The Thing From Another World's page

225 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Since Rise of the Runelords is being released in pocket edition while this also receive a similar treatment?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:
If I may make another suggestion, start designing some of your own content. Pathfinder 1e is ended, but the players are still here. I'm personally working on a few conversions, making Temple of Elemental Evil a pathfinder adventure path, and going to do the same with the Dragonlance Chronicles, and will likely convert some more old modules and such. The official line is done, but the game isn't over until no one plays.

If you ever finish the conversions pist them here or send me a PM. I would be interested in seeing the conversions.

From the Pathfinder Srd:

Cavalier Mounts

The only restriction for small characters is Boar and Dog at fourth level.

So I stand corrected and kind of figured Herolab was mistaken about medium sized characters being able to take small mounts without a feat. If say one is playing a Halfling or gnome no feat is required.

Will we see Inner Sea Gods or Races in pocket format?

Is their a chance that this book maybe reveive a reprint in the future?

Thanks Marc while I am disappointed in no more new Kobold Press material for 1E PF. I also completely understand why. I will probably not switch over to PF 2E at least I can still buy 5E books from your company.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Sleeping in enemy territory has been a staple in all the tables I have played in. Depending on the rpg being played of course.

Not to mention at higher levels magic is a great equalizer.. There is Rope Trip. Tiny Hut which is opaque on the outside and climate controlled. Secure Shelter is a pretty good decent as wall.

Tiny Hut allows one to see through it not the the enemy. Sure monsters and npc can fire into it, the players have total concealment.

Secure Shelter from the SRD "The dwelling does, however, provide considerable security otherwise – it is as strong as a normal stone building, regardless of its material composition. The dwelling resists flames and fire as if it were stone. It is impervious to normal missiles (but not the sort cast by siege engines or giants).

The door, shutters, and even chimney are secure against intrusion, the former two being secured with arcane lock and the latter by an iron grate at the top and a narrow flue. In addition, these three areas are protected by an alarm spell. Finally, an unseen servant is conjured to provide service to you for the duration of the shelter. ".

Hello Marc,

Will Kobold Press still be supporting and releasing Pathfinder 1E material?

Is the sale still on?

When I click on the link in the OP for the sale I get a "no results found" message from the Kobold Press site.

Does it mean you will no longer support 1E PF, only 2E PF, or just 5E?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
TBH, if they don't alter casting to work for 6 levels and come out with these classes, I will not likely everr play PF2.

I feel thecsame. PF1 had many issues yet level 6 casters were not one if them imo. A decent level of spells, power and selection imo.

again thank you for your response.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another issue is with what they wrote in the 2E core is that one of the more well known and iconic APs has some rather well extreme material to say the least imo.

Rise of the Runelords has the goblins in fine form showcasing how bad they can be. The third module from that AP has Ogres being well Ogres. Let's just say the Ogres in Pathfinder were turned into a cross between the mutants from the hills have eyes crossed with the hillbillies from deliverance. It's all fine and good to tell the DM to change the material of a AP. Then what was the point of DM buying the AP which was to save time in running the game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't usually agree with what Hwalsh posts. I am in complete agreement with the above post.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:

One thing I will argue though. It's not necessarily the responsibility of the person suffering to tell you. They may not be in a mental state where they can come forward. They may not feel it's safe to say anything for fear of harassment. That's frequently how harassment thrives. If someone complains about the harassment, abusers just escalate until they stop complaining or leave altogether. I've seen it a bunch of times.

I think personally with the DM they do need to mention it. I understand and empathize that it's not easy to do. I'm not a mind reader and I rather not have to redo a entire campaign from scratch because the player dislikes slavery and tells me after I put in all the work. Players feels are important. My time spent working on the campaign is also important as well.

SuperSheep wrote:

You're not getting paid to be a professional psychologist, but I would argue that it's everyone's job to be mindful of the feelings of those around them because we're a social species. And if you want to be part of a community you have to do the work.

The way Paizo wrote in that section were expected to be professional psychologist at the table imo. I will anbd do keep a eye on the players at the table for some sign of discomfort. I also have my hands full running the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

DMs should show empathy towards their players to be sure. Players should also show common courtesy to their DMs and the rest of the table to inform them of any topics that bother them before the game starts. Using my above if a player dislikes slavery I rather be told before I put the work into crafting the campaign. If saving captured slaves and taking down the evil Slaver is the theme of the campaign having to go back to redo everything. Is both time consuming, wasted time and much work for nothing.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:

The tyranny of the majority is a real thing. It's also a common way for people to keep people excluded. Got 5 male players and 1 female players and the female player is uncomfortable with the table's obsession having sex with wenches, well she's the minority. Likely she'll just self-exclude and that's how you get an entire gender whose majority stance is that gaming isn't for them. Because people made it not them.

I never had too many players fortunately being obsessed with having sex with npc wenches. If it's all they talk about I will put a stop to it. Some players both male and female will create characters that are promiscuous. I allow them if and only IF they do not take it too far at the table and if the table is comfortable with it. I also mention what themes and everything else I will include at the table from the start. Players are free to stay and go. I do this because stopping the game every time a person is offended just slows the game to a crawl and ruins in-game immersion. Mind you I have come across one too many DMs/players who really are clueless when it comes to not noticing player discomfort.

Not to sound cold or callous yet this is a hobby for me not a full time job. Once it becomes that for me at least I leave it. If I say the game includes slavery and at session 0 a player who is bothered by it refuses to say that it does it's on him/her to tell me about it. I can't force the person to do so. I also treat fellow gamers as mature adults. They are at a certain age if something bothers them table speak up about it. If nothing is said once the session starts I'm probably not going to remove slavery from the campaign.

SuperSheep wrote:

What Paizo and others are saying is that if you find yourself relying on the damsel in distress trope too often or describing physical and emotional abuse of people in a group with people suffering PTSD from abuse... stop.

Your made your point without making me feel terrible that is the difference imo. I agree about relying too much on certain tropes. The problem with descriptions sometimes they need to be very descriptive imo. What gets the point across of a Red Dragon Attack. "Dragon come, hurt, burn people, building destroyed." Or you describe how the survivors are suffering both because the dragon destroyed their home, business or even their crops. The npc innkeeper that the group may have befriended holds the burnt remains of his son who tried to stand up to the dragon. Tee stench of cooked flesh is nauseating and makes the players want to vomit. Sometimes one has to deliver some rather extreme descriptions to get the point across that the npc/creature is damn fine piece of work and not in a good way.

As both a DM o player the player suffering from PTSD needs to inform the group of what they deem acceptable at the table. It's all nice and good for Paizo to insist that both players and DMs be part time or full time psychologist at the table. Quite frankly with all due respect it's not my job. I do keep a eye out as both a player and DM to see and or sense player discomfort. I'm not a expert in the field and it's the players responsibility to do so. Another reason I found the advice a little heavy handed because it relies on our world being a perfect world. In a perfect world every players their demands would be satisfied by everyone at the table. Whether you and I like it or not that will simply not be the case. It's not fair but welcome to the real world.

SuperSheep wrote:

If you want to have your NPC jokester hang around the PCs all the time and none of the players actually like the characters, that is fine. No one is being harmed by that. But insisting on Jack the Ripper as a major recurring villain after a rape survivor says she no longer feels safe at your table or just looks incredibly uncomfortable because she keeps having flashbacks... that's not okay. Stop.

I agree yet in my experience those are exceptions to our hobby not the rule. That kind of terrible behavior on the part of DM/and/or players is when I walk and I ask the player who is bothered by it to leave the table with me. Or kick people out of my place if the game is being held at my place.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not so much what was said in that section it's how it was said. I don't appreciate anyone when trying to make a valid point trying to guilt trip myself and others in the hobby. All they had to say imo is "Don't be a jerk everyone regardless of their creed, religion, gender and political affiliation are to be welcomed at the table. Keep an eye out to see if anyone is uncomfortable at the table". Short and sweet.

Depending on the adventure sometimes their maybe a controversial story line that comes up. One could have a origin story where a Sorcerer npc is tormented by the other children in the orphanage for being different. Turns to evil or just in a fit of anger leaves and burns down the orphanage.

I'm also a majority rules type of person. I will try to accommodate everyone at the table. Yet trying to please everyone is sometimes both hard to do and in some cases impossible. If out of a six person person group 4-5 players are happy with the story and themes I plan to run with the game with. The other 1-2 players either try to see if it's Ok for them to stay or they can find another group. Again I will try to the best of my ability to accommodate everyone at the table. Neither will I put a campaign on indefinite hiatus because I cannot.

Rise of the Lords was the first thing I wanted to use yet the group I have played halfway to three quarters of that AP and would rather try something new. I was thinking of using the River kingdoms and the stolen lands to insert the village of Hommlet. Is the river kingdoms book still in print? Or updated to Pathfinder rules?

Using PF 1E rules and Golarion.

Where would a good place to place the Temple?

What god(s) would I be using? Obviously Erastil and Iomedae are sure to play a important part.

My players sometimes like to take a location that they freed from monsters and make a base out of it. I can see them doing that with the moathouse. would it imbalance the game?

Any other advice especially from those who have run it, are running it?

Thank you for all your advice.

Personally I would like to see them get a small upgrade. Having played a few over the years I wanted to see if they were really as broken as some of the players in our hobby said they were. I found it to be the opposite imo. Sure if one cast spells, armor and magic items they are powerful. Too often most players throw into a combat with a simply "charge" and throw them at the enemy. Which unless the DM is new to the hobby they usually die and very quickly at later levels. It was frustrating to be at the table with someone who kept complaining his animal companion kept dying yet he refused to waste resources to protect and upgrade the creature.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Very disappointed that Paladins still have LG as a alignment requirement yet not even remotely surprised. I almost expected no less from Paizo. All the talk about wanting to shake things up for the playtest was simply that imo and not much else. I could be wrong and hope to really be wrong. If one the design goals was to try and recapture market share from 5E doing what they plan to do with the PF2 Paladin will not really accomplish that imo.

Now if they keep the LG alignment requirement yet overhaul alignment in such a way as to no longer allow Paladins to fall at the whim of the DM. While also making it harder for problematic players to ruin others gaming experience while playing Paladins it would be a bonus for me at least. Or codify alignments in such a way as to what one can or cannot do.

The preview has not ruined my interest in PF2 yet my interest is also lessened to a degree. Yes I know it's early in the playtest yet knowing how Paizo says they will take fans feedback under advisement then doing their own thing. A good example is the gun rules. So until they tell us otherwise what we see is what we will probably get.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

If anyone is trying to get the thread locked it's you Hwalsh imo.

I can respect though not agree with a poster position if it's done in good faith. Which your not doing it all imo.

You come here post in a provocative and inflammatory manner. It's usually done from the point of view that your point of view is the correct one and the only correct one.

Lash out at myself and others on the forum for favoring other posts. Which by the way we are allowed to do without needing your permission to do so. Given your standard style of posting are you truly surprised why other posts contrary to yours are favored and yours are not.

If anyone is toxic it's you imo. Come here and demand validation of your posts and when you don't get it think their is some kind of conspiracy against you. Do you know how crazy that sounds.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:

I am ok with goblins being playable characters, it's been done before and there generally is an understanding that the character is probably a rare case. I've always welcomed the idea of having a misfit and playing out how to integrate it.

However, setting/story telling "oh there are a bunch of good hearted goblins now" while most campaign setting having furthered the idea that they are a murderous, morale slack, sadistic, chaotic, arsonist, destructive bunch really does not lend to this new concept.

In short, it comes forward as forced and a little lazy writing. Looking forward to their full description to see how it really ties in. I would even buy that there is a tribe that is an exception that was hidden in a forest and had contact with some benevolent races that taught them a better path. Or something. They are good now! just does not cut it. I also would rather not see a race lore retconned because of popularity.

Also. Charisma. Ok.

Agreed and seconded and completely agree on the entire post. I would never stop a player from running a goblin or drow pc at my table. I would warn the player before the campaign begins that his character would for the first few levels face dislike and hatred because of his race. He has to prove to everyone around him and possibly including his group that he can be trusted. After a few levels and the player making a effort to show he really is different then he will slowly be accepted.

My take the reason the whole issue is divisive imo is that they made Goblins in the setting truly evil. Yes they were exceptions and those exceptions except those exceptions had to keep how they felt and acted hidden because the majority of goblins would and can kill them.

I also feel like Errant Mercenary that "oh there are a whole bunch of good goblins" is lazy writing and cop-out. Not to mention they would to redo the above art because imo if that is the art being used for Goblin pcs it's anything but promoting good goblins imo. Instead it feels more the goblin is waiting for someone to turn their back to cut off their head. Their are so many more Golarion setting appropriate races they could have included.

It's not something that will stop me from playing Pathfinder. I have to freely admit it's not something I am a fan of either.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Price is only a factor in the first level, unless quality weapons (masterwork, legendary, etc) is a multiplier of the base price.

The gold cost of a longsword vs bastard sword is negligible once you start to buy +1 weapons.

Which all depends on the generosity of individual DMs. Some may give enough, too much, or not enough gold. Even then it still does not justify a feat tax imo.

Tallow wrote:

If what makes a weapon different also makes it fundamentally better than it's counterpart, then hiding it behind a feat, or perhaps a higher level of proficiency is necessary.

It's not at all necessary imo and quite frankly a unnecessary feat tax. It forces a player to either play Human to receive the extra feet needed to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Or take another race and have to spend a precious feat needed for better options on the feat.

Tallow wrote:

Otherwise there would be no reason to use a long sword in lieu of a bastard sword.

That is very debatable and subjective imo. The cost of 35 GP is not something every Fighter or combat character can afford especially if he rolls poorly for character wealth. I was made fun off by a optimizer for taking the lowly Greatclub yet still did a decent amount of damage. Paizo could also make use of the availability of certain weapons. It maybe fairly easy to find a Longsword in many shops maybe a Bastard sword is less common. More importantly not every player tastes are the same the next player. Some may favor using daggers, others clubs. In my next game I want to take the Viking Archetype and nothing is more iconic than a battleaxe for the archetype imo.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the few issues I have had with Exotic weapons in PF1 is that some of them are not really Exotic imo. Having to take a extra feat ti use a weapon just feels like a feat tax imo. I can understand say if the weapon allows a player character to say use Disarm and Trip. As that would require some sort of training. Or something truly Exotic say like a bladed scarf.

Instead it feels like the devs are penalizing players. It suddenly becomes "exotic" by virtue of having better damage and/or crit range. When I was a DM and player and this includes myself their was a predominance of Human Fighters and other similar melee types simply because the players wanted to use the Extra Human feat awarded to humans to pay to use their desired.

So Paizo Devs either make weapons truly Exotic or remove that character all together in PF2

I would not automatically assume they will not get new or returning players. It could go either way. It too easy for those in rpgs especially with D&D to automatically dismiss or assume it will fail. Simpky because they don't like a rpg.

I neither assume thst it will a success or failure. I rather remain positive than negative.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I've stopped even trying to talk to these guys. They'll single you out for direct personal Snipes and they outright refuse to practice what they preach.

So claiming that those who want to play a Paladin only want to do so because they are min-maxers and power gamers is not a personal attack against myself others. Claiming to be a victim when your also attacking other posters on the boards is being hypocritical

HWalsh wrote:

They want Paladin opened up for whatever reason. Maybe they do want to be a Paladin, but for some reason are psychologically incapable of roleplaying a lawful character (I know a therapist in the Atlanta area who can probably help with that) to the point that they become physically ill. Maybe they want certain powers for whatever reason, even if they claim nobody dips Paladin despite things like Oradins and Sorcadins existing. Whatever the reason behind their desire, malicious, self-serving, or otherwise...

So it's not good when they say negative things about you. Yet your free to engage with personal attacks on other posters. Sorry you can't have it both ways. Claim to be a victim while also being the aggressor.

HWalsh wrote:

They do not care about what you, I, or anyone who enjoys Paladins as they are want or feel.

Yourself and some other posters are really not trying to find any common ground. It's your way or the highway imo. Do you really expect myself and others to agree with that stance. The difference being I want to allow everyone to play whatever they want. Your position is Paladins can only be LG and anyone who feels differently apparently has both mental problems and are power gamers. Can you try and see why honestly try and see why your posts are getting the reaction they are.

HWalsh wrote:

They want what they want and will kick us all to the curb to get it.

No one is kicking you to the curb. I get your position on Paladins and while I don't agree with it. I can respect it. Yet the respect is not very mutual. It just seems that your very antagonistic towards anyone who does not agree with your position on any topic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Here's the same sentiment with a few extra words for clarification because some in this thread seem to be struggling with this point: I don't see how it could work while still keeping the flavor of Golarion goblins intact.

It's not so much not wanting to see Goblins in the core more to see the Golarion lore on them requiring a significant rewrite imo. If the average average goblin is NE, weak, and cowardly as another poster has pointed out and given how bad a reputation they have Goblin adventurers should be the exception not the norm.

Even Drow still have a hard time on Faerun. Drizzt is fairly well known yet even the average person knows he is the exception not the rule. Some want the benefits of playing a Goblin without the disadvantages attached to it imo.

I don think backwards compability is that a big of a thing for many rpg fans imo. It needs to be in enough numbers to hurt the sales of PF2.

I don't think it well because in my neck of the woods I rarely see it done. I'm in a Forgotten Realsm campaign and the only changes the DM did to the setting is allowing the Golarion gods to exist in the FR Pantheon and using the books as setting information. NPCs, Items, onsters etc is all taken from the PF1 books.

Not to mention it's probably not going to happen. I used own a lot of 5 1/4 floppy disks do you think companies that manufactured them switched over to 3 1/2 floppy disks gave discounts to customers. We received nothing. Like everything that has editions it's always a risk purchasing the current edition. It's something standard in the business. To think that somehow Paizo would never do a new edition, given that it's a rpg industry where a new edition comes out every five years. I don't know what to tell you.

So no Paizo is probably not going to give any major discounts on PF1 material. Maybe a 10% to 5% discount not much more until maybe 3 months before PF2 is released.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As long as they fix the flaws of PF. If not then no. I see some here that if they want to play 5E they will play that and don't want to see anything from 5E. For me PF2 as to have minimum 50% or more new material or I will remain with PF1. I'm not buying the same core book a second time with the same flaws a second time.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

But backwards compatibility is something people think they want more than they actually will use, in my experience.

That has been my experience as well. Less actually converting anything from 3.5. to PF and more that they can yet never really do imo.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
What if s tribe learn to read, and culture makes them realize things about morality?

The problem with that is Golarion Goblin lore is they would have to be the most secretive, paranoid Goblins around. As soon as the other less civilized Goblins find out they would band together and wipe the civilized Goblins. The rest of the Goblins are not rational let alone be tolerant of a literate, civilized race of Goblins imo.

I think some here are making Backward Compatibility a popular and imo it's not. Again my experiences and anecdotal in my gaming group everyone who claimed to want to convert 3.5. material to Pathfinder never did. Even if they were very vocal about PF1 pre-release. When it's all said and done. Many want the ability to convert they just don't convert material. With 3.5. simply gathering dust or from a campaign of misinformation from other players that 3.5. material is broken to unbalanced. To like myself being too lazy to do it.

It's not that easy convert either nor hard it's time consuming. All that hard work can be wasted if the DM refuses outright to use 3.5. material. From what I can see converting from PF1 to PF2 will be not be too hard and not too easy. The only good thing is their should be less " I don't allow PF1 material it's broken and/or overbalanced" at table.

Again I'm not saying people do not convert material from 3.5. to PF1. Is it in enough numbers for PF2 to be fully compatible. As well how they are going to sell the same system twice to the same fanbase with no changes. If you thought 5E was taking away their market share that will kill it imo.

Again I don't think anyone is saying that Goblins should not be a playable race. The issue is that the lore at least in Golarion really makes PCs the exception not the rule. Made worse that the regular Goblins would kill off the PC Goblin as some kind of weird anomaly. Either they race evolves somehow to be less of what they are in the setting or as another poster suggested allow them in core with the caveat that they can and will face stigmata from both goblins and non-goblins.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Then it should be codified in the rules to make it easier to adjudicate, perhaps as the LG version's 'Reputation of BEST GOOD' or somesuch.

Keep LG as alignment yet when it comes to a Paladin falling make a list of what can or cannot make them fall. Which MUST be adhered to by players and DMs. Too many and I do mean to many DMs screw over players who play Paladins imo. Any DM at my table that tried Wei Ji "you have to take prisoners or fall from because Geneva Conventions" in a fantasy campaign would be asked to leave and never return. WTH! Follow the Geneva Conventions or you fall give me break.

Same way I would not make a Paladin fall if he fails to stop slavery if he has a chance to defeat the opposition without committing suicide. Most players refuse to throw their characters lives away Paladin code or not. It's strange to see a very vocal minority expect players to play suicidal Paladins. You must defeat and and all enemies charging blindly ahead in combat. Were not allowed to ambush nor a Paladins allies. No tactics like setting traps. Paladins are played either as Lawful Stupid or the usual Dirty Harry/Judge Dredd by players. If some players could they would be playing them like Charles Bronson in the Death Wish series of movies.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
That does not mean there is some things in 5e PF 2e should not steal. Heck 5e stole PF archtypes.

Seconded and why not. The only difference is that they should be honest about borrowing and being inspired by 5E. It kind of hard to try and deny when it looks and plays like something from 5E.

It's like Lucas in the Star Wars prequels when they first came out and trying to hide the fact that lesser known Senator Palpatine is the NOT the Emperor in the original trilogy. He tried yet no amount of "nudge, nudge wink, wink it's not the Emperor" worked.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:

Well, the book is not just for those who use Golarion, and I saw a surprisingly high number of people asking for a more setting-agnostic approach to the Core Rulebook (myself included). Don't want them? Don't need to use them. Sometimes I think people create these setting/roleplaying barriers that really didn't need to be there. As the very developers said, goblins have no impediments to transit in places like Absalon, and for places where they wouldn't be openly accepted I think that that just makes roleplay more interesting if a goblin is forced to hide or something.

I'm not saying they should not have Goblins as a option. I'm all for it. Except the way they are written in Golarion they would not be welcome in most places and neither would they welcome outsiders. Are written as a bunch of sociopathic, psychotic, afraid of the written word, pyromaniacs that don't play well with others. It's all well and good to say that Goblin have no issues as PCs. It's also the dev ignoring the own lore they created and quite frankly taking way too easy of a way out by ignoring it.

It's like all Drow suddenly being welcome across Faerun with open arm The WOTC could say the exact same thing like the Paizo devs did it still looks weird as a choice for core and goes against what the majority of the race are described as.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
I've seen people playing tieflings that look like demons, and even some that almost behave like them. I'm not sure a goblin is anything harder.

True yet Tieflings while stigmatized are not portrayed as sociopathic, psychotic, afraid the written word, pyromaniacs.

It's as if some here act like the crazy insane word hating goblins are the exception not the rule when it's the opposite the sane, hope well adjusted normal goblin are the exception the rule and likely to be killed off for well being too normal and civilized by other goblins.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Okay, so this thread has devolved to 'Neener neener you can't have my niche fundamentalist extremist holy good warrior' vs. 'Let everyone have the choice of their own fundamentalist extremismist warrior flavor'?

I just want to make sure I've got the parameters right before hitting the eject tabs.

Please stop spamming this into every Paladin thread. It's starting to become annoying and repetitive imo.

Dαedαlus wrote:

EDIT: Look, Paizo. If you really, really have to include goblins in the core book (which you really don't and really shouldn't), put them in at the end with the note that "this race is unsuitable for most campaigns, but can still be an option for gamemasters who want to include more variety in their parties"

I think that's how they should do it. Without requiring a major rewrite of the race background in Golarion.

I wish I could vote for more than one. My votes would be

Paladins can be any alignment


Paladins remain LG with a concise, clear, fairly complete list of what can and will make them fall and they lose all their class abilites. Which must be adhered to by both players and DMs. No exceptions unless it's a homebrew campaign where DMs will change what they like or don't. That way bad DMs can no longer screw over players running Paladins and players who have no business playing them have to either follow what they can or cannot do. Make them less a problem at the table.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Not allowed to ambush anyone? Yeesh. And I say this as someone arguing for KEEPING Paladins LG.

Looking over his list and seeing some common sense tactics to be used by anyone including Paladins imo. His version of a Paladin is to play one with suicidal tendencies imo. Paladin must stupidly charge forward against overwhelming opposition calling attention to his allies even if it is detrimental to them and may cause their death. Throw out any common sense because dammit Paladins are supposed to throw their lives at every damn opportunity. Heroism is one thing. Throwing one lives away is not heroic imo.

Correct me if I am wrong where in literature or in any version of D&D are Paladins supposed to commit suicide. At the very least if someone asks me to show what a Lawful Stupid Paladin looks like I can point to Hwalsh list as a example.

To clarify I never meant no support. I'm not sure if we will see another Paizo. With the same resources and staff. 3 PP will continue. I could very well be wrong and someone will.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Yes, other characters have to not act like evil douches. That’s it.
Have you played/GMed Strange Aeons?

Not yet. Your post has me curious please elbaborate.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I would not mind seeing the Paladin as a prestige class.

That being said the same class must included a lengthy and detailed list of what can actually make them fall from grace. with the added stipulation that they must be adhered to by the DM and players. Too often both DMs and players really don't know how how to run/play the class. Having what can make them fall listed as a official rules removes the class having to be at the whims of the DM and the problematic player.

HWalsh wrote:

You totally don't speak for the player base here.

You have made yourself the ultimate authority on Paladins since the announcement of a new edition was made. This post feels like the ultimate in irony.

At this point no matter how much feedback is given to stop the development of 2E it simply will not. If it's the first thing one sees when going to the companies website it's will not be stopped.

At this point I'm not even sure if their will be another company who will pick up the rights to continue PF1. Either they keep the core and previously printed and build from there which I'm not sure they can. Or they do their own version of PF core then again it comes to having three core books that are fairly similar and will have some in the hobby questioning the cost of the book or even if it is worth purchasing. 3.5 to PF1 to 3PP PF. How many times can one set of rules be recycled.

Another issue is that the company that does continue PF1 may have less resources, time and willingness to devote on publishing new material. As I see it almost everyone will probably be jumping at the chance to publish more for PF2 even if it's not as popular instead of PF1. If one is used to getting a certain number of releases for Pathfinder they might be disappointed.

Like 2E D&D maybe it's time to call it a day on PF1. We have ten years of published material with more to arrive for some time yet. Their are endless years of gaming. As I said above I'm just not seeing someone rush out to publish PF1 especially with 5E being popular and fixing many issues. Even Green Ronin who I thought would be a someone who was going to release more for Pathfinder re-released their Book of the Righteous for 5E and only for that version so far. Maybe I'm totally wrong and the opposite will happen.

Except I don't think I am as unlike 4E which many disliked 5E is popular and their seems anecdotally to me less unhappy fans like they were for 4E to draw upon.

I will probably play both as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

But Goblin is a logical choice since Paizo has sort of made them their own. A distinct look, a Gremlins-like attitude and relationship with technology.

As long as they give a good in game reason as to why they are core with their background receiving a rewrite. Sort of like how they did it with Races of the Dragons sourcebook in 3.5. for Kobolds. Simply putting them in for a coolness factor is nice and all yet they can present a roleplaying challenge for players and extra work for the DM to incorporate at least into the Golarion. Goblins have a terrible reputation in Golarion they should not simply go away because they are Core.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

It's not childish to fight for something that you feel is important. I feel that this is important.

We get it you want the Paladin to remain as is.

Repeating it over and over is childish. after awhile I and possibly other will stop listening to what you have to say.

The issue with saying that they are not evil and some are not the usual goblin portrayed in the books. Is that a significant amount perhaps 80% or more as beavois has posted are " razed, simple-minded pyromaniac vandals who fear written words and horses ". Again it's the same issue with Drow in FR. Sure you might have a handful of good or less evil version. The majority are evil through and through. So unless Paizo is ditching alignment it would be hard with the how the race is written in the game world to have them core.

Don't get me wrong it's great to have them in core. Games being run in Golarion the player character would be the victim of hate, racism, and possibly even being outright attacked imo. Unless the race background is written from the ground up. Or something happens in the Golarion to change the race or people attitudes about them.

1 to 50 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>