colemcm's page

And you cant just beef up the numbers on the fighter, for instance, your idea of a fighter thats 'highly resistant to magic' is problematic. Because if he is dramatically more restant to magic, he trivializes the encounter with the evil wizard. If he's just a little bit more resistant to magic, well you are in the same boat as Fx lead us too, just with a different variable.

However this is exactly what the 1st edition Fighter was. They had some of the best saving throws in the game, because they didn't have magic and focused all of their training on being able to overcome whatever the magical world they existed in could throw at them.

I'm not sure why 3.0+ has insisted on making the Fighter the stereotypical dumb-jock. PF did a decent job in updating their fighting abilities from 3.X, but they're still 2/3 pathetic in the saves department.

Of course, that's off-topic.

Maybe I'm just a disgruntled old-school gamer, but one thing I always wondered about these kinds of posts is how the characters know that these items are available in-game? How does the monk character have this obscure lore about the functions and interactions of various magical items? Does he have a high degree of skill in Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft? Does he even have ANY?

Magic item creation is kind of a cottage industry. There are now ioun stone factories churning out a vast quantity of the exact kind of stone the player wants. How is the item just readily available because the player decided that he wants it?

WBL is a great tool for balancing the game. . . For the DM. It should never be used as a tool for the players to inform you of what items they have. Even if the character has the necessary skills to know about these things, how are the items automatically available? Does he start putting out feelers among merchants to find them? Do they sense how badly he wants the items and jack up the price accordingly?

In short, call BS when people try to meta-game like this. Bare minimum, make getting the items a serious challenge for them.

That seems to be designer M.O. Instead of admitting that something doesn't reflect reality and expanding the bounds of a weapon's attack possibility, just create a feat to allow someone to do it or give a huge penalty when they try it. Like the thread on here about having to take a -4 to use the butt of a spear to hit someone because it's technically an improvised weapon.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

But this is a digression: I was agreeing with the idea that crossbows were designed as simple weapons, and they are quite deliberately not as good as bows. And I'm okay with that.

And I was stating that even with the penalties, I still find the bow preferable to the crossbow.

So, for my level 2 sorcerer, I should prefer a 25% chance of doing 1d8-1 damage to a 45% chance of doing 1d8, just to save a move action? Even if that move action doesn't occur during combat, or I wouldn't have moved anyway? (I'm assuming a target with an AC of 14, since that's the Bestiary guideline for CR 2)

Saying 'both options are so bad you should use a cantrip instead' is moving the goalposts.

Sorry. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the character that eventually gets to nuke entire villages having to struggle at the beginning with not being optimal in combat with a weapon.

Separating one historical era from another is highly problematic. Historians usually do so by selecting a significant development that was instrumental in the transition of one era to another, in this case the development was humanism. It seems to be an artificial distinction to draw, and it is. Historians debate when eras begin or end all of the time. I assert that humanism was an important element in the establishing the Renaissance era.

Again, humanism has little to nothing to do with secular humanism in this context.

To state that the Renaissance didn't happen because it wasn't ubiquitous in Western society is akin to stating that plate armor never developed because foot soldiers didn't get access to it.

colemcm wrote:

I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.

If the renaissance was only humanism, we'd only be talking about humanism. The renaissance is also thought to be a period of reborn western culture, increased secular learning, and quality of life. Except that for the vast majority of european people, this wasn't the case.

• Education didn't become significantly widespread, staying in the hands of the wealthy and the nobility
  
• Most humanists were not truly secular thinkers, and many were even members of the clergy.
  
• The term implies that the medieval age was a period of non-learning, stuck between the Romans and the Renaissance. This isn't the case.
  
• Most people still lived rurally and worked agriculturally. It wasn't as if this was a period of technological revolution.
  
• Mortality rates increased in some areas of Europe, so it wasn't as if increases in quality of life were universal

Even if we were to say it was something that happened, "The Renaissance" is a laughably Eurocentric view to apply to a setting like Golarion or any that stretches beyond the typically Western trappings of fantasy. The far East and most of the Islamic world were either not influenced by Aristotle, or had already been studying Greek and Roman philosophy for centuries.

I never made the claim that no learning occurred during the medieval period. Nor have I claimed that everyone's life was enriched during this time.

Humanism was not a secular movement, it was a religious one. It was a revival of Greek/Hellenistic methods of thought in the process of learning, which had formally been based pretty much on interpreting scripture. It also saw the application of these methods (primarily Platonic and Aristotelian thought) to interpreting scripture. This was a significant departure from the vast majority of medieval learning and that distinction is important.

As far as applying the renaissance to Golarion, I've already stated that I was referring to it in the same way that the DM's Guide uses the ter renaissance as a demarcation of technological development. I make no assertion that our world and Golarion are analogous in any way. So everyone can stop trying to set this straw man argument on fire.

I think it's a mistake to treat the renaissance as something that didn't really happen. Of course it's difficult to define when one era transitions into another, but the emergence of the humanism had a profound impact on the development of Western society. This is what the renaissance was.

Viewing history from a vulgar perspective is a relatively new approach. It was usually viewed from the perspective of high society.

Unfortunately, codifying the alignment system would probably lead to adding a section to the book that is almost as large as the magic section.

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.

Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.

First: Pathfinder's not really a medieval setting. It's more of a renaissance setting.

Second: Don't confuse the propaganda of who these men were with the reality. These knights were not paladins as the game describes them. Giving them holy titles had more to do with the exercise of political power on the part of the church. The church described them as good because they served the church. Much like terrorist organizations describe suicide bombers as good. This is not a matter of morality (which alignment is), it's a matter of political power.

Propaganda of what is good is not the same as the reality of what is good.

Using Dex as the primary combat stat makes sense for systems that have a defense value, but since D&D incorporates armor as defense instead of damage mitigation, Str makes more sense.

If armor provided DR, Dex would make more sense, since striking someone would be a matter of one person's agility against the agility of another. Str would still be required to determine damage.

It's been a long time since I played, actually. I usually ended up doing very episodic adventures. My group only got together every couple of weeks, so details easily got lost in the shuffle between games.

Anyways, I'd usually start at the end of the plot. Then work my way back, adding NPCs (how/if they're involved) and add in extra possible hooks. Kind of an "all roads lead to Rome" approach. Not all hooks get noticed, so it's good to have back-ups.

I like personalized stories, so I have my players write up detailed histories and base some of my games off of those.

-I find these arguments over paladins a sign of the amorality of the times.

-60 years ago they would not have such arguments.

That's not really true. The idea that people are less moral than they used to be is a fallacy.

My dad thinks that people were nicer in the '50s and they were. . . if you were a white kid living in middle-class suburbia. It wasn't so good for a lot of other people.

A little over 60 years ago the U.S. gave immunity to Japanese scientists who had engaged in gruesome biological and chemical experimentation on Chinese citizens in exchange for the results of their research. If you don't believe me, look up Unit 731. It's well documented.

There is no Golden Age. Every generation has to learn what it means to be moral.

Guys, please remember this is d&d. It's medieval fantasy. Back then it was ok to kill people just for being evil. You can rule it however you wish in your games but the "you can't kill them just because they're evil" is a much more modern mind set.

If only this were a thing of the past. The idea that you can kill whoever you want because they're evil is still alive and kicking.

Please tell me that the were-rabbit is a wandering samurai.

One thing that's always bothered me about D&D is the incredible historical inaccuracy of weapon statistics.

• Most of the weapon's weights are messed up.
• Longswords and bastard swords are consider different weapons and you cannot perform a thrusting maneuver with either of them.
• A buckler is a small shield worn on the forearm that you cannot bash someone with, when the exact opposite of both of those is the truth.
• Falchions somehow became two-handed scimitars.
• Only composite bows allow for greater draw weights.
• Apparently the butt end of a spear is not a viable weapon.
• Kamas and sickles are somehow different.
• A single lead sling bullet weighs in at 1/2 lb., instead of about 1 oz.
• A sap requires military level training.

I'm sure there are more, but you get my point.

With only a week to start and play a game, I wonder if a simpler OSR game, like Swords & Wizardry or Basic Fantasy RPG, isn't a better option. There's a lot less crunch that a player has to do in order to make a character and it leaves a lot more up to their imagination.

Regardless of the nonsense that is the Lawful alignment, a paladin's code demands that they respect legitimate authority. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the paladin is probably operating in a society that is against murdering people and has passed laws against it.

The paladin may think that their deity/cause gives them all the authorization they need, but if I were DMing this paladin, he'd be tried and executed for murder by the government of the country he's in.

Evil People are Evil folks. They are truly down to their core Evil and reprehensible people. Killing someone who is Evil for "no reason but he's evil(Which means he's done something horrible in his lifetime or has been eking it out over the years but apparently that doesn't matter because the Paladin doesn't know that)" is still an objectively Good action in a world with Objective Morality. Evil was killed thus there is less Evil in the world which by comparison is Good.

I've got to disagree with you. Killing people is never a good act. It may be a necessary act, but it's never good. Good is for the benefit of all, including evil people. When an evil person causes harm and refuses to turn away from his course of action, that's when the good person must act against them. Killing is the last resort, even if it's the best option.

The biggest problem with the Fighter is that he's poorly envisioned and executed. A Fighter should not be about specialization, but about generalization. A Fighter should be about being versatile and deadly regardless of the circumstances he finds himself in and no matter what weapon he's armed with. Leave specialization to Rangers and Paladins.

So here's what I'd recommend for Fighters:

1. Ditch Weapon Training and give them a level-based damage bonus that works with any weapon. Fighters know that you have to use the right tool to get the job done. Just as a hammer makes a crappy screwdriver, a greatsword isn't always the appropriate weapon. A longspear is a much better weapon against a dragon and a shortsword is far more functional inside a building or tunnel. A warrior that spends all his effort on a single weapon is going to fall short when that weapon can't be used.
2. All of their saving throws should be good. The Fighter is a non-magical character in a magical world. They know what they're up against and they would have trained to overcome whatever strategies/abilities an enemy will throw at them. They may not have magic, but the're not idiots.
3. Reduce the number of bonus feats they get and give them access to special tactical abilities that allow them to counter their opponents' offensive and defensive strategies.
4. Give them 4 skill points as a base and at least Perception as a class skill. We can move past the trope that Fighters are big, dumb guys in armor that need others to think for them. That character should be an option, not a mandate.

Agreed. I didn't want to bring in the Intelligence factor for skills because, even though it has a definite impact, it's too variable. I chose instead to remove the individual character from the equation and compare only what the classes actually grant.

In my opinion, many (not all) of the threads like this on this site revolve around one issue; a player desires to play a character concept and are forced to play a character class instead. Quite simply, Pathfinder is poorly suited to support any character concept that goes beyond the character concept inherent to a class. Pathfinder is better than past versions of D&D, but it's still limited to class roles and doesn't like to blur those lines.

That's exactly why martial classes should be fixed. A martial class shouldn't HAVE TO dip into anything else to be an effective class.

Guy

I think dipping into Monk would set them back. They'll get a lot more benefit from Fighter levels, especially if they push through to 11th when they get Counterattack and can make AoOs against enemies that hit them in combat (with Combat Reflexes and a 20+ DEX, that's a lot of extra attacks in a round).

The bonus to saves would help them in the short run, but they get enough feats as a Fighter to take Iron Will and the like if they want to bolster their saves.

Plus, Monk is too MAD for a 15 point game.

Doug

Sorry about that, I should have included a breakdown. I'll do that here and edit my first post as well.

The 22 AC comes from:
• DEX +5 dodge
• Fighting defensively +6 dodge
- (Acrobatics +3, Steel Net +2, Crane Style +1)
• Shield +1
- Aldori Dueling Mastery (which you get for free from the Aldori
Swordlord PrC at 1st).

The +2 dodge bonus when making a full attack is from the archetype's 3rd level Defensive Parry ability.

Edit: never mind. It's too late to edit my earlier post.

Which version of PF are you playing? In the current edition, half-orcs and humans have the exact same stat bonus.

+1 "Masterwork qualities besides +1 to hit/+2 to a skill/-1 armor check penalty."

I'd like to see rules for masterwork qualities that grant bonuses for or penalties against specific combat maneuvers or expand the max dex range for armors. i.e. anti-disarm swords, sunder blades, masterwork leather armor that isn't almost entirely pointless, etc. . .