The equalizer's page

Games which I attended don't designate someone to bring food or determine beforehand that everyone should bring something in the way of booze or something else that "contributes" in some way. Some people bring it, other times no one does and no one has a problem with that. For those who bring food or beer or whatever else to the game, most of us just make it a habit of returning the favour in some way. Perhaps not the next immediate session but two or three sessions later, depending on what's going on in their life at that time. I've brought beer or pizza a couple of times. Other people I know have brought food they personally cooked to the game to share with others. Even if no one "returns the favour", none of us have actually mentally blacklisted them as freeloaders or something else unpleasant. I suppose it largely depends on how maturely you want to deal with people. How willing you are, to give them the benefit of the doubt? If thats too much of a gamble, then I can see why the rest of the group has to know about any prospective new member of the ame in such detail. On a side note, if a new player is problematic, its not really the gm's job to throw them out. Normally, that responsibility involves the rest of the group to settle the problem in-game. If that doesn't work then someone's flying head-first out the driveway.Its not going to be the first time and sure isn't going to be the last.

I hate Antagonize and would never allow it in any game I run. It smacks of computer gaming, where you're facing pre-programmed foes who cannot think. The whole point of tabletop gaming is for real responsiveness.

/rant

Anyhoo, in the last campaign I played in, *I* was the PC with the super-high AC. I was also the PC with one of the highest DPRs in the party. The enemy couldn't ignore me, because if they did I would decimate them.

If the PCs can hurt them enough, their enemies will have to try and do *something* to contain them.

Also, unless you're metagaming, it would take more than a few swings to determine "I have no chance of hitting this guy." Combat just isn't that black-and-white.

Indeed. I couldn't agree more though I think there was a feat in dragon magazine which mimicked the antagonize feat. The only difference was that the pre-requisites were alot steeper. I didn't have a problem with that feat given it required so much more expenditure and the target gained a morale bonus to hit you.

Ignoring them after one round is a bit odd. As previously mentioned, it reeks of meta-gaming. Also, rolling an 18 or an 8 is not immediately clear cut from the attacker's perspective. The 18 will feel alot more co-ordinated than the 8 but the attacker doesn't know they have to hit an ac of x to sucessfully land a blow. The ac is just the number to constitute the total components of dex, armor...etc. For characters with high ac, they normally have a ton from not just armor but also dex based bonuses, deflection and so on. Combat run in multiple games I've been in has been fluid that way. I played a Ip Man sort of pugilist in a game last year. Monk with really high AC who actually drew certain opponents into "wasting" a couple of rounds atacking him. Not saying that every opponent just rushed his way and ignored everyone else. just that those that did had a much lower chance of hitting him than say, the hobgoblin swashbuckler. They attacked for a couple of rounds and some would change targets but they had already wasted 2-3 rounds doing so. It was quite intersting, with the dm describing the cuts and stabs, me describing the blocks and dodges, ducking and weaving. Returning the attacks with light palm strikes. After one round,the opponents didn't say "well that **** has an ac of mid 30s, guess we'll all ignore him now." If the opponents have been briefed or are aware of the particular character's strengths beforehand, then thats a different story but they weren't. Even with a high ac, such characters are not untouchable. Previously, touch attcks completely negate armor are one thing. There are also spells and special monstrous abilities which ignore ac and just force saves. Not to menton swarms and certain abilities which are area of effect and don't even allow a save. Alot can still affect high ac characters but they should be given the opportunity to shine instead of the dm singing the tune of "hur hur hur, everything just ignores you, your high ac character suxxxorx."

Not sure if its been mentioned before but if the campaign is heavy on opponents wielding manufactured weapons, take a disarming heavy flail, pair it with improved disarm and double weapon disarm. Seen it done. Very effective at what it does. It can also be used against non-weapons.

I try and reward both depending on how the players go about it. Want to play a good aligned character and be heroic? Denifitely rewarding in its own way. Want to try and be cunning foxes who take over the kingdom via fancy skill checks? Also very rewarding. Most dms I've known let it boil down to the player's actions. One really cool thing I saw was good and evil characters in the same party who didn't trust each other enough to know where they stood in regards to morality. So the good aligned pcs struggle against doing immoral acts. The evil aligned ones struggled against commiting good acts with insufficient wickedness attached. Throughout the process, they were trying to conceal their internal struggles. Everyone saw each other as being neutral. Lots of fun times and plot hooks.

I've looked at a fair few monsters in APs, mainly the nastier non-boss encounters and really been confused at the listed CR. At high levels, start adding 3 or so to the CR for some monsters. Agreement on the succubi and especially dragons. Lot of attacks, moderately good attack bonus, pretty decent damage if they hit with multiple attacks, SLAs on top of SR and some other stuff makes them good in melee and casting. At times, it feels like the party is being ripped off on xp especially when they barely won and the dm hands out 200 experience.

The thing about the monk is that they are not pure pugilists. Not really. This is reflected in their bab which is moderate but not good. They are more like half-mystics and hlf-pugilists. Therefore it somewhat makes sense for them to be inferior to the barb and fighter in standing toe to toe with the opponent. Like the rogue, they aren't actually a frontline tanker. If you find your monk standing toe to toe with opponents in the frontline instead of being melee support, then somebody isn't doing their job or you have no idea how to control your monk to best complement the party. A pugilist would actually be closer to an unarmed swordsage. The system of utilisiting stances and maneuvers is more in line with the whole martial shtick. Also, unarmed strike is designed to be mechanically inferior to every other fighting style in terms of damage. Even sword and shield outdamages unarmed so the game doesn't exactly favour unarmed martial artists in damage. Doesn't mean you can't contribute. Max out the grapple or stunning fist(I'd pick stunning fist over grapple but both can also work). Ask if your DM will allow you to swap out improved disarm for something monk related such as extra stunning. Monks can be good but tanking and killing opponents in one round is not something they can do. On the other hand, if the idea of slowing down opponents or preventing them from acting to give the part an edge isn't quite your thing, don't play a monk. Thats what they actually specialize in. By specialize, I mean make sure your monk is good at it. If you ar maxing grapple, simply taking improved grapple and maxing out strength isn't going to cut it. If maxing out stunning fist, go the whole ten yards. If its in a monster heavy campaign, and you are maxing grapple, you'll be fine if your grapple mod is around +23 at by level 10. If its stunning fist and you are pushing a dc of 24, thats good. Seen certain monks who were not just well created but also well played forcing saves of 29. Their main weakness is against hard hitting opponents. I remember a quest to clear a monastery and the party fighter and barb cleared out 75% of the monastery.
Down to half hp by that point. It was a cake walk for them. But since thats their weakness, hasn't really bothered me or anyone I know.

The warblade is also a really strong melee class but where the crazy stuff begins is when you have a fighter and warblade in the party, co-ordinating tactics. Scary stuff.

Casters will win hands down if opponents huddle together in clumps, fail every save and allow the caster a dozen actions per round. Yet to come across a game where that is the case. It normally tends to be pretty messy and being able to improvise on the fly or helping another pc to do their shtick (which tips the odds majorly in the party's favour) is a lot more common.

I seen a couple of high level games going till level 18 or so and the casters do not auto-dominate encounters at high levels. The same way martials don't auto-dominate at low levels. I've seen casters in high level games try the "teleport away and come back with summons" strategy and it normally turns out horrendously. Either the other pcs are dead or have fled. Otherwise, the encounter is pretty much over and the other pcs are victorious. Some DMs don't even award xp to the casters who do that in such a scenario.

@Wrath: You'ver hit the nail on the head with your post. Granted, every game is run differently with the game being more or less difficult depending on how the DM runs opponents. At high levels, everyone is trying to shut down their opponents, especially monstrous ones since they can do so much in such a short time. A pc disappearing for afew rounds can greatly tip the scales in the opponents favour.

There was one sargavan game I was in, playing a ninja. We ran into a couple of rustlords. The galtan fighter chose to back up so far that the penalties he was sitting on prevented him from hitting the creatures with thrown weapons. So he spent a couple of rounds not contributing. The party drunken master and my character came so close to being wiped by these creatures. The party warlock chose to sit back two hundred feet and shoot from a save distance when he could have closed and thrown out naster invocations. We were about level 10. If it was an encounter designed for us when we were level 15+, I have no doubt the two pcs in the thick of it would have perished.

There was a high level game I was in briefly. Party was level 16. Came across all manner of opponets, monstrous and otherwise. The main thing at that level was co-ordinating tactics and getting into the thick of it. Throughout the game, no one disappeared or held back from contributing and even then, some of the encounters were really close victories. It really could have gone either way. If we had rolled slightly lower on the dice, the opponents would have killed us. Capturing us wasn't really an option for them since they were prety cold and merciless. This was with a group of highly optimized characters. It still wasn't a cake walk despite everyone going all out, caster or martial wise.

I agree that a 7 int character would not be making elaborate plans. It doesn't necessarily mean that hey would be poor at thinking on their feet. It comes down their skillset and the situation. If everyone is on a ship and its extremely stormy, those with average or below average int but have invested ranks and feats in the appropriate knowledge skill(nature), would have the best chance of figuring out some temporary solution. I've seen 7 cha rogues who are the party diplomats because their average diplomacy check at level 8 was in the high twenties. So this individual is scarred and nowhere near good-looking but when they speak, they rarely offend, regardless of who or what they are addressing.

Also seen 7 int characters who at least formulate some sort of plan, on occasion. Granted, such plans are not elaborate. However, the other pc wth 16+ int never comes up with any such thing. Shys away from social interaction. I've noticed its increasingly common in games. Its the character with the -ve modifier to certain mental stats which are interesting. The ones with +ves in all mental stats, they behave in a very bland fashion. Really odd.

Celestial heritage is not the same thing as powers granted to a cleric. The bloodlines represent an inborn power while clerics are granted powers from an outside source.

For the other bloodlines, I absolutely agree after reading their bloodline descriptions. However, the celestial bloodline is different from the default assumption of "power stemming from the bloodline." I interpret it as the sorcerer drawing power from their bloodline but the power from the bloodline comes from a celestial source.

According to the prd, it states:"Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention..."
That implies a celestial source which the bloodline is linked to. The increasing levels of sorcerer reflect how much of that link the sorcerer can draw on.

As previously quoted, the prd also states that "Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely."

If the sorcerer in the OP could do whatever they desired without repercussions from the higher planes, then whats the price such individuals supposedly pay. Or is the celestial bloodline supposed to mean:

"Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely. Regardless of what you do, they never interfere with your existence."

I assume that isn't the case because that doesn't make sense at all. The problem seems to be that the dm didn't communicate the consequences of such actions to the player. Or, the player chose to ignore it and blew a gasket when they were finally hit with the repercussions of their actions.

I'd be pretty pissed myself.

The text Vod uses is fluff and nothing more. There are no alignment restrictions or even ways to change a blood line.

"Congratulations I've changed your entire heritage. Don't care if your dad was an angel. I've rewritten history to make your dad an imp. "

Bloodline is completely unaffected by alignment. GM screwing with that would be enough for me to get up and walk out there.

It is indeed fluff. However, fluff explains how a certain ability works.

Ah yes, dump stats can be a good roleplaying opportunity. Providing comic relief for the party even. Seen some very interesting pcs with dump stats. As long as they aren't fixating on the -ve modifier to much, alot of fun for everyone. The "us vs him" mentality can give rise to trouble in the game. Whats better I've found is a bit of competition between pcs. If its in a social sort of situation, alot of maipulation can be attained by the party. In combat, it gives rise to the party really laying it down on the adversaries. Some potential defeats have been avoided by the party because of it. Depends on the group dynamic and how well everyone communicates with each other.

I like creating characters who have a interesting backstory and a general direction of who or what they are trying to be. The other thing is that I also want the character to be mechanically strong enough to hold their own in combat. At the very least, have a shtick or role they can fulfill which can assist the party. I have a played a flavourful paladin in terms of backstory but was mediocre in most things. 16 strength and charisma didn't matter very much since he couldn't hurt opponents which were equal cr. He was ok in social situations but not good at it. All in all, interesting but mechanically lacking. It was not fun at all. Those three or so gaming sessions were downright annoying and there was no one to blame but myself for it.

There are the other games where I played a pure monk who dumped cha and con but had diplomacy and perform. Main shtick was soaking attacks and somewhat of a party face. Similar to the current kickboxer I'm playing except the kickboxer has a poorer ac and stronger offense. The similarity betwen the two characters is that they can contribute both in and out of combat, making them interesting and at least mechanically sound. These were enjoyable. Flavorful and mechanically solid at what they were trying to do but not very optimized.

Then there was a one session game I was in last month. High level 3.5 campaign with an extra feat every 5 levels.. The gm made it clear it was going to be a hard campaign. Optimization would be very important. Ex-classmate of mine wanted to play a fighter but wasn't sure if the fighter class could keep up with the power curve. He wasn't really an optimizer and wasn't sure how to do it. So I helped him build a fighter which could keep up with the other three party members. Wizard forcing saves of through the roof. Monk/rogue capable of sneak attacking and area of effect stunning even constructs and undead. DC was also through the roof. Barbarian variant capable of ripping through adamantine door with one hit. So I made a tripping fighter and pulled out all the stops on optimization I could think of. Everyone had their role in the party. Throughout the game, even though the party was level 16, no one played only the mechanical advantages. Each pc had their own personality and overall demeanor towards everyone and everything else. Final encounter was 3 cr 20 opponents (balors) and a cr 23 solar. The fighter and barb do crowd control on the balors while the monk and wizard handle the solar. Wizard for some reason, teleports away. Monk ties up the solar for a few rounds while the balors are being dealt with. We won, just barely. High powered game. Very optimized characters who were believable in the sense that they were not just walking stat blocks. Game was enjoyable.

Overall, I think it boils down to what guidelines the dm tells the players. In terms of optimization levels, I wouldn't worry about it too much unless the dm specifically stresses alot of it or just a little. I feel that fluff and mechanical strengths shouldn't be mutually exclusive or else you can barely contribute or are playing an extremely boring and bland character. Too much optimization also breaks certain games. If the dm says its a low magic setting, then the power curve of opponents is going to be lower. In such a case, it might not be the best idea to optimize your character right down to the last magic item body slot or try to get around the character's wbl to gain a higher power level than the other players. Characters who are flavorful and balanced for the campaign are the most fun.

Brian Bachman wrote:

Do you kick your less than optimal friends to the curb every time someone "better" or "cooler" shows up?

doesn't everyone? Starts humming "I'm an a*&+@@#" - Dennis Leary

bwahahahahahahahaha! Pretty much this. Couldn't have expressed it any better myself.

The most memorable characters need to gain at least afew levels before they are actually memorable to people outside the party. Gaining a widespread reputation takes time, effort and risk. Granted, any class can do this provided they are smart with their approach and the dice do not completely decimate them for considerable lengths of time. The sense of achievement would be heightened for individuals who have certain restrictions based on who they are and how they do things. Things like "lawful" or "good". For anyone who is lawful good or a paladin, it would feel more incredible for them since they are more restricted than most and have succeeded despite all thoe restrictions. Similar to how a LG knight or cavalier feels after repelling the forces of darknesses and protecting innocent townsfolk through not simply being chivalrous(good) but also doing so honourably(lawful).

On the "respecting legitimate authority" clause, that part would be up to the dm to determine since it is not spelled out explicitly in the rules. Respecting all legitimate authority seems odd since it depends what the so called authorities are using the law to accomplish, if they are even utiising the law. I also see that some feel the paladin has to follow such legitimate authority. As stated by previous posters in this thread, respect does not equal blind obedience. The moment someone's definition of respect equals blind compliance, that means they are at best lawful but they are most probably not good aligned. The main reason being, their primary motivation to act is from whoever or whatever they blindly follow and not from truly wanting to protect the innocent or rescue the masses from suffering. Which means the moment they blindly follow an authority which is not good aligned, they have a high chance of falling should they blindly comply.

Well-paced, gritty campaign. Unfortunately, those are not for everyone. Sounds like the players (with the exception of battlefield controller) wanted a more coddled campaign in their favour. Some are not ready to accept that the actions of their characters have consequences and the dice land where they land. They just wanted a safety net straight from the get-go. I'm sure they are alright friends but as far as gamers go, I'd recommend either hashing out the issues or scrapping the game if that doesn't work. Simply because nobody seems to be having fun. Also, the player controlling the battlefield with their caster should be in a group which can work well together. Not stuck in the role of keeping the other self-entitled characters alive.

Tell them not to go through the treasure section. Allow the players to earn their items through dungeon crawls and doing cool stuff instead of crafting and spending gold. One way you could do it is reduce the amount of gold they acquire but ensure that 50% of items are usable by the party. The remaining 50%, you could chalk it up to random treasure rolls.
I've seen dms try to put 90% of items found, be determined by random treasure tables and the result was disastrous. Everyone was way below wbl and underpowered for their level since 3/4 of the loot found was unusable by the party. If you want to allow crafting and purchase of magic items, be careful of how much you allow. Depends on the group but it can severely break the game depending on the players.

Years ago a paladin almost caused the total break up of a group I was playing with.

AD&D, we were going through Temple of Elemental evil adventure.
I was playing a cavilier from UA. One of the other players was playing a half orc thief, but all the players knew OOC that he was an evil assasin.

This half orc had been with the party since day 1, getting into tough spots with us and helping out. He never went against the party. We were running through the first level of the temple, a PC died. The player decided to bring in a paladin.

So this paladin shows up in Hommlet and says "I want to join you to help fight the evil in this area, but he has to go" pointing to the half orc.

The Paladin demanded we let him in the party but he would not join unless the half orc was out. I would guess because the paladin could see he was evil.

The rest of us did not like this new guy trying to tell us what to do, it was not pretty. Very heated talk in and out of character. The DM was so upset he ended up leaving the group and not gaming. The DM was also upset at me because he said since I was playing a cavilier, I should have automatically sided with the paladin.

Another example of a player playing lawful stupid. Paladins not only smite evil but can also try to redeem them. Have them mend their evil ways and use their abilities for righteousness and all that. Such an opportunity can be great role-playing fun for the characters involved.

THey can be dick fighters. Regardless of how self righteous they are being played, still not the strongest offensive melee class. If it comes down to it, other classes like the barb and fighter can really tear through them. On one hand, it depends on how heavily is the player dishing out the lawful stupid. On the other hand, it also depends on how stringent your dm is. I've come across some who require paladins to be played exactly as they deem fit with no wiggle room. There was one scenario where the party pally lost his divine powers after killing evil. The dm however, felt it was unlawful since the pally should have used subdue damage to bring the evil-doers to the authorities. Nearest town was about a couple of hours ride. The party could barely defeat them despite going all out. The righteous triumphed over the wicked, taking such a beating in the process but was punished for it. Truly a shameful display.

I've played a lawful good monk who really clashed with the party rogue/marshal who was trying to do the morally questionable thing of gaining influence at the expense of a few poor bastards. Also currently playing a lawful good kickboxer who is in a group of non lawful individuals. Not even sure any of them are good aligned aside from maybe the reformed fighter. It can set up some really awkward situations for the party and the lawful good character in question. One such situation arose recently when a duel went very wrong. Lets just say that everyone in the group who could spit in the face of honour and lawful conduct did just that. I was a bit disappointed we didn't get to finish the duel since it was really close but the opponent was pulling ahead. I've also seen lawful good rogues. Agents of the crown and all that played really well. Patriotic individuals infiltrating enemy lines of the neighbouring plotting empire and all that. Lawful good can be flavourful in many ways but it is also potentially the most difficult to play at times. Depends on the group mechanic I suppose.

Blitz, to sum it up, here's the most common argument for casters so far.
I'll run one by one through the listed examples which make the caster useless.

"An enemy rogue stole the PC spellcaster's material components"

That won't happen since casters have 6 spell component pouches which they obtained easily. Despite certain spell components being greater basilisk's tooth and so on. Or, they have booby trapped thier spell component pouch but never risk accidentally setting the trap off.

"PC spellcaster is grappled or pinned"

Supposedly won't happen because they are guaranteed to win initiative and have cast freedom of movement or are already buffed and concealed.

"PC spellcaster is taking consistent damage that is interrupting their spells (Concentration vs DC 10 + the damage taken + spell level cast)"

Supposedly won't happen since as before, they are already buffed and have won initiative and have the right spells prepped to avoid such phenomena.

"PC spellcaster is being counter-spelled by an enemy deep in enemy lines"

Shouldn't happen, its supposedly viewed as a dick move on the part of the dm.

"Enemy has spell resistance"

Irrelevant. Supposedly most spells prepped are not subject to spell resistance ata all.

"PC spellcaster suffers from a successful cast of a silence spell from an enemy"

They will have burnt the right feat in silent spell as they do for almost every other metamagic feat.

"PC Wizard's spellbook has been stolen by an enemy rogue or perhaps targeted for destruction by an enemy"

Similar to the spell component puch argument. Also viewed as a dick move from the dm.

Above all, whenever the conditions of the situation are not ideal, the genral concensus is for casters to teleport away, prep their remaining "open" spell slots and get back into it x number of minutes later. The opponents do not pursue or gather reinforcements or sound the alert. They are supposedly just waiting at the same spot to get killed.

Rynjin wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

All you need to be a scout is Stealth and Perception so don't start moving the goalposts before you've even seen it.

No, this is leaving the goalposts firmly in place. "Out of combat" does not mean "Looking around a bit before combat starts". Perception and to a lesser extent, Stealth are still combat skills, much like Acrobatics is.

If your character only has Stealth and Perception, then he's still going to run into the same problem with "What does he do in social situations? Sit in the corner and look around some?".

shallowsoul wrote:

The build is in the multi functional fighter thread I started in Advice. I can already tell it won't make a difference because you won't own up and admit to anything.

Telling me it's somewhere in a thread with 6 pages isn't very helpful.

Keep the g@% d%#n goalposts where they are please. I didn't build my concept for social situations. He is a scout who is used to being out in the wilds alone so being social is pointless.

Please stop adding more and more things to make your argument valid.

You've been proven wrong so bow out and admit defeat.

I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.

Just leave it be. Some are just impossible to convince. You stated it yourself previously about after showing them that the fighter can do x, people start claiming the fighter can't do y. It just carries on from there. Eventually, it reaches the stage where, they demamd you build a fighter which can do half a dozen things very well which is impossible. Off the bat, I notice alot of them also find the rogue class to be weaksauce. Something which is very surprising. Given thei perspective of melee characters and especially the fighter, it isn't surprising. Good scout build though. That character and and someone else with levels in the in 3.5 scout class would tear it up.

I've seen the same thing said about monks and rogues and the threads about them being weaksauce and all that. Can't say I agree with them though. All classes can specialize but the fighter can specialize in multiple things due to their ridiculous number of feats.

@Zenogu: good point. I've thought the same thing in the past whn I
was playing a ninja. Versus certain opponents with alot of
natural, I somewhat wished there was a fighter in the party.

Flail snail monk. Specializing in stunning fist. Sorry, it should be stunning flail. At high levels, man that snail could slither charge.

With fighters, the good thing about them is they can specialize in multiple aspects of combat. You want to make a fighter which can hit hard, has good ac for their level, great at a particular combat manoeuver, high initiative? They can do it. Or instead of the high initiative, make them great at cutting down unseen opponents in base with them? Also very much achievable. Or instead of that, you want to make them great at interrupting spellcasters, even those with total concealment. Seen it done. That fighter actually beat a wizard above his level one on one and the fighter wasn't rolling incredibly well. The point is that they can do so much. However, based on what feats, skills and ability scores you choose to improve and neglect will determine what they can and can't do. The same goes for casters except it also includes the selection of spells you chose for them to know. Situational factors also come into play for everyone regardless of their class. I've yet to see a well made fighter who had trouble contributing to a game in more than just one aspect.

So the spellcaster can't prep his spell repertoire for every possible situation and encounter. Whats wrong with that? As for the option of leaving spell slots open, how many do you leave open? If you don't leave any open and memorise it all for the day, then you have trouble filling in spells to adapt to the current dungeon crawl and situations you suspect will arise in the near future. If you leave some of them open, there is the risk of the situation not giving you the 15+ minutes to fill in spells after the current encounter. Which in an intense encounter, could leave you on little to no spells. It depends on the situation. How much noise do you make, how much attention does the party attract, how subtle were their actions.......etc. I'm not saying that the caster will definitely not have the time to fill in their open spell slots but at the same time, its not a given that they definitely will unless you have a dm who is very generous towards pc casters. As for the option of "withdrawing to come back later with the right spells",it may not always be the best idea. Foes may not necessarily let you do so. The game doesn't exist in a vacuum where certain situational factors will always be a constant. A dm who varies opponents across different environments and situations can throw a party well off guard and that is part of the fun. Having to improvise and think on your feet in order to defeat your foe or to just survive.

If I remember correctly, there was something about sticking dragons in full plate and ensuring they have rings of protection plus consumables and some other stuff. I don't recall reading any of that in monster manuals or the bestiarys.

I'm not the biggest fan of paladins but I agree that the restrictions of law and good should be in place. Mainly because they are shining examples of righteousness and valor. In these aspects, the main group of individuals who could perhaps match the high standards of their ideals would be honurable and chivalrous knights. If you want to do away with certain alignment restrictions of the class, you don't want to play a paladin. You just want to play a fighter with magical powers.

Casters can do alot and in the case of spellcasting, almost anything is achievable. However, no caster has every single spell known and memorized. So while each caster can definitely fulfill a role in the party, they cannot and therefore are not prepped for every single situation. For martials, they also cannot be prepped for every single situation. Thats not an issue with martials versus casters, its just how the game works. No class was designed to handle everything on their own and I like that. I notice the games where casters shine over martials is when the dm makes it extremely clear that the pcs are about to undertake a dungeon crawl and the casters therefore have the time to activate their buffs beforehand, hence entering a dungeon at maximum optimal efficiency.
Another feature is when the game is somewhat relaxed in terms of pace, ample opportunities to check into an inn for the night or even if they camp outside, very little bothers them and everyone gets their 8 hours rest. In those games casters really shine because they can max out the durations of their defensive spells. In games where it pushes the party to move at a quick pace to finish certain side quests, spellcasters really start to falter compared to martials. Fort saves vs fatigue start to come in. If the spell to remove such effects has been used the previous day but the eight hours of sleep was not reached, then you have to depend on a wand or potion or just be fatigued for the day. Its not just the heaking and defensive spells. Even the offensive spells have still not returned. In a hard, gritty game which steps away from the 15 minute workday, spellcasters are put on the back burner because they can't fall into the comfortable routine of recharging their blasters the moment its out of juice. Seen different players who played spellcasters take it differently. Some really had fun with the grit and bonding with the party's martial characters. Others were really offended they couldn't be superior to their martial counterparts for the majority of encounters.

What you said does make sense if you or whoever running the game chooses to run it that way. You can make magic items alot more common than spells. I've known players who prefer that sort of campaign and there is nothing wrong with it. The reason why spells are alot more common than magic items is because spells require activation and there are only so many. WIth magic items, the static bonus is always there as long as you have it in the right body slot. This is also why in 3.5, there was the experience penalty. This was to offset the permanent floating bonuses of equipped magic items vs having to win initiative and throwing up the right spells during an encounter. I've never viewed the xp penalty as making the character worse at crafting. If it really did make you worse at crafting, there would be some sort of energy drain or penalty to the appropriate crafting skill. Most spells aren't permanent in terms of duration so to make them permanent, casting the spell on its own is insufficient. I more view it as the spellcaster having to pour a certain amount of mystical energies into an item to make it permanently magical during the crafting process. I personally like games where magic items are not commonplace in terms of availability. But many other factors can also influence players into feeling they are not well enough kitted out or they feel they are too well kitted out. This could indirectly lead to your mentioned topic on availability of magic items. The most common factors are normally player gaming preferences vs dm's GMing preferences. In the current game I''m in, the dm has somewhat thrown in some house rules for his game and homebrew world. There are times where my character has trouble shining at what he does best, mainly hitting hard. The balancing mechanism is the extra feats each character gets. Some days, I look at the character and sigh, other times I'm glad to run the character. I was getting too close to the numbers game obsession and that was ruining the gaming experience. However, if you do away with the numbers completely, then you create a useless character. Its challenging sometimes, trying to find a balance.

Paladins get weak sauce compared to clerics but have so much stricter restrictions. Sucks to be them.

Good points shallowsoul. Reminded of pc rogues who have started their own guilds and got so much done. So many eyes and ears everywhere. Or PC fighters who open their own melee academy. Training the next generation. Good stuff.

Without magic items, everything else on top brings you close to being good enough but not quite. Its the main reason why my monk/fighter/kickboxer is still alive despite being in the front line and not having any significantly AC buffing or ability buffing items. If the dm started throwing some traditional hard hitting monsters at the party, he'd be killed in three rounds despite having a highish AC. Heck, I could create a fighter of the same level, same offensive build with half his wealth who could kill him in three rounds. On a side note, I'd keep a close eye on how quickly the numbers for monsters increases. Especially in a low magic setting since monsters in monster manuals or the bestiary are not created with the assumption that the pcs have jack squat in the magic item department for their level. One or two dms I knew had the habit of scrutinising the stat blocks of monsters before a game. If they didn't like how a creature listed as CR 10 pushed the listed CR with their stat block, they'd raise it by 1 which in this case, was an 11. Been in a game where a dick dm killed players over and over. Close to no magic items and the party was low level. However, the stat blocks of monsters increased at an alarming pace. Some so quickly, that no one had a chance against a barghest. TPK all round. Horrendous game. I only came to enjoy it by not playing seriously and viewing it from the opposite end of the spectrum.

Wizards are fine the way the way they are. They can do alot but they have some glaring weaknesses. Eliminating those weaknesses or increasing strengths to cover those weaknesses would break balance.

I personally prefer games which start the pcs off at level one. Everyone is really squishy and there is the very real possibility of getting offed if you fail a save and the opponent rolls well. Even in the case of classes with d10 or d12 hit die, the level 1 pc can still be killed quite easily if the opponent rolls well. The longer the party succeeds at quests, surviving and levelling up, the greater is the sense of achievement. I'm not saying that starting with extra hp from a houserule is bad, it just depends on how big a bonus you would give the players. I and other gamers have found the sense of achievement really diminished when the dm decides to add an extra 5 hp at first level to everyone or rules max hp gained each time the pcs level up. I suppose I prefer a slightly harsh game but everyone's gaming style is different. The pcs are supposed to be the great heroes/villains/cool individuals eventually. Essentially its the ye old thing of "the man of tomorrow is forged by his battles today." Something can't really be considered a battle if its chances of failure are too drastically lowered. But YMMV.

Basing a character around an item isn't necessarily a bad thing. It comes down to how the character is based around the item. IS it for flavor in the sense that its a family heirloom or holds in-character sentimental value? Or perhaps its a personal quest the character is trying to finish based on their backstory. Such characters are fun to GM or game with. However, if its purely for the stat bonus or some nifty magic item ability, this becomes quite clear. Remember a character who had a ring of sustenance in a survival game straight off the bat because alot of fort saves for being fatigued or having insufficient food cropped up. There was nothing flavourful about the way the character played their attachment to such an item. Items, magical or otherwise are subject to being destroyed, stolen etc in the game. Asking for complete immunity to such phenomenon happening is more about the numbers game han actual role playing. In regards to the example on thor, Mjolnir did get broken at least once. Nowhere in the comics did he sit around and mope for a week because his precious hammer was now broken. It was only later on that the sorcerer supreme repaired it with mystical energies. In the meantime, simply adjusted tactics to using more unarmed attacks since he is still a very skilled unarmed combatant and has immense superhuman strength and speed.

If its default monsters with the bell curve of ever increasing DR, don't play a monk. The thing thats worse than pc death is your melee pc hitting with every attack and not affecting the enemy. Saw this in the game I'm in over the last few sessions. Thats why I decided to stop controlling the npc for a bit cause it was downright depressing 3/4 of the time. Strength wasn't even the dump stat. Worthless at later levels. If this isn't the case, then I recommend a skirmishing monk. Emphasis on whittling down the enemy over time and it will take alot of time. If you are intent on playing a monk, the sohei archetype is pretty cool. If your dm allows, play the oriental adventures sohei. Plenty of fun.

I won't say overpowered. The pathfinder paladin can stand toe to toe with a range of enemies. In 3.5 they ran out of holy fizzy smite juice so quickly and were left fighting like warriors three levels lower. Despite all the restrictions, they don't seem to gain powers appropriate to those restrictions. For all their restrictions on code of conduct and alignment, they are somewhat second stringers in melee ability. Fighters and barbs blow through them. Same goes for neutral rogues and ranged rangers. The mercies equal out the playing field but they are hardly the hardest hitting class. The paladin's shtick is smiting evil. Against anything that isn't, they struggle like drowning knights in full-plate. Either that or the opponents are non evil and a couple of CRs below the pally. They fulfill and odd role. Somewhat like the monk, excel at a few things but have a substantial list of mechanical weaknesses.

Can an anti-paladin fall? Aren't they allready the lowest of the low?

Sounds more like ways to make the anti-paladin ascend. On that route, Redliska has the right of it: Love. Since the Paladin code makes no exception for controlling magic, I doubt the Anti-paladin code does either (why coddle the weak willed?), so a good enchantment spell, or well used philtre of love ought to do nicely. That in mind, Ilja's idea sounds even more amusing. Who among the party will volunteer to be the object of the enemy Anti-paladin's affections?

Anti-paladins can't fall. They are free to be as good-aligned or evil as they wish.

There was a variant of age rules in regards to how quickly elves mature. I think it was in masters of the wild. Put the starting age earlier by a number of decades. I thought about it for a bit. Only to be interrupted by the owner of the book tearing out the relevant pages.

Paladin's are also not allowed to kill. Or else they fall.

There is always the option of talking to the dm and swapping out certain class abilities for others. If you want to play a monk with good bab progression, ask the dm if its possible by dropping one save to poor progression and giving up something like wholeness and still mind. Its always worked for players to play a character based on a slightly modified class.

And what if Diplomacy remains your first response at all times, but people still run towards your sword?

By your interpretation, that person should still remain Good. And also, what if the person cannot be negotiated with?

One good example would be an undead creature. Few are really swayed even by the best diplomats, and usually just kill you anyway.

Indeed. Good points Icyshadow. I remember a lawful good warmage in the crimson throne campaign I ran. PC had a diplomacy modifier of through the roof and that helped prevent certain tense situations from escalating into full blown combat. However, there were still some evil opponents who refused to listen and charged the warmage and the party straight on.

In regards to the issue of "sweeping the problem of killing=evil under the rug to preserve the status quo of adventuring heroes", I think it is an oversimplification of the matter. Where words fail against opponents who are charging forward to skewer you like a kebab or start trying to turn you into a frog, you may not choose to kill them. However, its still a fact that you have to immobolize them and render them not dangerous to yourself or others around you. The other option, if you don't have spells is to burn multiple rounds making a diplomacy check as they rain mayhem down upon you. I somewhat understand the "good should be held to higher standards" perspective but taking it too far will either get you killed or your friends killed or the people in the region the pcs are protecting killed. Possibly all three of the above. An individual who refused to take up arms or takes a large risk in only attacking to subdue and not to never kill is either extremely naive, arrogant or living in the delusion tha they are a good aligned character. After all, I doubt an individual can be labelled good-aligned if they aren't willing to do everything in their power to protect their loved ones and innocent people.

I remember a setting the opposite of the default goodly celestials evil demons thing. Everything got turned around. So goodly demons and devils and evil as hell celestials. Plant creatures rule the realm together with neutral and good aligned undead. Creatures with living anatomy were regarded as extremely suspicious. Instead of people freaking out the slumbering person took a bolt in the temple and kept going, now its folk or I should say plants and undead freaking out that these "disgusting" creatures are leaking blood and juices everywhere. Alot of players weren't interested in the campaign initially but that changed after the first session. Vampire knight issuing challenges and fighting honourably, blighted spawn burning lay on hands. Fey marching in orderly fashion and following orders etc. It was so odd, it stuck for a long while.

In the current game I'm in, its a homebrew setting created by the dm which follows mostly 3.5 rules with a touch of pathfinder. Its also a really low magic setting which means magic items are really rare. The first item lost was a magical kwan dao. It was with a bet you had to undergo with a ghostly boggard in order to pass through the boggard's area. A couple of levels later, traded another magical kwan dao with an even higher magical enhancement to some rangers to obtain a few potions and information on the general area. It sucked a bit, for about 2 minutes and then the character pretty much got over it. Carried on wards with finishing the current quest. SAme with the rest of the party. They have each lost at least one magic item since the beginning of the campaign.

I'm reminded also, of a game set in faerun. Each pc is descended from luskan nobility. Problem is, each repective noble family has been wiped out centuries ago. Each of them sets out to reclaim and rebuild their family's honour. The game had three pcs. The first task was refinding the family heirloom weapons of their ancestors. Each weapon supposedly possessed the first ruling member of nobility for each family. They find the weapons and can carry them but can't use them optimally(count as normal weapons). Throughout the course of the adventure, one weapon got sundered, the other got hit by an acid ball, and the last one got partially disintegrated by a gelatinous ape(gelatinous cube in the shape of an ape with ape-like abilities). The pcs each sought to shield and repair their ancestral weapons out of sentimental value. It was only at something like level 12 where the ancestral spirits finally deemed them worthy as wielders.

So, two different examples of equipment being damaged. How the pcs deal with the situation pretty much determines how much fun the dm and group get out of it. Especially in the second example, where pcs are hauling around these normal weapons when they could have pawned it off to some collector for a couple of thousand gp. Roll with it, there will we opportunities to repair it, or pick up other stuff along the way.

The equalizer wrote:

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! So, if the party stops by an inn for dinner and paid a couple of silvers, does the same amount magically find its way back into their pouches? So much entitlement and cowardice. If the dm has to do that to keep players in their game, its beyond sad. Its downright tragic.

I think it's even more sad to see the players all walk away from the table while the DM laughs at his own stupid joke.

DM: "Hahaha!! I totally just broke all your gear, and now you owe the local Cleric twice your gold for all the Ressurections he's had to pull on you over the last few days.
Man, is this game fun or wha- ...wait, why are you looking at me like that? Hey, where are you going?! Hey, wait! Come back!"

Player: "That was the worst game ever. Anyone else up for being DM?"

Yeah, if you want to pull off one extreme of an argument, you have to take into account the polar opposite of it as well. Some Equalizer you are.

I have yet to see a campaign where the dm broke the equipment of all the pcs as the norm. Furthermore, how was my example extreme? We had the mention earlier on of a "wealth penalty" which should be factored into the loot of the encounter to compensate for this sort of thing. Meaning, an ogre barb without sunder would have a lower gp value in loot compared to an ogre barb who had sunder. The same way a wizard who could cast shatter would have slightly more loot in terms of gp value, compared to another wizard who was pure enchantment or something. As pointed out by Josh earlier in the thread, it reeks of self-entitlement and I could not agree more. If thats the sort of gamestyle you enjoy, more power to you. I personally prefer games where the danger of being killed, captured, equipment stolen.... is very evident. Seen dms who pulled punches, some pcs love the safety, other pcs start nodding off.

Josh M. wrote:

I disagree on the "wealth penalty" thing. Your character's in-game wealth is a finite resource. Things are going to happen in-game that are going to make your character spend that resource on staying alive; potions, curse removals, food, etc. Repairing broken equipment is pretty standard fare for any profession, and when your profession involves hitting things as hard as you can with your "tools," sometimes you have to spend a little gold to keep things working.

Honestly? The whole "wealth penalty" idea reeks of entitlement. As if from day 1, your character's wealth can and will ONLY be spent on better stuff and never to shore up weaknesses and keep equipment viable. I call shenanigans.

Is spending gold in town to get a Restoration spell cast on you a "Wealth penalty" as well? Are CLW potions a "wealth penalty?" How about food?

As a DM, I don't even like the idea of sundering a PC's gear, but it's a legal, viable combat option and it can come up whenever the DM damn well feels like it. A polite DM warns players ahead of time that tactics like this exist in the setting, but there's no contract anywhere or any rule that says "The DM must not do anything that might affect anything on a PC."

Considering that WBL is in the core rulebook as a measure of the magically enhanced equipment that one has, and any destroyed irreplacable weapons or used consumables do not count as usable wealth anymore. does mean, that buying a restoration in town or buying a potion is indeed a wealth penalty and delays the acquisition of equipment. the penalty is relative to players who didn't have to take the penalty.

when you sunder the hypothetical barbarian's greatsword. you pretty much should include an equivalent or slightly better greatsword in the soon to be aquired treasure as compensation for the one you shattered.

wealth is a very precious resource in pathfinder, and misplaced wealth, such as even being a single copper piece behind the richest PC, can cost you your life. just...

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! So, if the party stops by an inn for dinner and paid a couple of silvers, does the same amount magically find its way back into their pouches? So much entitlement and cowardice. If the dm has to do that to keep players in their game, its beyond sad. Its downright tragic.

Wiped from the map. Creates more room for another community to begin by the hands of another race.