seekerofshadowlight's page

I have not had to have Surgery yet, Mines pinched between the L3/L4. Not a whole lot of options for fixing it that might not make it worse. But like you, the pain is better than being hunched over, gods that suuuuucked. I get the pins and needles, and my leg likes to go to sleep and I get the ultra fun shocks. But eh, bets the other options right?

I think Kris may have a bit of a crush on Lord Borak

@atlas2112 That was....not expected. LOL.

I'm seeing a lot of Heavy hardship and Medium weapon combinations, myself among them.

Not gonna lie, I totally built mine around that Tomahawk/warhammer image.

As a group feel free to explain what you have done if you wish as some have already. in The ooc thread you can say when you guys are ready to move on.

Lord Borak has little trouble spotting nests, its almost as if he has a gift for it. BlackThorne just shrugs and lets the crazy man take the lead

To be honest, I may just start with 8 for the very reasons Zenfox gave. I have ran games with 7 and RL with 8 once. But online, well life likes to slam into folks and the pbp Attrition rate is real.

GM niles makes some good suggestions too. I was pleasantly surprised by the number of folks wanting to play. So two groups is an option I will think about as well. I'll think about it over the weekend. I was trying to give time for our last applicant to get his PC done.

Either if I do one group or two I will get things rolling Monday( or late Sunday night) I am a bit of a night hawk and my posting is often late evening or early morning( I mean well before dawn lol) EST.

Also, did I miss anyone,? I counted 8 but GM Niles said 5 and 5

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Okay this is what I am seeing. You get a d4 in Athletics, Common Knowledge, Notice, Persuasion, Stealth and Native Lang is a free d8

** spoiler omitted **

No, you seem to be counting correctly....I don't know why there's the discrepancy.

Me either, I counted it a few times to make sure. I thought maybe "Ugly" removed a point or something, but no that does not seem to be the case. Maybe something did not get clicked and its counting a free point as a pay point. Anyhow, its an easy fix.

The Current Version is SWADE, its called "Deadlands: The weird west". I can list the new edges and such from the book, there are some changes. If you have Deadlands:Reloaded or SWD you should be able to use the official conversion document with little issue. I'll start setting stuff up should not be more than a few days.

Changes to Deadlands
Deadlands lore is mostly the same in the new edition, with one major change. The Civil War ended in 1871, after the battle of Washington. The CAS lost and is gone. Its all good ol USA with messy reconstruction and ex confeds and racists groups popping up after the long war. Even 1e years after the war was lost the south is a mess, much like RL.

Good luck with both the house guests and the kids lol

I love the change.I used something like this in my homebrew and always found the D&D gold system a bt odd when people in RL used silver.

I am gonna say I did not know the G word was a slur. I have not used it much IRL, but I am glad I stumbled across this thread

To be honest once it said LG only I stopped reading.

Something like short and long rest works great. Really, people need to get out of this idea that HP are wounds, they aren't.

So you really just want to have all the benefits that a powerful class like the Paladin has with none of the restrictions. You want the mechanics of the class, but not the heart of the class.

Dude, in PF a paladin is tier 4 class, out of 5. Its bottom rung of power gaming, on power gamer worth the name is looking to powergame freaking paladin.

Now I was asked what could make one fall, and really if your belief is powering you, not much can make you fall. People do some, evil, evil things and still think they are the "good guys" and are doing the right thing. This is why, to me paladins need a god.

And the Oathbreaker Oath from 5e is not "free", you have thrown away everything you are to get it. You can be redeemed,but its there for those who throw away their very self image, but want to cling to paladin hood.

5e has many Oaths,each and every one has a code. There is no need to be LG, so being an Oathbreaker is big deal. Its a bigger deal than falling over n Alignment argument or moment of weakness, because you tossed away your Oath, you broke it , not by mistake, not over an Argument over AL which no two people even agree on, but a clear cut, well lid out oath you tossed to the ground and walked all over.

You see "power gaming" where I see fantastic Roleplying.

[

They are both reestrictions, they are both the same.

You clearly believe one should be removed, but ultimately that is just your preference over one reestriction to go and one to remain.

Having codes is core of pathfinder paladin? It certanly is, but here is the thing, so is being LG.

Ofc people can houserule this, but we can do so anything the game has too.

And so, the equivalence fallacy.

A code and alignment are not the same, not even close. The code can be done by wide range of alignments and, as has been explained to you, is clear cut. Its not open for two people to disagree on what it might mean. Because two people will ever agree on how a set AL should act.

The code is not the same as LG. Mny AL's can pull that code off NG, LN, TN, CG,heck LE could likely pull the code off.

And it has been explained to you a dozen times over why "You can just house rule it" does not work as a defense or argument.

I chose to invoke the 5th edt paladin because it is tossed around often as it is the same as the pathfinder paladin. Which it isnt.

The name "paladin" can be granted to both, that doesnt make both the same. The name paladin is actually tossed around a LOT, it has a LOT of variation, even if it has a general concept, it is far from being exactly the same each time.

You invoked D&D. It is a paladin, says so in the PHB, so you're incorrect claiming it is not. Once you bring D&D into the argument, you brought in 5E and its non-LG paladins.

Im going to go on a limb here and say they probably also stopped to think about it before they bindly make the call that if it is house ruled often, then it should change.

Which is exactly what they should do here once more. Ultimately, it will be for sure houseruled back too, since over 10 years of PF this has been core to the paladin, therefore, if it is simply because it will get house ruled anyway, then there is no point for the change at all.

No, it won't be Houseruled back in many games, You are making the same kinda claims made about taking away human only. We see how well that held up. Or how often its houseruled in 5e, not every often by the look of things because guess what? Non-LG Devotion paladins keep to the classic code.

You have yet to show a single reason why it should stay LG only. D&D has shown that is not needed and removing it not only brings more paladins to the table, it kills one of the oldest game killing arguments in the game. Heck, people no longer fear paladins in the party as its no longer a game killer.

Prft, a single edition of game is not even a tradition, you are building it off D&D, you have invoked it a number of times. D&D says you are wrong, and has proven it.

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

I tend to ignore them myself other than as fluff.

Me too. It is easy to do, and other people enjoy them, so I see no point removing them

Move em to "optional" as some folks re strictly RAW.

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

I tend to ignore them myself other than as fluff.

They are basically fluff... but very fun fluff with the occasional mechanical impact.

I ignore the second, and really only use the first if player wants to use it.

I tend to ignore them myself other than as fluff.

How dare they tease us by not Teasing us!

You got the irony of this debacle.

The answer? Cause they think this is the stop gap.

Nope, I have never seen anyone claim this, ever.

They accuse others of being too restrictive while keeping restrictions themselves, ofc the ones they deem resonable, which all is too hilarious.

One has little to do with the other. You are making a false equivalency claim here

Again paladin is LG in PF, a 5th paladin is NOT a pathfinder paladin AT ALL. In PF keeping paladin LG and with its code is quite reasonable, it is how it works and how many expect it to work, as been seem in the previous pool thread.

You choose to invoked D&D and that is a D&D paladin, which puts lie to many claims you make. You can stick by the classic code and be non-LG or have a non-classic code and guess what, you're still a paladin.

Also, pointing that people houserule this a lot is meaningless, it will also be houseruled back a lot even if removed, i already even know what my houserule number 1 will be if paizo changes this.

No, its not pointless, this was one reason the race restriction got removed. Because like AL, it was house ruled all the time.

Sorry but no:

-you can’t “make a CE paladin right now”. You can make an anti paladin, with MANDATORY CE alignment, notice how (1) anti paladin is a different class from paladin and (2) how “anti paladin” actually means “the opposite of paladin”.

Yet, its pretty much paladin but made cartoony evil

-The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil. You want to change the class to a generic holy warrior class that can champion any alignment, which is the problem for the many people who oppose the change you incessantly lobby for.

Paladins in D&D are not limited to LG. You may choose to play a LG paladin if you wish, but its not required. Paladins re not champions of n alignment, they are holy warriors and that has always been the core of the class

-All this doesn’t mean you can’t have of should have different classes who embody different alignments. I think they should be designed and implemented in the game. They won’t be paladins but something else though. And each one should have its own MANDATORY ALIGNMENT.

A non-LG paladin is still a paladin, good, evil or in between. No need for new class. D&D puts lie to your claim non LG paladins re not paladins.

-That said, I must admit I do believe the people who keep lobbying for removal of the paladin as is don’t really care about the class at all and just keep asking because they see this as an important step for removing alignment entirely, something they feel it would be easier to obtain if the paladin were no longer the embodyment of LG ideale.

No, its just a stupid restriction, like the Human only was a stupid restriction and Druids having to be TN only was stupid restriction. This has been on of the most common house rules since the creation of the class. D&D has proved you can be non- LG and still be a pure up classic paladin, but thats simply not the only way to play a paladin.

err.. I have a name, you know, you can use it.

on the topic of

Quote:

as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doing

are you sure? look at what Marvel Studios has done over the last decade with their Cinematic Universe. Now THAT was a game changer. Look at all the businesses that tried their best to emulate that model and see how fast they crashed and burned. Was it in Universal's best interest to try to start their cinematic universe and crashland twice over the last, what?, 5 years? Was it in WB's best business interest to try to start their DC cinematic universe with Green Lantern, only to fail spectaculary and then to start it again with those awful Snyder movies?

Sometimes the best one business can do is to look at what the competitors do and just go in a different direction than to try and copy their success

WB's Arrowverse has done the same thing as the MCU and id doing dmned well in its nitch. The fact DC's movies can't is a management issue, not a flaw in the product they failed to emulate. DC simply did suck job of copying and did it wrong.

I m not saying for Paizo to copy 5e, but you can bet they are watching it. And one thing 5e has over PF is ease of use, its easy to teach and pick up. 3.x is not and never has been.

This again?

"We want no more alignment and we'll keep making the same argument over and over again until we get what we want!"

"Me want play chaotic evil "paladin" of gruesome destruction! Gnurf!"

You can do CE paladins now. Funny how you can have any AL paladins in 5e, yet the world did not end and the game runs fine. Your first comment is pretty much the reason given for not allowing non-LG paladins "we don't want them, shut up" even though its likely the most common house rules in D&D history.

And I'm fine with a simpler system, but simple also does not mean better.

Consistency makes game design easier, not necessarily simple consistency.

Other side of the coin man, complexity does not mean better either. If it would run as easy and simple as 5e, with pathfinders flare for options, it would be a winner. To many people confuse options with more rules and rules blot and PF they often re one and the same. But they need not be.

What did we ever do to you? That sir, is just rude!

Well, then you must love derailing your game every 5 minutes to explain to him how the rules work and making sure he understands how his character works while everyone else at the table sits there bored too.

It depends on the game. In 5e, it takes seconds, with PF it derailed whole game when one player did not worship the rules set like holy write

"This new system is worse than the old one, go back and tweak that instead of this new thing." is a valid response to changes. I just have to hope that Paizo is as open-minded as they're expecting us to be. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've been good in the past.

This is unreasonable and not gonna happen after 2 years of in house development.

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

One thing I do not understand is people calling for multi-classing to be more generous for casters.

"We need to address the power gap between the high level casters and the high level martials!"

At the same time they say

"Multi-classing needs to be better for casters!"

Multi-classing for martial type characters in Pathfinder is usually a way for martials to close the gap with casters. You make it easier for casters to multi-class and you're only going to increase the disparity at higher levels.

Some people dip for flavor, but 90%+ of them dip because it is entirely beneficial to their character to do so.

Because those two are unrelated issues.

They ARE related... But not quite in the way he suggests.

Make martial characters scale up to par with 9th level spellcasting and suddenly that parity opens up the design space for valuable multiclassing for all.

This is more what I meant. the caster/ non-caster issue is its own set of issues that needs addressed. I do not however see PF doing this.

One thing I do not understand is people calling for multi-classing to be more generous for casters.

"We need to address the power gap between the high level casters and the high level martials!"

At the same time they say

"Multi-classing needs to be better for casters!"

Multi-classing for martial type characters in Pathfinder is usually a way for martials to close the gap with casters. You make it easier for casters to multi-class and you're only going to increase the disparity at higher levels.

Some people dip for flavor, but 90%+ of them dip because it is entirely beneficial to their character to do so.

Because those two are unrelated issues.

I do like the 5e paladin a lot, although I wouldn't say it is perfect compared to the PF version. Smite working on single attacks instead of a combat long buff doesn't strike me as strictly better design, and neither does it consuming spell slots. Divine Senses felt a little wonky too. But the oaths and alignment usage is pure gold.

I also gotta say, while I have been critical of 5e archetypes not kicking in until level 3 because it makes the first two levels feel super vanilla, oaths at 3rd level worked well for me. Gave me a chance to see the direction the campaign and my character were going and adjust accordingly.

I agree not perfect, but IMO the oath system is damned near perfect. So easy to plug new ones in and puts lie to the Idea paladin must be LG s Devotion is pure up the classic code.

Honestly, I think 5e did this very well and I would support PF2 just completely ripping it off. Alignment exists, but is rarely tied to any class features or spells. Paladins instead get a list of oaths to follow, and thematic abilities based around those oaths. Most oaths lean in a LG direction but don't actually require it. Things like smite now work on anything but do bonus damage to a broad list of creatures.

I'd also support a deity specific code that applies to all divinely empowered followers of said deity. I like using things like this to inform role-play, but I think the current system is too restrictive and also too vague.

The 5e paladin is simply great and the oath system is nice. The Devotion oath is classic, but no longer LG only. While the other oaths re fun and bring new flavors to the class

Nothing wrong with level dipping if it makes your character what you want it to be.

How else are you supposed to get around Caesar's DR 10/magic and piercing before he summons the Praetorian Guard?

I had something like this happen in game. It was my fault, I just pulled a monster out of the 3.0 MM and didn't check the update. So the werewolf had DR/10. The party won, because they grappled the werewolf and choked him out, it was one of the most epic thing I had saw in game.

A lot of the issue here is folks assume HP re wounds and really the game does not treat them that way. Your fine at full power until you hit 0. It does not matter if your t full HP or 2 HP, you are at full power.

Heck you can go to -6 get healed to 1 Hp and are fine.

I imagine they could do all four.
If all classes had some form of self-healing, it would negate the assumption (which I've always hated), that every party has to have an obligatory cleric.
Though for non-casters, that healing would be framed as toughness, grit, perseverance, chugging from a whiskey flask, taking a cigarette break, looking at a photo of Aunt May and Mary Jane, remembering your promise to the nun at the orphanage, before picking yourself up and crawling on.

The problem with wands and other spell-in-a-can items is the ability to go nova with them. Having the wand as an extra option isn't a problem. By limiting the number of times an object can be used per day, it increases the PCs' range of spells known/prepared, without excessively increasing their number of spells blown through in one day.

And having items be used less often, means they will cease to be bought in vast quantities, thus fixing the Magic Mart anachronisms.

People hate 5e round here, but it did solve the healing issue. The issue with many magic items in 3.x is you can buy them and they are cheap. You are stupid not to buy them, and even fixing healing, you still need to address cheap magic items

The hubby insists we watch that every Christmas since it's a "Christmas Movie"....somehow?

Because it is.

If people hate CLW wand, then fix the lack of healing, end the magic item mart and fix wands.

Because healing is jacked

Its not as complex as the old system is not the same as its not complex. But you guys can not or will not understand this. I'll reserve judgement. But to me, right now its just fiddly.

You have to explain it exactly zero more times because I did not say that you were comparing it to the older system. The sentence that referenced the older system AT ALL included a few words to indicate that it was a generalized statement about comparable systems, not just the previous system. And no, I did not vastly oversimplify. It really is that straightforward. I have no idea what you keep adding to it in your mind that makes it more complicated. The only thing I left out was needing to roll a flat number that increases with each attempt when you run out of points. Also very straightforward and not complex. Please enlighten me of what’s i am missing here.

Sigh, this is the issue, you like the clunky, fiddly and needless complexity. It adds another thing to the game you must track, another point of freeze and argument, another slowdown of the already slow combat. It is another thing that needs to be tracked all the time, that should not need to be tracked. And its not even static.

Its another pool, another resource to track in game that is already fiddly as hell. And you seemingly do not see this as an issue.

I am still saying this reads as clunky and far more complex than it needs to be. It should not be another spell slot system or daily use system( which it now is). If you want to limit items, cool x number+ cha mod of X class items. 5e does this, but limits it to 3 and not all magic items count

There is simply no need for this daily number of use pool.

This doesn't come close to matching my experience with 5e. Not even a little. At our table the paladin significantly outperforms the barbarian in terms of dealing damage, whereas the barbarian is able to TAKE way more damage, while also giving everyone advantage. It's a flip of their expected support vs. damage roles in other editions, to be sure, but the idea that a 5e paladin is 'useless' is completely ludicrous.

You must have not played 5e much t all. I play in a weekly game ( battle cleric here) with both a barbarian and a paladin. There is no way that cleric is out meleeing the other two classes.

1:The Cleric lacks the 2nd attack, sure he can do it few limited times per day, but he is not gonna keep up. I m a great sword using cleric, I m not matching the paladin or the Barbarian in round per round melee damge, I simply lack the number of attacks.

2: The Barbarian will take more damage, All while wearing nothing but his undies. That is his thing, he will also be the most consistent Damage dealer.

3: The paladin is the big hitter, but like the cleric or any other caster, that blows spell slots. Sure, few rounds per fight he is a monster, but he can't keep it up. Over time a barbarian or fighter will have stable damage with more options.

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

This is where the GM steps in and says "You don't have time to do that," end of issue.

WHAAAAAT?!

The GM, cannot, just, arbitrarily decide that a character is not allowed to do something if the rules say she can.

Its not Arbitrarily, The game does ask you use common sense. Its not a programmed computer game. Unless your PC's are the flash, they simply do not have time to all share the same weapon

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

This is where the GM steps in and says "You don't have time to do that," end of issue.

"This is where the GM..." aka it's a design flaw

No, its not. The round has set time limit. Your actions must take place in that time limit. Someone may go first, bu you are still all acting in the same amount of time.

This is non-sense theory crafting

This is where the GM steps in and says "You don't have time to do that," end of issue.

That would be true if everything was the same. But everything isn't the same. Only the numbers are.

PF distinguishes characters through numbers. 5e does not.

5e distinguishes characters through their features. PCs gain abilities that no one else can do, and that's how they grow stronger and become better and unique.

I've found that everyone who bashes 5e either ignores or is ignorant of this fact.

I am gonna agree with this. I ran PF for years, I ran pbp here on this forum, I ran games IRL and now I run 5e. Every single class in the games I have been involved with feel different. Sure the math is the same or close too it, but non of them feel the same.

And people go on and on about "Oh the wizard and the fighter have the same chance to hit" which is both true and false. The caster my have the same chance to hit ranged, but as someone playing a melee cleric, I will tell you the fighter, paladin and Barbarian all outclass me in melee. I can match them for a few rounds by burning though powers, but not all session.

In the end, this "oh they have the same chance of hitting" misses the whole point

Igwilly wrote:

Good to know.

Still, needing a healer is something everyone can deal with, and Clerics still don't seen to be boring.

Golarion has many gods that would slap a cleric of theirs for serving as a Primary Healer.

Cleric is a great class. Give it (and other classes) fantastic feats for a Primary Healer, but do *not* expect a party to have a Primary Healer, and do *not* expect any given Cleric to fill that role.

Not Pathfinder,but I play cleric of Tempus in a ongoing 5e game. I can count on one hand how many times I have healed, well anyone. Clerics re not walking bandaids or medics. So I agree with you here