Viktyr Gehrig's page

There's no need to be this way when I'm clearly neutral on the subject and keeping my opinions out of it. If you were fishing for my opinion then fine, it's "The child is a part of the natural process of the creature's body until it tries to separate, AKA birth, and shapeshifting should just be dangerous near birth." This is something the DM also came up with independently, and what we are going with.

You know, I didn't express any personal opinion about you and your game until you said this-- I asked you directly, knowing your player's wishes in advance, what benefit you thought you were going to derive from taking the game in a very personal and potentially very hurtful direction instead. You've now confirmed that you're doing this anyway, using historically less-than-ideal attitudes towards pregnancy and childbirth as justification, and you're complaining that I'm being rude to you?

You are literally trying to explain to me how magical shapeshifting powers would "realistically" impact pregnancy to justify turning your game into an abortion simulator at the expense of your players' expressed wishes and concerns.

I still haven't expressed my personal opinion of you and your game, but at least now I am heavily implying it by comparison. If you think the shoe fits, I'm not going to stop you from lacing it up and wearing it to town.

Your player told you how she wants it to work-- can you honestly think of a single halfway decent reason that it should not work that way? Can you think of a single, solitary way that making it work any other way is going to make the game more fun for anyone sitting at the table?

Whoever wrote the rule you think you remember is obviously a tremendous a+%&@#$, and the biggest tragedy here is that you don't remember his name so you won't know not to take anything he says seriously in the future.

Just taking away touch AC with no other benefit is too much of a nerf.

What was it SKR said, about some weapons not being very good in the game because they're not very good in real life?

It's kinda like that, except actually realistic.

Honestly I'd like to see a menu list of options that are subbed out for standard abilities (That Paizo believes are equivalent exchanges) to allow a player to customize their base class so no two fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics etc. are the same.

Rogue Genius Games has done this for the majority of the CRB classes, plus the Cavalier and Witch, in the series Rogue Genius Guide to the Talented $CLASS and Rogue Genius Guide to More $CLASS Talents.

I miiiiight be laying it on a little too thick trying to convince them to finish the APG classes and tackle the ACG and Ultimate classes... and maybe Occult Adventures... and DSP psionics.

A Prestige Class that acts to support a multiclass character archetype by advancing (some of) the features of two classes simultaneously-- like Mystic Theurge.

As for Cleric, avoiding death forever kinda seems opposite their entire thing. How does one get powers from a god then work to avoid ever meeting that god?

"When She wants me, She always knows where to find me. Until then, I've got Her work to do."

Your multiclassing classes continue unaffected because they are "bought" with the 3 feats (each)... just like VMC continues through a prestige class.

Thank you. I know I came back at you a little too hot, and I really appreciate you responding in good faith.

The idea of the Prestige Class replacing the main class has merit... it bothers me on some level, but I'll have to think about it further.

So... I've always hated the way multiclassing works in D&D 3.X and Pathfinder. I've been trying to fix it, nearly consistently, for the past fifteen years and I've gotten into a lot of stupid and pointless arguments with people who don't think it needs to be fixed.

Luckily, I am now in possession of Tipsy Tabby Publishing's Overhauling Multiclassing rules, which use a much more elegant implementation of fixed-progression Gestalt than my own-- you may select one secondary class, you take multiclass feats (with ability prerequisites a la 5e) to upgrade your chassis, and when you're at least 5th level with at least 2 multiclassing feats, you can take the Cross-Training feat that gives you all of the class features of your secondary class at your character level -4.

This is leagues better than the original system, and likewise leagues better than anything I ever came up with.

But there are still four major problems that I think can be improved, and that I'd like to address.

1. Cost versus Benefit: Three feats for all of the class features of a secondary class just feels too good. Compare five feats for all of the "benefits" of Variant Multiclassing. Being multiclassed needs to detract something from the primary class, as well. (But my previous attempt to use Level Adjustment were awful.)
   
2. Low Level Characters: You don't get any of the class features of your secondary class until 5th level. Many games don't even last that long.
   
3. Triple-Class Characters: Not supported. This probably isn't much of a problem, because you can approximate most classic AD&D triples with the right Archetypes and Hybrids.
   
4. Prestige Classes: Not supported, and this is the reason I'm starting this thread.
   

Cost Versus Benefit

I think I've got this one licked, as long as I don't try to implement Triple-Class characters. Also, for the record, I am an idiot sandwich. Pathfinder already has a mechanism for encouraging characters to stay single-class: Favored Class Bonuses. Single-class characters get Favored Class Bonuses; the level they take a multiclass feat, they stop.

Low-Level Characters

Just add a multiclass feat that grants the 1st-level features of the chosen class. This is your entry-level multiclass feat, overwritten by Cross-Training later.

Triple-Class Characters

I've got nothing, and I'm honestly half-convinced that I shouldn't even attempt this. On the other hand, I really want to.

Prestige Classes

This is a real sticking point because a lot of cool concepts in 3.X and PF are gated behind the Prestige Class system. Also, a lot of the later "multige" classes did unique things beyond just +1 spellcaster level/+1 spellcaster level that... should be available to multiclass characters in some capacity, but probably aren't worth a whole class with fixed progression.

And there's the rub: most Prestige Classes are obviously designed to replace the class features of the base class, not co-exist with them. +1 spellcaster level is only the most obvious example... but in a fixed progression game, it's meaningless. Easy enough to ignore, but suddenly a 5/10 casting PrC is the exact same as a 10/10 casting PrC.

I'm generally thinking that your first (and only) Prestige Class should just be "free": meet the prerequisites, choose it, and advance. Prestige Classes would not count against being single-classed for the purposes of FCBs. There's a part of me that wants to support having more than one Prestige Class, but I'm pretty sure that would lead to nothing but shenanigans and ruination.

So that's where I'm at. Any ideas?

First thought is Genies. Then Dragons.

Oooh: an alien/aberration-focused Druid and Shifter.

Fleshgrafts. Specifically fleshgrafts that are not limited to Evil characters and aren't saddled with ludicrous drawbacks.

A Fleshwarper archetype and/or Prestige Class... compatible with the alien/aberration Druid archetype mentioned above.

Martial archetypes for the recipients of fleshgrafts.

Campaign settings that weren't attached to Golarion, and weren't fantasy kitchen sinks. Golarion's fine... I just really would have liked to see what Paizo could have done with more focused themes.

... okay, and I'm going to go there: Chaotic. Good. Paladin. Archetype.

edit: And while we're going there, how about an explicitly Chaotic Monk archetype that doesn't give up all of their supernatural abilities?

So looking at something like Inevitable Strike compared to Truestrike I can definitely understand an argument on how good Psionics are.

Truestrike. +20 to your next attack as a standard action.

Inevitable Strike. +20 to your next attack as a standard action. Or +5 as a swift action. And either get +2 per powerpoint spent up to a maximum of +25.

It should be better. If you augment it up to +25, it's the equivalent of a 6th level spell.

Things I would like to have seen are unchained versions of every class and as someone mentioned above, the ability to swap out some class abilities for alternate ones for every class.

If you're open to 3pp, Rogue Genius Games does this brilliantly with the "Genius Guide to the Talented <$CLASS>" series.

FaerieGodfather wrote:

Definitely more support for racial options and nonstandard races.

You should check out the Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Compendium. It covers 12 non-core book races in solid detail. Plus it has a 4.5-Star rating from Endzeitgeist.

I tried man, I really did, but DTRPG says I can't buy another copy.

Definitely more support for racial options and nonstandard races.

Right now, the Druid is a better natural weapon user than the Shifter :S

They took a class whose primary focus is 9 level spellcasting, and who has an animal companion and shapeshifting as secondary abilities.

They took a class with Full BAB and shapeshifting as its primary focuses, with no spellcasting and no animal companion.

And they decided that what they needed to do to balance these classes was to nerf the shapeshifting abilities of the second class, the one for whom shapeshifting was, again, their primary focus.

God bless them. I love so much of their work, but their ideas about how classes that don't cast spells should compare to classes that do are just incomprhensible.

Sure, why not. Just remember that while these are only my opinions, they're still better than yours.

Liked: The artwork. Bloodlines and School Powers. The Witch class, the idea of the Shifter class. Archetypes. Racial Favored Class Bonuses. Literally all of Pathfinder Unchained. Second Darkness, Distant Worlds, People of the Stars. Dreamscarred Press and Rogue Genius Games.

Hated: exacerbating 3.5's caster supremacy, nerfing combat feats, refusing to include "multige" classes, the firearms rules and everything that touches them, SKR's attitude towards Monks, Gray Guards and Hellknights, people who defend Gray Guards and Hellknights, people who defend Gray Guards and Hellknights while whining that NG or CG Paladins will ruin the entire game as we know it, and the Psychic classes.

Wanted: More space stuff, more non-European stuff, more weird stuff, better multiclassing support, mostly just less stuff from my "Hated" list.

Will Miss: The artwork, mostly, and the familiar iconics. I'm going to miss the version of Pathfinder that I work with being the curent version with the most discussion about it.

Look, if you want your character to torture people... I'm just going to ask you to play a different character.

If you try to rationalize to me how torturing people is compatible with a Good alignment, I'm going to ask you to leave my house and never come back.

If your DM is comfortable allowing you to play this character, just be honest and write "Chaotic Evil" on your character sheet.

Since the (healing) subschool was inexplicably removed from it in 3e, my answer would be Necromancy. Add those spells back in... and it would be my favorite again.

It isn't that it's mostly Evil, it's just that it has relatively few spells I'd be interested in casting.

It literally does not matter that alignment/morality is supposedly objective in the in-game universe when it is not objectively defined by the rules and thus cannot be adjudicated objectively or consistently between games.

Morality is universal.

Player's opinions tend to project into the game. Deal with it.

It's not a matter of "tending to". As vaguely as the morality of alignment is defined in D&D/PF-- inescapably, I suspect-- it's simply impossible for the majority of alignment to not be defined by the moral opinions of the people enforcing the alignment rules.

The problem is that 100% of that authority is given to the Dungeon Master, with no explanation or guidance as to the fact that he's not morally infallible and that legitimate differences of opinion need to be respected.

How would you improve alignment in PF2e?

Alignments are metaphysical forces like the f*&!ing books say they're supposed to be: remove "Neutral" as an alignment. "Neutral Good" is just "Good", and "Neutral" is either "Balance" or "Unaligned".

Unless your class or creature type is explicitly about the balance of those metaphysical forces, you're not required to have an alignment and you probably don't. No spell or ability targets Unaligned.

Distinguish Primal from Divine. Most Primal casters are Unaligned. Adding a Balance requirement and a Code of Conduct is a Prestige Class option.

Any class that has an Alignment requirement has an Oath that clearly and objectively defines the behavior required of the class. Ideally, there are multiple Oaths per such class.

What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?

The rules state that alignment is a system of objective morality, that they are explicitly not subject to individual interpretation, and are then so vague and inconsistent that they require subjective individual interpretation on the part of the DM.

If Alignment is going to be bright lines and sharp distinctions, then it needs to be clearly defined in the game rules.

If it's going to continue being murky, then it needs to be considerably more flexible and the rules need to assume that players and DMs will have good-faith disagreements over alignment issues-- that players should not be punished for.

* Necromancy and evil undead

* Evil spell descriptors

There's an in-universe explanation for why these things are Evil, and I generally accept it-- they're not morally wrong, they literally channel the power of Evil, leaving its residue behind in the caster.

Poison, on the other hand, has no such rationale... and the only book that tried to explain why poison was Evil also included special, extra painful holy poisons that were okay because they only worked... on the exact same enemies the PCs would have been poisoning anyway.

* CG and NG paladin-like classes

You know, bad as I want a CG Paladin variant, its absence is not a problem.

The problem is DMs and players disagreeing on what LG means because the rules don't acknowledge that they are subjective as f+&$.

If a class is supposed to have a Code of Conduct, the rules need to give it a Code of f+~*ing Conduct that spells out what offenses are and how severe offenses are, and doesn't rely on meaningless weaselwords like "legitimate authority".

Why is Lawful Good the hill to die on, rather than Human/part-Human?

In an uncharacteristic act of charity... I might point out that Lawful Good might be the hill to die on because it's the only hill left after everything you just pointed out.

"Tradition" only dates back to 2000 here. Anything before 2000 has no bearing on the One True Way.

I've been hearing that for the past ten years.

Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.

Paladin, Knight, and Avenger are name-level class options (basically Prestige Classes) for Fighters.

Druid is a name-level option for Clerics.

Bard was a Prestige Class in 1e AD&D, but there's no precedent in D&D I'm aware of.

Still, respect does not necessarily means "complete obedience". This is the sort of thing GMs and players talk at session-0.

What page of the CRB do the words "session 0" or "social contract" appear on? Asking for a friend.

These variants ARE NOT paladins, both lore and rules state that (and if they do not, it's also bad).

Look, if you want to argue that the Antipaladin isn't really a Paladin because its name is different, even though it gets its eerily similar powers the same way-- that's up to you, I guess.

But this exists.

Also, I hope I don't have to say it again: *Exceptions do not change the norm*! Paladin variants (although I don't particularly like them, for reasons I've already stated here) do not change the standard Paladin. Removing the alignment restriction on all Paladin-y options *is* changing the class!

I don't think I'm arguing with you, then.

I'm not trying to remove the "alignment restriction" on the Paladin. I'm trying to make them multiple choice, with several variations on Lawful Good and maybe two or three Neutral Good or Chaotic Good options.

But the existence of multiple "Evil Paladin" variants and "Good In Name Only" variants absolutely dilutes the Paladin class further than anything I'm proposing-- and paints all of your arguments that Paladins are special as hypocritical nonsense.

Why, exactly, is a Chaotic Good Paladin so much more offensive to the sensibilities of the traditionalists than a Chaotic Evil one?

It's not about the Paladin's power, it's about the Palaidn's powers.

What your character can do is who your character is. A character that doesn't have the Paladin's powers-- even if they have better powers-- is not a Paladin.

Like I said... I want to be able to smite evil on slavers and lay on hands their former property without Falling because the GM decides using lethal force before I am personally attacked is Evil or because disrupting legal trafficking in humanoid women and children is Chaotic.

I don't want to make the Paladin's Code less strict. I want to make it less arbitrary by giving it actual, objective definitions-- and then providing alternatives for different kinds of Good.

Don't you find it odd that there are more flavors of Evil "Paladin" than there are actual Paladins?

FaerieGodfather wrote:

I don't want it gone, I just want it off my neck.

It already is, slap N on the alignment portion of your character sheet.

Unless I am playing a Monk. Or a Shifter, and my DM decides I'm just a little too CG to keep advancing in my class.

It's just huge amounts of content that you don't notice if you run a game without alignment, but that you'd basically never be able to replicate if you tried to inject it on top of a game that lacks alignment completely.

This. I want alignment to still be a part of the game-- I want aligned Outsiders, and touched or tainted mortals, to have alignment subtypes and be affected by aligned magic.

I just want it to have very little effect on mortals who are not explicitly tied to the metaphysical forces alignment represents, and to be more clearly/consistently/thoroughly delineated for player characters who are supposed to be.

I don't want it gone, I just want it off my neck.

Bard: Expanded Repertoire.

Cleric: Warmage casting, with a narrow base list and expanded Domains. Advanced Learning.

Druid: Tone spellcasting, shapeshifting, and animal companion way down; allow Druids to choose one to function at the PF1 level.

Monk:I don't know what I want; I just know that I want it. Full martial and flexible mundane/magical powers are a good start.

Rogue: Make them a full-martial class, like Ranger or Paladin.

Paladin: Multiple Oaths with separate, strict but clear Codes of Conduct.

Ranger: Spell-less as a core option. Make it include the Shifter class as a core option.

Sorcerer: Different, narrower spell list than Wizard, but broader Bloodline spell lists.

Wizard: Arcanist casting. Spell Mastery grants Spells Known.

Witch: Make. It. Core. Arcanist casting plus Spell Mastery. Make eldritch blast and its modifications into Hexes.

Basically Zork with lots of other people. When WoW came out, all the cool kids left. :(

All the cool kids may be gone, but the scene's still clinging to life support. I am trying to develop my own MUD based on my Shroompunk setting... trying to design something that combines permadeath with PVP and makes it work.

HWalsh wrote:

Nah, Harry Dresden has always been Neutral Good with Lawful leanings. He is most certainly not, and never has been, Evil. Absolutely not Chaotic Evil.

** spoiler omitted **

Harry Dresden is hardcore Chaotic Good. Both before and after Book 12.

Several of his decisions in Changes were Evil. Eeeeevil. And he made them, damned well knowing they were.

Michael Carpenter would never have made those decisions, even to save his wife and his children.

But that's the difference between Regular Good and Exalted Good.

After everything he did, though, he's still going to put himself between innocent people and monsters bigger even than the one he's become. You dangle certain reasons in front of him, and like anybody, he will do the wrong thing... but he's still going to die doing the right thing.

"Creating undead, mindless or otherwise, requires channeling toxic spiritual energies-- literal Evil-- that corrupt the caster's soul and leave them spiritually less capable of feeling compassion."

Pathfinder isn't trying to do that though. They are emulating the fantasy. Which, in no way, insults the real world history of combat.

What alignment is Danny Rand? Sun Wukong?

The "Monks must be Lawful" doesn't have any roots in the source material. It is an artificial, arbitrary restriction that actually makes Pathfinder worse at the narrative concerns you're using to justify it.

I do like pallys being LG but I can live with some extensions like any good.

Yeah. I want multiple flavors of Paladin, but I want all of them to be Good. I just want the rules about how a Paladin is supposed to behave to be clearer and more consistent.