper RPGs are so imaginative, and if some of the visual obsticles like die rolling could be overcome, maybe it could be a solid source of entertainment for people who are visually impaired? Maybe it already is somehow, i have no idea.
If i understand it right, people who lack one sense, will be able to make their other senses a bit stronger due to the fact that they have to rely on them a bit more. Like a person who cant see, but can hear or notice details via hearing a bit better than those of us who can see. So i would guess that people who are visually impaired may also be able to imagine things in a more detailed and rich manner. If this is true, i would think pen and paper (obvious visual obsticles overcome) would be a great source of entertainment for them.
Anyone know if something like this is already being done? With technology today, ive got to think that somehow its possible.
I have no fear of being flamed for bad ideas (path to success is paved by failure) so by all means, flame away :-)
64oz Games makes board games accessible, and I imagine they'd be willing to do at least a partial consultation on what it would take to make RPGs accessible. Or at least, point you in the right direction. They're good people.
I've been doing a lot of damage calculations based on a level 10 THF, and it looks like a melee survivor might be really hard. Even without good alignment, a couple 50/50 chances going bad equals a dead barbarian. If the sword is keen, things get really dicey.
I'm considering a stacking between shield other from the paladin, a scroll of stoneskin and ablative barrier. That strongly mitigates the top end of any damage that the CN barbarian can take at once.
I had a thought today while deliriously bicycling in the heat. There are a number of times when, in my experience, groups avoid tropes because the skill system doesn't encourage avenues of play that are..less direct.
Concrete example, a party with a fighter or cleric or other armored character will often (IME) avoid stealth-based resolutions to problems because there's realistically no chance that all of the characters can pull it off and common logic is that splitting a 4-man party is tantamount to suicide.
But what if your skilled character could make a single check for the entire group? What would be the ramifications in play of something like (and this is probably the simplest workable version) a rogue making a stealth check at -2 for each additional untrained person and letting that count as the group's roll?
That's basically what happens now when the bard steps up and charms the pants off the princess, or the wizard teleports the party across the world. Heck, it's basically what happens when the rogue climbs a wall and drops a knotted rope down so that Anemic Wizard can climb or be pulled up safely.
You could do the same thing for perception rolls too, to cut down on the 'Jack, roll perception'...and then having every pounce over to where Jack was standing so they get a chance to roll too. One check for the group. Less metagaming maybe :)
Does it sound workable?
Some ideas:
You may could do something with Aid Another. Possibly, assume within a certain radius that AA is automatic because your group is assumed to cooperate. Clumping risks traps, etc. so they'll want to spread out some--but it definitely helps encourage working together and may prevent the "everyone pounce" metagame. If they pounce, the AA goes away and they're suddenly making their own rolls.
The "automatic AA" could help your less skilled PCs as well--a +4 is a nice bonus to any roll.
Another could be "the expert lead." Have an "expert" in an area grant less skillful PCs a bonus to their rolls due to their presence.
Does time stop end in the same position on your turn as when it started? As in, if you had a move action and only a move action left when you cast it, is that what you have left when it ends? To me, this has to be the only way it can work. Otherwise it would be broken to pieces
One of the things my group does is have the DM roll the timestop in secret. The player knows they have between 2-5 rounds, but not how many.
The player writes out their actions, in order, up to the maximum number of rounds.
The DM then announces them as they happen, one by one. ...then stops when the number is reached.
BOSS TEMPLATE (CR+0 if used solo)
At the end of a challenging dungeon or a harrowing adventure, usually a powerful monster or villain waits to pose a final, climactic fight. In order for a single creature to be challenging to a party of multiple adventurers, however, the boss requires special abilities to break from its usual limits and allow it to pose an adequate challenge on its own.
The following template can be applied to a single creature or NPC of any type. The template improves the creature's action economy and allows it to stand multiple rounds against a party of multiple adventurers. While the template increases the Boss's abilities depending on party size, it does not change its CR, as a single creature is otherwise at a disadvantage against a group of creatures.
Size, Type, Speed and Abilities: The base creature's size, type, speed and ability scores remain unchanged
Hit Points
Modify the boss's hit points as follows, based on party size:
2 or fewer: The base creature's hit points remain unchanged
3-5: The base creature gains maximum hit points for each hit dice instead of rolling or taking average hit points
6+: The base creature twice its average hit points (including bonuses from constitution, feats, favored class bonus, etc.)
* including animal companions, familiars, eidolons, cohorts, NPC allies, and hirelings
Action Points
The creature gains a number of APs, based on party size:
2 or fewer: No APs
3 or more: APs equal to hit dice, may spend up to 2 APs per round
6 or more: APs equal to hit dice, may spend up to 2 APs per round, plus 4 APs to gain an additional turn that round at its init score -20.
* including animal companions, familiars, eidolons, cohorts, NPC allies, and hirelings
Action Point Costs
1 AP: Gain an additional move action or standard action (no more than one additional standard action may be purchased per round)
2 APs: Gain an additional save against an ongoing condition or spell effect on this list:[/i] confused, dazed, cowering, paralysed, petrified, stunned, entangled, exhausted, frightened, panicked, prone, nauseated, staggered, or compulsion.
1 AP: Whenever an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the Boss, the boss may immediately expend an action point to make an attack of opportunity even if it already has made its maximum allowed number of attacks of opportunity for this round. Points spent in this way do not count against the 2 AP/round limit.
4 AP (available versus a party of 6+ only): This purchase does not count against the boss's normal 2 APs per round limit. If the adventuring party consists of 6 or more creatures, the boss may additionally spend 4 action points each round to gain an additional turn that round at its initiative score -20.
The boss may spend action points to gain actions on this additional turn as though it were part of its regular turn, though it may not otherwise bypass the normal 2 AP/round limit. This means if it has not spent any action points on its regular turn, it may spend up to 2 action points, if it spent 1 point on its regular turn, it may spend up to 1 action point on the additional turn, and so on.
Organization: Always solo.
Challenge Rating: The creature's CR is unchanged. However since a boss marks the end of a dungeon or adventure, players should gain extra experience and treasure for completing the adventure.
Stompy's possible house adjustment, not sanctioned by the OP: If the boss uses an AP to cast a second spell per round (such as by spending 1 AP to gain a second standard action), this spell is limited to a spell that is 2 lower than the highest level they may cast. This adjustment is meant to simulate a multi-creature scenario, where the spell would typically be cast by a lower-CR minion.
Full round or not, the boss can still cast two, even three spells on a round if there are 6+ PC.
Perhaps the standard action, if used to cast, must allow only personal range spells, and not allow to cast the same spell twice in the same round whne used the option of the extra turn.
Actually, I'm in a fight boss with Mythic initiative, and it is very easy that what Dekalinder said happens: Two full rounds against a single PC is mostly a certain dead.
Its up to the GM to spread different round actions among the PCs or not to do.
I have been thinking on this. If the creature did not have a template like this one, he or she would probably have a buffer/caster minion.
In this case, it's taking the pace of the minion.
Perhaps what we want is if the second standard is used to cast a spell, it cannot be from the highest spell levels known, but must be 2 lower.
2 AP for move + standard combined into a full attack makes 2 full attacks in a row. The very definiton of rocket tag, you are going to kill 1 unlucky character per turn. not to mention caster bosses like dragon being able to set up spell combos. The system works in 5 because of the different action economy and damage-to-hp ratio, I don't think is going to be that functional in pathfinder.
The system allows standard, not FAs, I believe--though I could be misreading? Since I'm in a formatting kind of mood, I went ahead and took a whack, here. Anyway, please let me know if I made any unintentional changes:
BOSS TEMPLATE (CR+0 if used solo)
At the end of a challenging dungeon or a harrowing adventure, usually a powerful monster or villain waits to pose a final, climactic fight. In order for a single creature to be challenging to a party of multiple adventurers, however, the boss requires special abilities to break from its usual limits and allow it to pose an adequate challenge on its own.
The following template can be applied to a single creature or NPC of any type. The template improves the creature's action economy and allows it to stand multiple rounds against a party of multiple adventurers. While the template increases the Boss's abilities depending on party size, it does not change its CR, as a single creature is otherwise at a disadvantage against a group of creatures.
Size, Type, Speed and Abilities: The base creature's size, type, speed and ability scores remain unchanged
Hit Points
Modify the boss's hit points as follows, based on party size:
2 or fewer: The base creature's hit points remain unchanged
3-5: The base creature gains maximum hit points for each hit dice instead of rolling or taking average hit points
6+: The base creature twice its average hit points (including bonuses from constitution, feats, favored class bonus, etc.)
* including animal companions, familiars, eidolons, cohorts, NPC allies and hirelings
Action Points
The creature gains a number of APs, based on party size:
2 or fewer: No APs
3 or more: APs equal to hit dice, may spend up to 2 APs per round
6 or more: APs equal to hit dice, may spend up to 2 APs per round, plus 4 APs to gain an additional turn that round at its init score -20.
* including animal companions, familiars, eidolons, cohorts, NPC allies and hirelings
Action Point Costs
1 AP: Gain an additional move action or standard action (no more than one additional standard action may be purchased per round)
2 APs: Gain an additional save against an ongoing condition or spell effect on this list: confused, dazed, cowering, paralysed, petrified, stunned, entangled, exhausted, frightened, panicked, prone, nauseated, staggered, compulsion
1 AP: Whenever an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the Boss, the boss may immediately expend an action point to make an attack of opportunity even if it already has made its maximum allowed number of attacks of opportunity for this round.
4 AP (available versus a party of 6+ only): This purchase does not count against the boss's normal 2 APs per round limit. If the adventuring party consists of 6 or more creatures, the boss may additionally spend 4 action points each round to gain an additional turn that round at its initiative score -20.
The boss may spend action points to gain actions on this additional turn as though it were part of its regular turn, though it may not otherwise bypass the normal 2 AP/round limit. This means if it has not spent any action points on its regular turn, it may spend up to 2 action points, if it spent 1 point on its regular turn, it may spend up to 1 action point on the additional turn, and so on.
Organization: Always solo.
Challenge Rating: The creature's CR is unchanged. However since a boss marks the end of a dungeon or adventure, players should gain extra experience and treasure for completing the adventure.
Fitting armor is fairly cheap and does almost what wild does. It's cheap enough you could add it to multiple armors: say, a set for flying forms, and a set for ground. Since it isn't polymorphed, you'd benefit from additional enchantments, too, and could really customize.
The problem is you'd need to don and undon it.
That is what I'd meant about the +3 seeming to be about action economy.
When it comes down to it, the +3 for Wild armor seems mostly about the action economy (you don't need to don or remove the armor). You lose any additional "effects" of the armor as well--but it's always there.
Except...what happens when you fall asleep in it?
I understand why the FAQ was made. It's cleaner and more streamlined than a series of exceptions.
What you would want is some suit or property that would quickly let the armor be donned or removed, in addition to the above.
Most of the grumps I have heard have to do with the ACP and speed reduction now being applied when the enchantment is that expensive. We'd followed Jacobs' interpretation of Wild until this point, so nonproficiency abuses were not an issue.
No, don't do that -- you'll hose half of the PbP threads, which very commonly use non-English (actually non-Roman) characters to represent speech or writing in exotic languages.
What about just banning them from the titles of threads?
All of this has come up before in various forms. The general consensus seems to be is that RAI it is skill checks, and for the other abilities, the price should be higher than it is.
I really feel for you on this one. Situations like these are the opposite of fun. Bullying is bullying, no matter the medium used.
As a heads-up, if she does realize he really means it or becomes unable to brush it off any longer (because this sort of behavior wears on everyone eventually), you could have a larger issue on your hands--so the sooner this is handled, the less drama down the line.
Dave Justus wrote:
In character verbal sparring between two characters is acceptable, however in this case it really isn't 'in character' he is merely using his character as a sock puppet to speak his own words. Tell him flat out that you expect him to come up with in character reasons for his character to act in a positive manner, building up team spirit rather than knocking it down, and accepting of difference in personality. If he says his character can't do that, than tell him to make a new character since this one will have to leave the party and that he better make a new character that can behave appropriately.
I like this. A good OOC conversation about it being a team game, and "it comes across as bullying, even though may not mean it that way--can we work on how your PC relates to the other PC?" from yourself and another longterm friend could head him the right direction.
Asking him to alter the personality significantly may not work--some people have only one or two characters in them. However, he should be able to find reasons to get along instead of acting as he is. You might also explain that many of the classes have evolved since 1e, and see where that gets you.
IC bullying from OOC means is never classy and just causes bad feelings, as well as group mistrust, down the line.
How something can meld with your form perfectly, no longer even existing but become flesh/bone/whatever and still slow you down is incredibly weird and not worth anything more than a +1. Certainly not +3!
I don't know what you're talking about. Wild is still really good for a wild-shape focused druid.
It definitely is. Comparing this response and the finer differences of the FAQ however, house-ruling it to +2 wouldn't be out of order. Wild should not go below that, but neither does it quite feel like a +3 any longer.
Subforums for topics YOU don't like is pretty selfish IMO. I'm don't ask for special treatment to only see threads I'm interested in why do you thing you are special enough to deserve it?
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Maybe people like this repetitive argument nonsense, and maybe these forums just aren't for me. But it's sad because I love the community and interesting discussions that occur outside the white noise of the: Pathfinder 2.0; martial/caster disparity; and rogues suck debates and wish we could find a way to improve that.
These two quotes are interesting to me, because they show love of a forum in different ways.
Also, I recall something like this coming up from time to time. Also brought up:
- Because of the continual arguing between the same people, the threads were less enjoyable
- Someone coded an ignore function
- This made it better, though you still had caster-martial #326,563
...now, while the above exchange was pretty cool...an interesting response to the creation of an Ignore feature was the the people who had been arguing and who had been the cause of needing one--so much got very, very vocal, cussing and swearing about how there should NEVER be an ignore function...
...It could be that the posters who caused the issue were vocal because they really, really wanted to be heard. Because something was so important to them. However, it's something of a Catch-22. "I care in this way and get upset, and are therefore vocal in a way others consider rude" results in a Peter and the Wolf as well as a "I get your point, but you're really, really loud, are saying the same thing over and over, and I get your point...but you're just driving me away and I don't want to deal with how you sound at this point in time."
I can understand both sides. It can be hard when you care about something. It can also be frustrating to listen to it--and after a while you just tune it out, because it's how we as humans are going to cope. Which is then understandably frustrating to the other person.
I will always remember the rage over the introduction of the Ignore feature, though.
I tend to suspect that threads which pop up constantly and repeatedly are most likely about issues that pop up repeatedly and constantly. My question is why these issues never seen to be addressed. While it's true that nothing will please everyone, doing nothing doesn't please anyone that isn't already happy with the status quo.
Just to chime in, here...
Some topics, I tend to refer to as "popcorn topics." They don't crop up so much because they're important, they crop up because we're gamers and chatting about caster-martial for the 2,000,000th time is just what we do. It's our equivalent of sitting on the back porch and shooting the breeze. If you go to an art major and ask the question, what is art? ...the debate is much the same. The topics are familiar and everyone has an opinion in the debate.
It's one of those topics we just use to relate to one another, in an odd way. There's no real solution--because everyone has a different opinion and they're going to argue it back and forth. Pretty much forever. "What is art" is much the same. They're comfortable, frequent debates we may all have a side on.
Does it make them any less important? Possibly. Possibly not. It does mean that when topics like these do come up, it's time to relax, sit back, and grab the popcorn.
Also, as an aside--are you viewing the forum as a means of voting on the game? That may be a different approach...and a voting/points system attached to threads may actually accomplish your goal better.
All those decomposing bodies use up oxygen as they decompose, but apparently when tutankhamun's tomb was opened by Howard Carter he lit a match at the entrance and discovered that there was air in there.
Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
Oh, there's a clever preview. :-)
I'm hopeful the Unchained rogue brings some unique flavor to the table. That it isn't a new version of a slayer/glass canon--but makes use of stealth, sniping, and so on.
It is a big concern. Making note of this ruling, though.
I am hoping, though not expecting, they may address the 2 skills/level issue for older classes.
It would do a great bit for their flexibility and fullness of character.
I have noticed that newer classes are more flexible, and tend to go with a 4/level minimum. The one change of 2 to 4 would go a long ways towards bringing older classes forward, into the new design, with the fewest changes needed.
They mentioned additional rules/options. That may be one.
It's about welcoming others, reaching out to them, and then not being creepy.
It's about "the isolation factor."
It's damned HARD, because it's social and social means fewer hard and fast rules (though SKR's blog post does an excellent job).
We're hearing more about things like this because gradually, women are in a stronger position to speak out--and therefore do. Older generations have a harder time adjusting.
We can learn from examples like Mudd, who have been successful.
One interesting take on the still increasing numbers of women entering high tech fields is that at pretty much every step along the way, there have been strong detractors claiming that whatever the current state was, was just the natural way of things - most women didn't have the talent for the fields or they didn't have the interest. As the numbers grew, the response stayed the same - now we've reached the real limit.
It's...
...the very silly thing about that view is, programming used to be mostly women...because socially, it was considered "women's work," as you could stay at home and tend the children.
Mudd's example offers us a successful way forward--by addressing the social paradigm.
Illustrations of both male and female heroes and heroines in Core books are part of that, ofc. You're communicating that both men AND women can be part of a thing. That's part of what makes the Mudd study so damned interesting.
I'd like to add in here an example of a methodology that has worked in other areas. Mudd college offers us an example of a successful approach: "At Harvey Mudd College, a private liberal arts college near Los Angeles, initiatives are underway to make the computer-science department more welcoming. As a result, 40% of its computer-science students are women. Harvey Mudd is still working to ensure women feel as welcome and as capable as their male computer science peers." (Quote from readwrite.com)
Their success is due in large part to:
- Altering the "imposter syndrome." Intentional or not, if you walk into an area where it's only 14% or fewer people like you, you feel isolated. Keep in mind that this would be in your education as well as any workplace you applied to within this field.
- Increasing outreach. That is, speaking to girls in high school and communicating with them about the cs field. That is, "this is a possibility for you, it isn't just a male area--even if you'd be 1 out of 10, etc. It's growing."
The approaches were mainly social and highly successful. I would not call this "pandering" so much as opening the door and inviting someone over to dinner. ...and then treating them like a person.
In a bizarre way, in order to get a group involved--socially speaking, you tend to already need members of that group there. Austin, TX is reportedly losing numbers of its African American population because of a general feeling of isolation. That is, there may be only 8% or so within a population--hence, isolation or "imposter syndrome."
I'll be running for a fantastic group soon. One of the players is a daughter of a friend. Another is an artist who just had a daughter.
They both love unicorns. They both tend to spontaneously break into song. One has emailed me random unicorn doodles, accompanied by a crying and sad face.
I adore them.
The sad face means I must make this happen. The length of the campaign means I must make this somewhat balanced, and capable of surviving with them along a great and heroic journey.
So, here is my first pass, for a paladin-only mount:
When the last eagle flies:
Starting Statistics: Size Large; Speed 50 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack gore (1d8); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 12, Cha 14; Special Qualities darkvision 60', low-light vision, scent, +2 versus poisons, charm, and compulsion, healing bond.
7th-Level Advancement: Ability Scores Str +2, Con +2; Special Qualities Magical Strike, protection from evil.
Healing Bond: In exchange for the strength received from the bond, the unicorn has exchanged some of its healing powers and abilities. In some cases, these abilities are simply transformed, and merge in a unique way that the unicorn and paladin share. At will, the unicorn may choose to enhance the paladin's healing abilities. Though the unicorn does not possess a Lay on Hands ability, it may elect to take these feats as part of regular advancement. It then passes this benefit to the paladin (so long as the paladin remains within 5'). It may only take and share feats in this manner if the feat is one on this list: Extra Lay on Hands, Extra Mercy, Greater Mercy, Reward of Life, Ultimate Mercy, and Word of Healing.
(The intent here is only healing-focused LoH feats, as what is 'powering' this ability is the unicorn's own healing abilities, just rerouted or transformed by the bond).
Protection from Evil (Su): The unicorn is considered to be under a continual protection from evil effect. This ability may not be suppressed.
Magical Strike (Ex): A unicorn's gore attack is treated as a magic good weapon for the purposes of damage reduction.
Questions:
The archetype which allows you to exchange LoH for smites isn't an issue with my group. Given that, is the enhanced bond an OP ability?
I'm biased as I love the flavor of it, as it explains the unicorn's lack of innate healing powers as a companion. But, well. You never know, and there may be things I'm (likely) overlooking. :)
Posting rules beforehand helps and doesn't. That is, players' eyes tend to glaze.
I would advise hitting the hilights, then provide a link to your short campaign behaviour policy. To be polite and clear, the first time a policy issue comes up, I'd cover it briefly and respectfully, then move on.
Much of what may help you is how you phrase and manage your intent--actively forming the game you want by how you manage it.
To mention beforehand:
- That you will be emphasizing the "spirit of the game," which you define as cooperative in spirit, treating others fairly, sharing the spotlight, and above all, not being a jerk to other players or the DM.
- To maintain group cohesion/tone, you restrict evil alignments in a heroic campaign, but would encourage them in an evil-focused campaign. This can help keep everyone within a similar set of goals, and I think may provide you a means around the CN issue.
If they insist they know how to play evil well, suggest it doesn't really fit the tone of the current campaign, and explain that evil is often played badly and causes more issues than it's worth: you don't dislike it, but it isn't worth the drama. This usually results in people explaining how they know how to play evil; it's just that everyone else screws up. Explain that tackling it well is harder in an online medium and that you just don't want to deal with it. If it's an evil campaign, however, all bets are off.
- PVP is disallowed; you don't want the drama.
- If a player wishes to play CN, ask their interpretation. If they suggest that it's "do what they want," then I would talk with them about the spirit of the game, and see how they respond.
You should be able to tell if this is a person you want in your group or not.
Things to mention during the first and then next few times they occur: (going with the idea that many people can go @.@ at a lengthy list of guidelines and it's more effective to "live teach" as they're more likely to remember, and it gives you the opportunity to talk the issue through, briefly, while they're paying attention and will remember)
- If a rule is confusing, you'll do what you can to keep things moving, and resolve important rulings after the game: "The important thing to me is to keep the fun moving. If something comes up like this, that we're unsure of, I'll briefly accept input, and then make a ruling on what seems to be the most fair interpretation. That ruling will be in effect the rest of the game; we'll resolve the details later if they're important."
Then, explain that afterwards, interpretation will be handled briefly, respectfully, may involve PRD quotes, developer comments, and FAQs where applicable (these items only, so we don't get bogged down in charts and things and long emails). If nothing comes up, you'll make your best RAI determination. Your RAI is also going to be based on the spirit of the game, which involves fairness and nonjerkiness.
Above all:
- You're not kidding about 'don't be a jerk.' The more a player presses or is unpleasant, etc, speak with them. Don't be afraid to uninvite someone who lawyers to the point of insult and derailing the game, after a warning not to.
- You might provide a link to your guidelines, listed on a website somewhere. Just reference the link at the beginning, then cover in brief, the most important parts. There's no need to begin a session with a long list: hit the big hilights ("don't be a jerk") and just explain others as they come up, respectfully. They're capable of reading.
- Try to avoid calling players out. Instead, take them aside and address the issue.
- If it works for you, encourage ooc discussion of shared geek interests. It can be harder to "gank" another character if the players end up getting along at least somewhat. This may not work for everyone.
- Keep the lines open. Be someone that your players may approach and speak with you about game concerns. This could be anything from, "so and so was a jerk," or "I had issues with such and such when it came up," to "I'd really like the opportunity to do y," and so on.
They should have the expectation that you can manage things in confidence, and you do so, and that it is important to you to understand concerns. Keep the lines open.
Relevant experience: Running online games for nearly 20 years, using a variety of gaming systems.
1. Train a few monkeys to have them swarm and throw poo when he tries to break in.
2. Fun with illusion! Blast "THIEF!" over his head when he tries and have it stick around for days.
3. Arrange a Batsignal. It goes up into the sky to signal the constables, with voice, sound, etc.
4. Train a barrel full of monkeys to follow him around and attempt to steal from him. Constantly.
5. Hire the local thieves' guild to harass him. Small things go missing or are replaced with random crap. Constantly. Example: a trinket is replaced with a fake flower. His cloak is replaced with one with a slightly different trim. ...or do this yourself, with magic.
It will give him something else to worry about.
6. Instead of "THIEF!" display the icon for available, yet cheap male prostitutes. Not everyone reads; there has to be something.
7. Give him the seeming of a bugbear.
8. Give him the seeming of a bugbear, and the scent of one looking for a mate. If there are no bugbears in the area, perhaps otyughs. They'll glorp up out of the sewers to say hello!
9. Sign him up for temple mailing lists. Be sure to arrange this with your DM (who you said is evil).
10. Sign him up for the mailing lists, but mostly to the paladin's Temple, and to affiliated Temples. Smile piously and arrange to have a symbol of that temple (or an affiliated one) outside your door. When he comes by or mentions coming by, talk about your good conversations with this or that priest, and how you've been praying for his sins. Please DO come by!
Offer to schedule interventions.
If he makes a move though, DO hint you'd take it as him dishonoring your (and the paladin's) faith (again, you can choose a related one). That he'd be "backsliding" and you'd need to bring in more than the priests.
I really do not believe you are qualified to decide that men are not qualified to assist in adding diversity. In fact, that smacks of sexism, and that is offensive.
There is no sexism in my comment. Just plain fact. I am a man. If I join a group of other men and we all share the male gender identity, then by definition, I have not added to the gender diversity of that group of people. Thats what diversity means, and in the context of the OP we are talking about Gender Diversity. Now obviously, if paizo hired someone biologically male who doesnt identify as male, that would add gender diversity, but that isnt what I meant, and I dont think thats how you took my meaning.
Can different men offer diversity of experience, culture, heritage to a group? Of course. But if as the OP was we are talking gender diversity, then adding someone the same gender as the others in the group, doesnt diversify gender.
This is a good way to phrase it.
Think of it also as role models for your daughters. Also, your sons who now see more women involved in gaming. Pretty awesome.
Just because we tell our daughters and our sons that "gender doesn't matter," a picture is worth a thousand words, a thousand sets of proof.
Assuming that such an applicant would be "less qualified and do an awful job of it" is also an insult to Paizo, Paizo's staff, and their capability to choose a suitable individual.
Second: It makes sense that it would work this way. It makes succubi even more of a tool for the forces of damnation. Why not send a succubi or two into a city you want to conquer and...watch the fun spread?
Especially among enemy soldiers' barracks.
If the succubus dies of disease later on, it's no skin off a general's back.
This makes them great tools in hell's legions...probably a desirable trait since the PRD notes that left unchecked, they're dangerous power-climbers. For example, one of them can: "...rise to incredible heights of power through her manipulations and sensual charms, and many a demonic war has raged due to the subtle machinations of such creatures."
The overlords of hell likely don't want most of them surviving and taking over. They've no interest in granting this immunity, given how manipulatively dangerous these creatures are.
It would be helpful if you shared the rules your paladin is using, as well as the sheets of other PCs. It may be that someone is interpreting some feats or so forth incorrectly. The forum could help you sort them out.
Forgive me if this incorrect; it's more that in my experience, many similar frustrations end up having this as a contributing factor, on top of a difference in playstyle.
My suggestion to you is:
- Make smite melee-only. This fits with the heroic theme of the class. Archery is really one of your mains issues, here, because it acts as a multiplier.
- Take a hard look at the Litany spells before letting them into your game. Let some of them in, but not others. Treat them, in other words, just like any other additional content permitted into a game. For example, would you allow unfettered access to Leadership or the spell, Paragon Surge? Some DMs may, some may not.
I suspect with those two fixes, you'll be much happier. As a benefit, you'll not end up rewriting the class...the more house rules you have for example, the harder it can get down the line, especially when niche questions come up, or new material is published.
Starting with these two adjustments, moreover, would let you test the waters and see if any further ones are needed for your group's play style.
The slower approach is always the stronger one, and thematic adjustments trump purely mechanical ones.
- S.R.
PS Do not take this as agreement of the view that the class is broken. Rather, it's a nod that it may not fit as well as-is within your table's playstyle. Also, added/new content can sometimes be problematic; DMs and groups should always review it before accepting it into a game.
We 'fixed' the Paladin by doing a handful of simple things...
1) Took away the double damage bonus on initial Smites vs. select foes.
2) Made Lay on Hands a standard action across the board.
3) Removed the alignment restriction by making them beholden to their deities rather than alignment.
To make up for the first two and to more fully embrace the third we considered replacing Divine Bond with a Domain... but that didn't make the final cut.
Then of course, we scrapped it all and did something completely different that we liked better, but this seemed to address the many concerns some had.
It has to be said though, anyone worrying about Paladins should be spending their time on full casters first... otherwise you're just pissing into the wind.
We made Lay on Hands only work on others, that way the Paladin would be the warrior with the hands of a healer. Not someone who heals himself in combat.
I've grown to see the swift-LoH as part of the paladin's overall ability to take a chance, to wade in where others aren't able to. The paladin doesn't get armor training as the fighter does, but they do get the ability to heal themselves and suffer blow after blow from evil, while staying on their feet.
The swift-LoH ties in with a number of spells and abilities that mean they're great at the "last minute save." They can swoop in and rescue someone just before that crippling blow, and so on. They can take on the damage or affliction, then heal themselves. They can change places, and suffer the monster's attack, while moving a friend to safety. This is heroic and fits with the theme of the class.
So I don't see the swift-LoH as an issue. I see it as fitting within the theme of the class.
Granted, a side issue is the demand by the party that the paladin be their full-time healer instead of using his or her blade. Ideally, these roles are spread out, where everyone shares some of the burden. Then, everyone gets in on some of the fun. There is no reason a ranger, druid, or inquisitor shouldn't be asked to prepare Cures, for example.
Mechanics shouldn't need changed to address this. Rather, the table should be addressed as a whole.
This may not be what you're doing. If not, I apologize. It just made me twitch somewhat, as I've run into similar issues in the past.
A champion of freedom as I would have it would include things similar to, for example ... Gaining powers similar to those of the liberation domain. Instead of divine health implement a strong resistance to, or immunity to, mind effecting spells or spells that force the character's will. Etcetera.
How is Divine Health Lawful but not Chaotic?
Alternately, I could say, why are you so insistent it HAS to be the paladin, only the paladin, exactly as is with no changes PERIOD!!!
Because its a holy champion guy with smite and divine grace and a four level spell list with litanies?
This just suggests to me that the non-archetype side of the debate wants it for crunch and not concept, which may be indeed, where the dividing line is.
All this really means in the end though, is that a well-made archetype or two would quickly spin these opinions on their head and result in a rapidly changing tune.
...you'd still get the anti-alignment arguments though, which is a large part of what this is, too. It's just that one class was made the poster child for it.
An alternate paladin could be fun--with appropriately reflavored abilities. A Freedom Warrior needs a freedom of movement ability swapped in for something else at the very least. Probably also the ability to pick locks (opening slave cages, etc.), Mercies that end domination and enchantment effects, to remove fatigue from the oppressed, and so forth.
Those who are arguing for a reflavored version are those who are seeing it as something unique and flavorful and deserving of that attention--and also something different, flavorwise, than the core chassis.
It does not need to be "up to the DM." I imagine a 3PP would be willing to take it on, and if not them, another member of the community.
Alignments aren't going anywhere, and an archetype would be a way to address most concerns and pack in some great flavor.
In short: ask for an archetype and you'll get more interest and in the end, a more interesting product. Argue versus alignments in general, and it spins in circles and goes back to the same tired commentary and turns more people off. For the latter you need an alternative version of PF which Paizo isn't interested in.
