Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 905 posts (942 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.
From the perspective of the PCs, they were up against an unknown number of invisible enemies, they did kill one pretty easily but just could not reach the others (in fact could not even detect them and apparently did not hurt them). It would stand to reason that they felt overwhelmed and that this was all a trap encounter that they had zero chance to win. Especially since they had no reason to believe that all of their attackers were similar to the one they killed, quite the opposite.
You know that it was not so because you are the GM and you know the truth of the encounter. The players do not. And the PCs even less.
I play and GM so I have to disagree with you here.
The problem arises when players think that they should know everything about anything that they fight. The game doesn't always work like. Sure they may have felt overwhelmed not knowing how many invisible creatures they were facing, but that's precisely the point. There are times players can brute force bust faces and times when they have to be more tactical and know when to back off and come back another day to play.
When I GM I tell my players up front that there are areas in the world where they can get TPK'd pretty easily such as them knowing the location of an ancient red dragon that has been on a rampage. They can choose to try their luck at any time, but they know they will die unless they are prepared.
The problem here is that with this level of encounter players know enough about the world to be more prepared to face invisible foes. The fault does not lie with the GM and the game he has prepared, it moves into the players' corner and them going in with enough spells or not even having something as simple flour to toss out on the ground.
Inquisitor is an incredibly solid class, but broken isn't a word I would use to describe it. Inquisitor is nice because it was built solidly enough that a player can explore a lot of different aspects of the game while playing, and has a certain buffer protecting them from making too many mistakes; compare that to a monk who can go really wrong, really fast with just a few bad choices.
I've never seen someone roll up to a table and say "Hey, tonight I'm playing an Inquisitor!" and have the statement received with anything other than acceptance, which I think speaks pretty well of the class. I'm of the opinion that the Inquisitor is one of the most mechanically "perfect" classes out there, able to shape to fit a variety of party rolls, perfectly self-sufficient, and with some good options for contributing to party resources. I think the fact that it's comparatively hard to screw up and very easy to customize/optimize to fit a number of combat and social roles can create this "Isn't that class too strong?" impression; when you see the same class represented as a rampaging rage-priest of Gorum, a mage-slaying pistol wielder, and a Repeating Crossbow wielding sniper the range of the class can seem really potent. And it is, but it's not like you're all of those things at once. And it won't be unseating any other class from their preferred niche (i.e. unlikely to out-tank a Fighter, out-damage a Barbarian, out-heal/buff a cleric, or even out-skill a Rogue) or ruining any games, or detracting from anyone else's fun, or even touching a 9-level progression caster in how thoroughly they can subvert a campaign's intended plot, so definitely not broken.
Quoted for absolute truth. I could not have said it any better.
Not a fan of the idea whatsoever. It's up to a GM to learn to work with what is in the mechanics of the game whether it's high level spells or a powerful feat if someone can't do that as a GM then they need to let someone run the game.
What did I walk into? Guess maybe I should've read a little of the thread lol.
People get so upset at each other here.
How about this folks: take a step back, breathe, realize that your opinion isn't the only right one, respect the other posters and just agree to disagree.
Fighting here makes no sense, people will troll just to troll and laugh at you for getting upset. You will never ever play at a table with the others, each table is different and each table has their own ways of doing things that someone else on the interwebs will find abhorrent. By the time a thread gets this long, your arguments have gone around and around and around in circles and you are now just re-re-re-repeating yourselves.
The truth of the matter of people thinking a single melee class feat or ability being OP is that they really don't understand the mechanics of the game. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat so to speak and something like Crane Style being unbalanced is laughable at best and outright being totally clueless at worst.
It's funny because there are so many people on these forums who immerse themselves in the rules and do know the truth of this. We get too many trolls on the forums and too many people who are too proud to admit when they are wrong that they hang on and supply unsound arguments to the contrary even though 99% of the others agree they are wrong.
A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.
The parts I'd like to talk about are the parts I bolded.
The way I see rage is somewhere in-between the Hulk-smash everything and having perfectly coherent thoughts and being able to do what you want while in the rage.
There are specific skills that you absolutely can't do while in a rage, it's just not possible (unless you have specific feats or archetypes which change your rage). The rage clouds your mind, you see red and you want to kill what is before you. That adrenaline is flowing so fast and your heart is pumping so hard that you are shaking. You aren't frothing at the mouth and uncontrollable (unless you are a wild rager who failed his saves!), but you are really really mad.
So you can do tactical things as far as battlefield movements go, such as flanking, acrobatics, intimidation of your foes, etc, but you aren't concerned with stopping to concentrate on anything because of how mad you are.
The nice thing about barbarians is that if you want to have that hulk-smash everything and everyone around you can be done by using the Wild Rager archetype.
If you want to be able to think more and control your rage as someone more civilized go with an Urban Barbarian archetype.
If you want to be able to cast spells while raging, become a Rage Prophet.
There is no one way to play a barbarian as we can see, and the mechanics are there in the game to give us all the flavor we want to go along with the crunchy bits of the rage ability.
I love it. This is the kind of character that will be memorable for you and your group for the rest of your lives I bet. Great concept and amazing RP opportunities, I salute you for doing something so unique and interesting.
Trying to keep it going with conceptual characters here, I'm actually curious as to what everyone's favorite character concepts have been and what inspired them in a bit more detail.
A couple of mine to start out:
1) Shoanti Barbarian who's personality is based off of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" character Lenny Small, he has a penchant for carrying around small fuzzy animals and doesn't know his own strength.
2) A Dwarf cleric who followed Cayden Cailean I came up by myself based off of the Enhance Water spell which allows the priest to turn any dirty water into an alcoholic brew. He would "recycle" the water so he'd never waste any... Got some disgusted looks from fellow party members!
3) An old wizard who's personality was based off a mix of Si from Duck Dynasty and Zedd from Terry Goodkind's SoT series.
I wouldn't call myself an old school gamer, certainly not when I've been playing around 15 years and started playing with 2E AD&D (compared to some of you who have played for 30+ years). I also enjoyed playing WoW for a while and other fantasy genre console/PC games.
I'm also not saying power-gaming is bad nor am I calling anyone who does it any kind of names. It's funny that so many people take this as an insult. I merely started the thread to get some feedback from people because I've seen so many things lately on the forum that I'd classify as people trying to power-game, min/max, super optimize, or what have you. Again, not a "bad" thing and not meaning to insult people.
I wonder what the appeal is to creating characters that exploit loopholes, grey areas, and why so many people always want the "best" at the table. I also stated that I do play characters that are very competent at what they do, but I don't feel like I have to go to that next level of optimization to do so. With my characters, balance is what I strive for, balance in character creation and balance in a good story.
Another thing I'd like to add is that I also enjoy the challenge from the other side of the screen as a GM and play higher level games that involve gestalts to see what kind of crazy encounters I can come up with and what PC's can truly accomplish at those levels.
It's really an interesting discussion to be having with the rest of the community and I value everyone's thoughts on the subject matter.
How nice of you to respond thoughtfully to ub3r_n3rd's concern over the RPG turning into a futile, time-consuming arms race rather than a pleasing pastime.
I think you hit the nail on the head right there very succinctly!
@FD - Sure there are a lot of people who look back with rose colored glasses, and maybe it's the internet age we live in where the 'winning' mentality is much more visible.
@Lincoln Hills - Pretty much what I think of when I replied to FD, internet age where everyone has a smartphone in their pockets and the newer generation of gamers are always online so perhaps the older generation isn't piping up about their stuff since they are actually off playing their games rather than trying to build the next epic hero.
@Lamontius - No real reply to you since I am not going to get into an argument with you about my post above. It wasn't meant as an insult as it seems you have taken it.
@Lumiere - A lot of us in my group have a stable full of character concepts who we'd love to play at some point and I don't think I'll ever have enough time to play all of the characters I've thought up! So when I lose a PC even if I put hours/weeks/years into it, I look forward to playing the next PC and seeing what kind of adventures they will experience.
@Xaratherus - As I said too, I like a PC who is good at what they do and stands a chance at surviving for a while, but I don't get upset like some of the posters on the forums about a PC death or a TPK because that's how the dice gods fated it to be. It's also true that as people gain more mastery that they get better at creation of characters and sometimes their concepts work in conjunction with the creation/builds.
Overall, to me a lot of it comes down to quite a few people having this sense of entitlement when it comes to their PC's and character creation. They believe that no matter what they should always win and/or there should never be a TPK.
I personally like a challenge. My group uses flaws and/or drawbacks to give even more human qualities to our characters.
As the title states, my question to the rest of the gamer community out there is: To power-game or not to power-game?
Lately all I see on the forums (especially in advice) are things along the lines of:
1) How do I build the best _____ ?
2) What is the best ____ ?
3) Casters are so much better than ____
4) Where is the ____ love?
5) Why do _____ archetypes suck?
6) Why can't I do ____ with ____ ability to make me more powerful?
7) Build me an invincible _____
8) My GM hates us, s/he TPK'd us!
9) And my favorite: Oh noes! ______ is broken!
So it really got me thinking:
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
My thoughts are that the generation of gamers has truly changed and want to make these uber heroes that will completely destroy and derail any attempt made by Paizo through AP's or a GM to run an interesting game. It's really turned to more of a video gamey type of thing rather than the danger lurking everywhere and things can truly kill PC's if they aren't careful.
Don't get me wrong, I like to play a powerful hero who is good at what they do too, but I also like to have a chance to fail and roll up a new one every once in a while. I like the different archetypes out there, I like the options to actually create a nice little background and play an completely unique character rather than God-Wizard 23045502...
Racial archetypes are really there to give more options and more flavor to people who actually like some kind of cool background or story to tell which doesn't involve every aspect of the min/max of this game.
Oh great, another week and another Paladin alignment thread.
I'm not going to read over all the old arguments that pop up weekly about what you should do in your game.
My advice is simple: Talk to your group beforehand, get the alignment stuff sorted out and everyone agreed on how YOUR group does things, then as the GM you officiate it if someone breaks alignment. This solves a lot of problems up front if people know what is expected and what has already been agreed upon. Now there will always be grey areas, but this will greatly reduce them. The main goal here is that everyone has fun and can play whatever characters they want and that you don't have to stress out and bicker over the little things that happen in the course of the game.
My suggestion is to leave it alone and that it isn't overpowering. I really don't mean to sound like a jerk, but look at these boards and you'll see complaints all the time about X, Y, or Z being overpowered and then you'll find that through discussion with other people and even developers coming in to comment that they aren't really OP.
As a GM your job isn't YOU vs YOUR PLAYERS, it's the NPC's/Beasts vs the PC's. So you can do other things rather than nerf a specific class or power to make things interesting.
I like to add in different kinds of terrain, dig through the bestiaries and toss in some other interesting level appropriate creatures (even if they deviate from the AP), I even borrow from 4E and put in 1HP versions of creatures to use as mooks/minions, and I also like to use the environment.
Using different things in your game rather than a by the book approach to an AP can make it much more rewarding and then you don't have to worry about picking on one character or class.
I'm running Rise of the Runelords and one of the characters is playing a Flowing Monk. Even bossfights are now NOTHING to my party because my monsters are always flat on their backs, followed by AOs for standing up, and finishing off with never getting their full round of attacks because they were too busy standing up!
Tripping Monks were broken in 3.0, even more broken in 3.5, and CONTINUE their broken streak here in Pathfinder.
From here on out, I'm gonna give all my monsters Boots of STFU: +100 to resist trip attacks!
I don't feel like reading 80+ posts to see if my answer is the same as most other people (which I will assume it probably will be).
Seriously you are going to pick on the monk out of all of the classes? I just don't get it. There is nothing wrong with the monk doing what he does best if he's built to do so. This isn't a game of YOU vs your players, this is a game of the PCs vs the NPC's. You seem to be taking this personally and you shouldn't be doing that as a GM.
If you are so worried about all the tripping going on, add more variation to your encounters and it doesn't have to be incorporeal, multi-legged, or flying. You could use terrain and mooks/minions to make it harder to get to your BBEG and keep the party busy without breaking the bank on difficulty.
Bottom line: Don't get all pissy when your players do well in combat.
Gestalt are basically the power level of 1 1/2 characters (not 2 due to the action economy). I like playing as gestalt and running games where I allow them in my worlds. It's definitely something that takes some getting used to so that balance can be achieved. They will cut through normal epic encounters like a hot knife through butter (especially if you have smart players) so the CR's need to be adjusted accordingly.
That is up to the whims of his gm. Sorry if you don't like my observation uber. Not retracting anything though so further railing is pointless.
I'm not railing, I'm simply making an observation that your assumption is not based on any sort of fact, rather it is based solely upon your own personal feelings on campaigns that are of that high a level. If you feel it is immature of them to be playing in this kind of game it's better to keep that to yourself.
My point is that if you aren't going to offer helpful advice at least try not to be a Richard to the OP and move to a different thread that you can actually offer constructive criticism or advice in. Really it is as simple as that.
Everyone has their own games that they enjoy and have fun in. This hobby covers a lot of different worlds, genres, periods of time, levels, etc. To each their own and as long as they are having fun it's not up to the rest of us to judge each other, we should be supporting each other in a hobby that we all love to partake in.
Ageism speaking here but you and your .gm sound like my game groups when I was 12-15? Is that the root of this insanity? If so cheers and enjoy as it is from these games that we evolve our playstyle and tastes later on. If you guys are mid twenties or god forbid older... time to consider a more rational approach perhaps?
That's pretty rude to assume something like that. He's asking for advice on how to take out a god not asking you to insult the group and their maturity. There are plenty of older aged groups that like higher level campaigns and battling more powerful beings such as gods, just because you and your particular group don't do it anymore doesn't mean it's only for the younger populace.
At my table when I institute the other paladins (and they WILL be called paladins), I will make sure that anyone who wants to play them reads up on their deity and said deity's tenets/codes.
If the CG code, for example, is fully as restrictive as the LG code, and a character follows it, that character will be behaving in a lawful manner, because he will be adhering to a restrictive code written by others rather than the dictates of his own conscience.
I mean, it's right there in the definition of the alignment: "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him." Behavior, not beliefs, make an alignment. If a character adheres to any deity-written paladin-of-freedom "code" instead of doing what he thinks best, he's not behaving in a chaotic good manner.
But if the character does what he thinks is best in a given situation even if it contradicts the "code", he'll be violating his code. Either way, "chaotic good character who strictly adheres to a god's code" is a self-contradicting impossibility.
Not that a CG god would approve of any character who inflexibly adheres to a CG code. "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." "He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations."
See, I disagree especially for Paladins. They have to do BOTH, currently Paladins have to be BOTH lawful and good. I'm moving the bar to allow for other types of good and evil. By definition at my table, in order to be a paladin and get the special powers that go along with the class that PC will have to put their tenets/code ahead of everything else, that's not being "lawful" because this isn't a law it's a belief in that the god's teachings are what are right, good, and true.
Now for a CG paladin, they will put that liberation, freedom, and for the good of all above the law of the land no matter what the law is. That's just how I see that kind of character playing out. They get their paladin powers from that deity so they won't want to stray from the dogma, not because it's lawful/unlawful, but rather it's not what they would think is right.
The LG paladin has to take the law into account and whether he believes it is legitimate or not. He has to follow his god's tenets/codes in addition to the laws of man.
It's a different beast that would be interesting to play to me and fun for my table.
I also understand that this is not for everyone and there will be varied opinions on whether I'm too far left or too far right with how this could be done, but that's also half the fun of the forum.
Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.
No.
Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.
Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.
Who said that? Paladins follow their god's tenets...and unless that god is LN, those tenets ARE good. If he's not following those tenets, he's in trouble with his god...and the LN god's tenets are not as good, but incredibly legalistic.
What god has "kill unarmed prisoners" as a tenet? I can see Torag but I don't think any of the other's have.
Also, if the god's tenet is the only thing the paladin has to obey, why even write out "respects legitimate authority" in the CoC? Why not simply write "respects it's god"?
And what happens with paladins without gods? Because you know, paladins don't have to have gods. They may if they want to but it isn't a direct part of the class.
The reason "respect legitimate authority" is in there is for the lawful side of the alignment. You seem to be forgetting that there are two parts to this. There is lawful and good. A paladin will follow the laws of legitimate authorities, but he'll still follow his god's teachings while doing so. Paladins aren't perfect, they are fallible and they have to make decisions based on what the greater good is. They don't strictly adhere to all laws, especially if they go against what the paladin believes in.
An example is that a paladin may be forced to go to Cheliax where slavery is legal and out in the open, to the paladin this may be evil, but he has to respect the legitimate authority of their government and bite his tongue/sit on his hands. He can't fight the whole nation by himself to stop slavery no matter how much it burns. He will fight when and how he can to help innocents and to fight against evil, but he isn't stupid.
On the other hand if a paladin sees some innocent woman being beaten and shackled up by slavers, he will stop those slavers even if he is within Cheliax's borders. He knows that it's against their laws, but he'd feel obliged to rescue an innocent or else he'd violate this part of his code and allow an innocent to be harmed.
Now the way that the troll is putting it, he's playing a Paladin as the rule of law above all else. He's more along the lines of LN and he'd just ignore the slaves in both cases and abide by the rule of the land even if he finds it distasteful. You can play your paladin in that way if you want to, but that's toeing the line along the neutral side rather than the good side. See the difference?
No matter how much sarcasm, RAW, or truth we send at the troll, he just won't get it. Still funny though and this thread is still making my day fly by at work while I sit here and chuckle at his absurdity.
I'm just sitting here shaking my head at this point Marthkus. I can't say anything more about it other than what I've shown to you previously and what most of these other guys are pointing out to you.
There is NO one way to play a paladin and if you say there is I call total BS on you. You can however play your paladin however you want and adjudicate how one is to be played at your table however you want, but by coming to the boards you open yourself up to most of us pointing out that you are wrong by claiming that this particular paladin in question per the OP should be fallen for doing his duties and following his deity's code. Just because you think you are right doesn't mean that you are my friend.
Have you ever heard of errata or splat books? You do know that anything written after the original is supposed to supersede (in most cases) the old and add in more stuff right?
I really suggest you go read the new stuff before coming in and preaching your holier than thou rhetoric using the older RAW. That's not the way to debate or convince people who have read the other books and seemingly have more knowledge than you. Just sayin'.
Oh? And they have special rules that alter the paladin's code? Is that in the deity description on how their code changes if paladins worship them?
Ugh, can't help myself... One last time. Go read Faiths of Purity, starting on page 26. Within you will find SPECIFIC CODES TO SPECIFIC DEITIES specifically for Paladins. Read it and then come back and talk to us please. Until you do, I'm done trying to argue with you.
So in the a world where every paladin player has that book you would be right. In home games many do not have that book and in PFS you can't use those rules unless you own the book.
That book is not even on the PRD
Even in a world where you only use the core books I'm still correct. Sorry you don't have the new stuff available, but it doesn't make it irrelevant.
Paladin Code from PRD Broken Down:
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally:
1) A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority - Who is the highest authority for a paladin? Answer: His deity. He must follow his deity's tenets/code.
2) Act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) - Pretty straight forward.
3) Help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) - These were evil morlocks and helping them is providing help for evil, so here he'd be breaking this code if he rescued them, healed them, or set them free to cause more evil.
4) Punish those who harm or threaten innocents - These morlocks (if given the chance) would harm or threaten innocents. They are vile evil creatures to the core as per the default bestiary. If he allows them to live then he'd be allowing them to harm people and end up breaking this code.
See how that's done? Even without the Faiths of Purity I've shown that you aren't breaking the code by killing these things. Faiths of Purity clarifies more of the codes and gives paladins more to go off of.
Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"
Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.
Should he have healed up the morlock, given it a weapon, and then slew it in combat? Why? The morlock likely has absolutely no chance winning, in which case you are setting up a farce combat in order to create a facade of honor. This almost seems evil to me, as you are deliberately setting up the morlock to suffer more.
He should take helpless creatures prisoner and turn them over to the proper authorities. Even if he give the morlock a sword. If the morlock does not try to fight the paladin, he can in no way honorably kill it.
Wow, just... wow. I think we are being trolled at this point. This poster obviously hasn't read much of the thread or any of the books that contain the subject matter appropriate for this particular paladin (a Dwarf Stonelord who follows Torag). I'm on to talking with the rest of you who can hold a good conversation about the various merits of different paladins and what they do in their adventures.
This is not a paladin alignment thread. This thread is how to deal with a perceived violation of the paladin code of honor. Some back ground
My character is a chaotic neutral ninja.
We are on book 5 of serpents skull we cleaned out a fortress and in the basement we found several cells against the wall and in those cells there were bodies and a few barely breathing drows, ulfins and morlocks.
Our paladin walks in detects evil and decides that because they are evil he should send his earth elemental in to the cell to kill every one. me and the good barbarian say wait a minute let’s just let them go they aren't a threat to us. The paladin refuses and kills all of them except a drow giving this big speech about how evil is a choice and he is not going to let a potential threat live let alone waste resources arming our enemies.
Well we decided to back down so it didn't get into PVP.
I have decided my ninja will not aid the paladin in any way during combat.
In character my main problem with it is that he is acting holy than though but when it comes to being a selfish jerk who will kill prisoners. In my mind he is no better than me. I have decided to write a letter to his superiors in game and make a case for a formal complaint. Has anybody ever done this successfully?
I have had an offline conversation with the player and we resolved any personal conflict.
He is a fallen paladin. No question about it. He should lose all class features until he pays the atonement fee. I would also change his alignment to lawful stupid.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
...
..... umm no he isn't, not by a long shot. Especially because of what kind of paladin he is. He's a follower of Torag, he's a Dwarf Stonelord. Read up on the tenets, read up on what morlocks are, and read the rest of the thread.
In my opinion, too many Paladin players think that Detect Evil is the end-all justification to cleave now, ask questions of the corpse later.
Agree with most of your post, but have a different experience with this. In my experience, this is not a problem at all. From what I have seen on the forums, people who say "Yes, it is ok to kill evil people even if they are helpless" are quickly painted as thinking that Detect Evil is the end-all justification.
You can see it occur this very thread (don't want to re-read to find direct quotes). Saying "paladins are supposed to hunt down evil, it is why they have Detect Evil and Smite Evil, so they can do their job" was twisted to "he Detected as evil, I can kill him!". Just saying "you can use Detect Evil to determine whether to sniff around more" tends to elicit cries of "Detect and kill is not ok!". The far greater problem I have seen, is that people on the forums who posit killing helpless creatures might be ok depending on the creature and the paladin's god have their words twisted to try to make it sound like they want paladins to be Lawful Stupid killing machines, when their argument really is that paladins are not Lawful Stupid peace machines.
I think of Detect Evil as a tool in the Paladin's backpack. He uses it to make sure or double check something that he suspects.
In this particular case we have a few things going on:
1) Paladin is a Dwarf Stonelord of Torag.
2) One of Torag's tenets is to show no mercy to the enemies of his people, with the exception of mercy to those who surrender in order to gain information.
3) The Paladin encounters morlocks and a single drow. He KNOWS that they are usually EVIL. Morlocks are twisted creatures and enemies of his people and he has either seen or heard of drow as being evil as well. This can be resolved with a simple knowledge check by him and/or other party members.
4) He uses Detect Evil to confirm that they are evil and is rewarded with them pinging as such.
5) The drow offers to surrender instead of dying and the Paladin follows one of his tenets.
6) The Paladin uses the weapon his god has bequeathed to him, his Stone Servant (see: Takes the place of Divine Bond) to eradicate the evil of the morlocks. It doesn't matter how he does it, he is showing a semblance of mercy by allowing them a quick end rather than a slow death.
7) He is also making sure that by killing the morlocks that they don't end up somehow sneaking up on his party to kill THEM.
Claiming that the Paladin in question could leave the morlocks alone and in shackles presents a catch-22 to the poor paladin. He has to make sure that the evil enemies of his people/god aren't allowed to cause more mischief and that they don't somehow warn others or break free of the prison cell and do so.
I'll say it again, different paladins will react differently to the same situations, it's not cookie-cutter. Some Paladins are the redeeming, sweet, and loving kind who think even a demon lord has a chance to become good and others are the killing machines of their gods they seek out vengeance and seek to rid the world of all the terrible evils at almost any cost.
Overnight the thread really got crazy. Kinda funny to me. Again I'll reiterate there is no universal way to play your characters and your alignments, there are some guidelines as to what kinds of things they'd do, but the developers purposely left things vague so that you can give them their own personality, otherwise every paladin would be the "lawful stupid" and every CN character would be the "psychopathic madman."
Each paladin has his own deity, set of codes/tenets/dogma, person playing them, and GM who oversees the rules. All this crap about this paladin falling for killing so-called innocent morlocks is laughable at best and plain moronic at worst.
I really think that @Crusader and @Tacticslion really hit the nail on the head with their posts here concerning the Paladin and what is expected of him/her being so dependant upon what the race of the paladin is, what the archetype is, and which deity they follow.
The bottom line here is that there is no ONE way to play a paladin. Some things that a stonelord who follows Torag would do in the course of his career would make a different paladin fall and vice versa. It really just needs to come down to each individual and their GM to talk about the paladin codes/tenets and how to follow them to the best of their abilities. Open communication with the whole group is key, that's what I've come to realize after my years spent doing this amazing, fun, and sometimes complicated hobby we all love.
@Lobolusk - I also know that it's hard to pick up new characters right after a TPK and try to run with them after you are used to the old characters/personalities and what they knew in the campaign.
I'm glad that some of us were able to shed some light on the stonelord Torag-following paladin in your group and that you realize that some of your personal feelings for how you played your previous paladin were bleeding through and coloring your vision a bit. I'm happy that I could help you see that and I wish you guys well in your game going forward. It's cool that you have such a laid back GM and that he allows you to play whatever you want and paving your own paths during what sounds like a fun and interesting campaign.
Since when can half dead prisoners, who aren't a part of the conflict, surrender? Also, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's as black and white as you think.
Who says that the opposite to Mercy is murder or killing? You can show no mercy by walking away. Who says that it's not meant during battle? These are all questions that different DM's will answer differently. I can already tell you that all the PFS DMs around here disagree with your reading so that tells you right there that it can be interpreted differently.
It would probably play out like this:
Drow and Morlock slaves chained up in a cell. The Morlocks growl, hiss, and snarl as the paladin enters the room with his sword drawn having detected their evil from afar like a vile stench radiating through the door.
The Paladin and his companions speak in hushed tones and it's obvious that two of the paladin's friends aren't happy with the decision that the paladin has made. His earth elemental fills up the doorway and moves in at the paladin's command.
The lone drow having picked out what they were saying about killing the slaves is quick to yell out, "My lord, please I have information for you. It will help you and your friends out in the dungeons below. I willingly surrender to you an ask to be made your prisoner rather than to find death at the hands of your servant!"
The paladin halts his stone servant and nods, "I will allow you to live as you have asked to surrender to me and my faith calls upon me to give you mercy if you provide me with information which will aid our cause."
The Morlocks screech and groan as the stone elemental falls upon them and quickly ends their lives. The paladin and his friends take the drow as their prisoner to find out what information he knows...
It could be argued quite easily that killing the Morlocks is a form of mercy. They were killed quickly rather than to be left to feed off each other after they were left to starve by the party as is their nature.
Shallowsoul, the issue is that you are arguing against the first part of the same bullet you bolded a section of. Performing an execution in itself is not dishonorable in any way. And that is what the paladin was doing, executing evil members of a race that is a long-time dwarven enemy.
Within that bullet, you are using the second half to argue against the first half. You are essentially arguing that "showing no mercy" is dishonorable and turning that bullet into a Catch-22.
All depends on how you look at mercy.
Yes execution can be honorable, slaughter half dead prisoners is not honorable I'm afraid.
Let's take a look at this.
The Paladin comes in to commune with Torag....
The way it should play out and how I'd do it with the Paladin if I was GM'ing this game.
Paladin : Father Torag I have vanquished the enemies of our people.
Torag : Good! Who were they and how did you destroy them?
Paladin: They were vile Morlocks which my companions and I found chained and used as slaves. A drow was among them.
Torag : Go on...
Paladin : I followed your tenet in regards to destroying our enemies and scattering their families. I didn't show any mercy to them other than to the drow.
Torag : Continue, how and why did you show mercy to the evil drow?
Paladin: I was able to obtain his surrender in exchange for information that led us toward the path of righteousness so that we may vanquish more of your enemies my lord.
Torag: How did you destroy the abominations of life... those Morlocks.
Paladin: I sent forth your holy wrath in the form of my stone servant which you divinely bonded to me upon coming to my paladin-hood. It utterly squashed the vile beings.
Torag: I find this acceptable. Good work my son, you will be rewarded.
Why is everyone so convinced a chaotic neutral character would not do this ? Not saying he should just that he might very well, don't forget batman is chaotic neutral ;-)
The problem is that the OP who is playing a CN ninja is meta-gaming and putting his own personal moral code upon the other player's character. CN is an alignment that doesn't care about other people's codes, only their own. They don't have to justify things to other people, organizations, or deities. They answer only to themselves. By placing his own morals and ethics upon the Paladin through his CN ninja, the OP is just not playing his alignment correctly and complaining that the OTHER guys isn't playing correctly. Pot meet Kettle.
Or, another option, the OP is putting not his own personal moral code upon the other player's character, but putting his own definition on what another player's character SHOULD be doing according to what the OP perceives as that Paladin's code (it's even listed in the original post as a "perceived" violation), in which he basically implies that it's the PLAYER'S perception of a violation, not his character's, and taking what the PLAYER knows to be the "proper action" against a Paladin violating his code and using that knowledge in game through his PC. And, the OP cites that the Paladin somehow violated his Ninja's authority as justification. A Ninja's AUTHORITY. A CN Ninja, on the fringe of legality, who sounds like he wouldn't know the proper code of a Dwarven Stone Lord, wouldn't know that the proper protocol is to formally complain to his higher authorities, etc...
Either way, my opinion is that it's meta-gaming based on everything the OP is citing as reasoning and justification.
Exactly. If the OP wants to play a paladin he should do so and play it the way he thinks it should be played. He needs to get off his high horse and let the other player play his character. Anything else dealing with alignment/codes/paladin falling is strictly between the Player playing the Paladin and the GM. The Ninja has nothing to do with it.
Why is everyone so convinced a chaotic neutral character would not do this ? Not saying he should just that he might very well, don't forget batman is chaotic neutral ;-)
The problem is that the OP who is playing a CN ninja is meta-gaming and putting his own personal moral code upon the other player's character. CN is an alignment that doesn't care about other people's codes, only their own. They don't have to justify things to other people, organizations, or deities. They answer only to themselves. By placing his own morals and ethics (as if he was playing a LG Paladin) upon the Paladin through his CN ninja, the OP is just not playing HIS alignment correctly and complaining that the OTHER guy isn't playing correctly. Pot meet Kettle.
I'm not going to read through the entire thread here so if my comments are redundant, I apologize. But below are my thoughts on what is going on here.
Lobolusk wrote:
This is not a paladin alignment thread. This thread is how to deal with a perceived violation of the paladin code of honor. Some back ground - My character is a chaotic neutral ninja.
Why do you care? You are a CN ninja, stop meta-gaming. The paladin code is between HIM and his GOD (See: The Paladin's Player and the DM)
Lobolusk wrote:
We are on book 5 of serpents skull we cleaned out a fortress and in the basement we found several cells against the wall and in those cells there were bodies and a few barely breathing drows, ulfins and morlocks.
Our paladin walks in detects evil and decides that because they are evil he should send his earth elemental in to the cell to kill every one. me and the good barbarian say wait a minute let’s just let them go they aren't a threat to us. The paladin refuses and kills all of them except a drow giving this big speech about how evil is a choice and he is not going to let a potential threat live let alone waste resources arming our enemies.
Again, no idea why you (as a CN) character care about what the Paladin does as long as it doesn't affect your character. If they are evil and he wants to play judge, jury, and executioner that is up to him and what happens is between him and his god. The paladin has his own code to follow and that doesn't involve you and/or the barbarian.
Lobolusk wrote:
Well we decided to back down so it didn't get into PVP. I have decided my ninja will not aid the paladin in any way during combat.
That's rather selfish of you to do, you are taking a meta-game stance for something that a CN character probably wouldn't care about at all. To me this is just silly.
Lobolusk wrote:
In character my main problem with it is that he is acting holy than though but when it comes to being a selfish jerk who will kill prisoners. In my mind he is no better than me. I have decided to write a letter to his superiors in game and make a case for a formal complaint. Has anybody ever done this successfully?
The paladin is holier than you, but I get what you are saying he is being arrogant, but you are still meta-gaming to the extreme because you are putting your personal feelings about how to play a paladin's code into your PC's personality.
Lobolusk wrote:
I have had an offline conversation with the player and we resolved any personal conflict.
It sounds like you still have deep-seeded personal feelings with the other player because of the passive aggressive manner in which you are trying to handle an in-game situation that really wouldn't affect your PC one way or the other. Bottom line is that you need to play your character's alignment and let the other player play his where he is answerable to his church/deity. If you have issues with how that other person is playing their alignment talk to them out of game or bring up the discussion with your GM. There may be some other things you don't know about in-game that the GM and the other Player are doing. Perhaps they are trying to get a fallen paladin or other kind of plot hook going.
Also, what is up with banning ACs and summons? Do the ranger and druids of the world get something to make up for the loss of a major class ability?
I wondered the same thing, but that's a bit of a thread derail bro. Let's talk about that in another thread or something because that's a whole new can of worms.
Anyhow, I agree with the others that Trogs do what they want and are as smart as a lot of fighters out there. They would fight with tactics as they don't want to die either. It sounds like you and your group do need to work on your own tactics so that the fights go easier, do your own 5-foot steps when needed, buff each other up, the cleric should be behind the ranger using his longspear at range of 10 feet, healing and tossing out spells if he can as well, the sorcerer needs to do the same. I don't know why you say you are lacking at range if you have 2 spell casters, both are technically ranged for most of their offensive spells.
The question is whether the crocodiles were 10 feet away on land and just moved up 5 feet to attack you. Think of how crocodiles attack their prey, they lie in wait and then move in slowly looking like a log or drift under the water until they are within striking distance. If this is how he was playing them to get within 5 feet of you and the other players that's the perfect way to use them in combat. If he is using them to take 5-foot steps back as part of intelligent tactics he is being a Richard and shouldn't be abusing the rule.
The Trogs on the other hand are a different matter, they would fight with decent tactics in my opinion. They have an intelligence score of 8 and use weapons like javelins, so they would even throw those weapons before closing if they want and then come in with claws/teeth/clubs.
So give more information on how he was using the monsters in combat and let us know why you think he's abusing rules.
I don't know if this was already mentioned as I didn't read through the whole thread, but the biggest problem here is they are meta-gaming and they need to stop. I'd just tell them up front to stop because they don't know everything about all the opponents you throw out at them and their PC's certainly don't know better. They need to relax and worry about their own actions in combat, not what they think they know about strengths/weaknesses/limitations of monsters in the bestiaries.
I'd purposely start throwing things at them with other templates and scare the crap out of them if they didn't stop with their meta-game BS as well. It will keep them on their toes.
Level 20 martial classes can exist in any game world. They may be rarer than the level 20 caster because we all know how the classes start out and end up with martial characters doing better in combat until around level 10, then things start to equalize in the mid levels of 11-15, and after 15 we know that the casters are the "most powerful."
I think of level 20 martial characters as being kings, emperors, and great generals of amazing renown. They survived their adventuring careers through the use of unsurpassed tactics, through the use of powerful magical items, and through the use of good allies. They didn't let themselves get caught in that kind of scenario with a lich in the first place, they knew when they were outmatched and they knew when to retreat. Let's face it, they are pretty frickin smart to have gotten to that level of power in the first place!
The fight between a level 20 lich on his home turf when he's much more prepared against a single level 20 fighter for example does indeed end in that fighter's demise. The problem with the scenario is that the fighter isn't alone and has friends along with him who he has been adventuring with. They will come prepared to fight that lich too, they'll have magical mcguffins up the wazhoo, they will have contingency plans, they will have at least one caster (either divine or arcane) if not two, they will outnumber that lich, and they will have faced very tough battles in the past and have superior tactics to most other parties. So a group of level 20's will more than likely succeed unless the dice gods are dastardly cruel.
Let the player play their own character however they want. You are there to offer some advice as a GM/more experienced player, but in the end the PC is that player's own creation. Let them have fun with it, if they die they can roll up a new character.
It's just asinine to me that so many people are calling this player an idiot because he has a concept for a character that is sub-optimal in rolls or tactics. The main thing here is that player is having fun in the game. They will learn through making their own mistakes on how to make a "better" or more "optimized" character. For now, just roll with the punches and play. It's really that simple.
@Dugger - Sorry to hear your players are being so selfish. As a GM you deserve a break every once in a while and at least one of your players needs to step up to the plate, put on his big boy pants and volunteer to GM for a while to allow you to recuperate. I'd suggest you either find some more players to play with who would be willing to GM or take a break. You'll probably not like retiring completely and be back in a few months or so, but I think that if you are allowed to play you'd be much happier and be in the mood to GM again much sooner.
I guess I'm lucky with my group, there are 3 of us who love to GM and we take turns with campaigns. As soon as one ends (or needs a break), another begins with a new GM and it really makes things nice for us when we need a break in the action. It was funny the last time because I wanted to GM and another guy wanted to, he bought the Carrion Crown AP materials and I have a home-brew in mind so I bowed out to let him GM first.
Guess I've never had the problem that the OP is stating he is having in his game.
My group has never done anything like that and I doubt anyone would. We know that sometimes deaths do happen, none of us purposely try to kill our PC's off. If for some reason a person decides that they don't like a PC, they talk to the GM and they discuss what the problems are and either work them out or are allowed to retire the character and roll up a new one at the same level as the party w/ WBL. No one would think to abuse this and try to build a new min/max OP over-optimized character just to have a more powerful character than their last one.
If I was in a group with people who did do the offenses that the OP has said happens in his group, I'd tell the other players to knock it off. If I was GM'ing it, I'd not start them at level 1, but I would probably put them a level behind and at like 50-75% of WBL to stop that kind of play. It just sounds like your players are perhaps a bit immature if they are killing off characters on purpose to get better gear, more wealth, and more powerful characters. It comes down to having open communication with your players and being up front with what you allow and disallow in your games. If you don't like power gamers tell them that and if they continue to do so, find other gamers to take their place(s) at the table. Everyone should be having fun, including the GM.
I find it interesting that the posters here that are generally against the Cohort getting any cut of the loot, almost always use the term "equal share." It seems that they are stuck on the idea of equal share or no share. We just split up some loot in our Kingmaker campaign, the PCs got 13k, the cohort 8 or 9k. That means I gave up 2k worth of treasure. I am not going to miss it.
The problem is that it is a tax on the rest of the PC's in the party when a singular PC takes the leadership feat in order to gain the cohort. That PC gained the cohort and is responsible (financially) for them rather than the party as a whole being responsible for the.
This should be handled by the gaming group though, because everyone has differing opinions on whether or not that cohort should get a "cut" of the whole as an equal partner, a smaller percentage of the whole, or some agreed upon amount from the PC who the Cohort is following.
The contention comes in when the cohort demands a full equal share from the party as a whole. To me, this is a bunch of BS. When I play a cohort I will role-play it out with the GM to come to an agreement on how much my PC will give the cohort as payment per day/week/month as FIXED income along with paying for all of the cohort's daily needs (food/drink/lodging). I don't expect the other PC's to dip into their pockets if they don't want to. If the other PC's are feeling generous, that's awesome, but people shouldn't expect anything more.
When I play a PC who is in a party with another PC who has a cohort, I will suggest giving some used or unneeded items to the cohort if he/she can use them, otherwise I'm not dipping into the loose gold or gems to hand out bonuses to that person's NPC.
This perceived entitlement from an NPC cohort gets my blood boiling a bit when discussing it on the forums because I've never had a cohort demand equal shares (my own cohort or someone else's), nor would I put up with it in a group if someone tried to do it.
I really don't think so since the confirmation RAW say: If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.
Sure. You roll a 20 on attack, and a misfire on confirm you get a normal hit. But in addition, because you rolled a misfire your gun is broken. Early firearmy have been fickle. They couls shoot, the could explode the could do both or nothing at all.
I, as a gm, would always allow someone using a gun to not roll his confirmation roll and choose to take normal damage instead.
False, absolutely and completely false.
A misfire is when the weapon FAILS to discharge. If you hit with a natural 20, you have not failed to discharge, you have in fact hit. You can't have a paradox in the game where you succeed at firing the shot and then a moment later with that same exact shot you fail, it's an impossibility.
I guess I'm just not understanding why or how people can see this as even being an issue because it is so clear cut to me.
If the attack hits, it hits and if it threatens all you are doing is using another dice to roll to confirm whether it was a critical or a normal hit.
This isn't a 2nd attack, it doesn't get a 2nd roll to see if it hits, it's only a confirmation of the 1 attack to see if the damage was multiplied. The only reason they say in the RAW to roll a 'another attack roll' is that was the easiest and fastest way to language it and there are feats/traits that ADD to the modifiers that are part of this kind of roll.
The misfire chance would ONLY be applicable to the original roll to hit and not the confirmation for possible multiplied damage. It really is that simple guys and it doesn't need a FAQ or further explanation by Developers. The language is right in the RAW already.
Why is it that a player saying "X is in the official rules, so I can play X" is considered "player entitlement", but the statement "You can't do/play Y because of Z" from the DM is not seen as "player entitlement"? In both cases it is one person at the table trying to dictate how the game will be played to all the other people at the table, so why does almost everyone on these boards perfectly fine with that happening if the person is a DM, but completely against it when it is anyone else?
I think it becomes entitlement when that player tries to thump the rule book(s) and say that they can play whatever they want to the GM even when the GM has expressly stated that said race/class/combo is not available in their world or that particular book is not allowed in their game.
The GM has the final call on what is and is not allowed in their campaign. If a player doesn't like a certain GM and what they do or do not allow in their world, then said player can become a GM and run the world the way they see fit. The problem with your statement is that everyone knows that the GM is the world builder, the final arbiter of the rules, and the one who spends the most time preparing for the adventures ahead.
So yes, when it comes down to it, it's the GM who gets the last say, but open communication is key because if player X just wants to super dip into classes a, b, d, f and z just to get some crazy abilities along with picking a monstrous race just because it is an option in the rulebooks, that's where this false entitlement comes in. For GM's a lot of times it's about balance and making the story work.
I am not sure what my reaction is supposed to be when thread people tell me how long they have been gaming
I think it just gives perspective. It shows the difference in the generations in the hobby and allows you to know from which kinds of games they are used to playing. Such as the grognards who've been playing since OD&D and the younger ones who've only just started playing. Different rules, gaming cultures, expectations, and experiences happen. It gives you more information. At least that's what I think, but to each his own.
You're talking about game mechanics. Slade is talking about in-world logic and fairness. Your arguments, true though I'm sure they are, are irrelevant to his point.
OK, here's a new metaphor. The PCs are The Beatles. The cohort is Yoko Ono. She starts following John Lennon around, helping out whenever she can and working as hard as anyone else. Should she suddenly start getting 20% of everything the Beatles make?
It's really this simple:
1) PC w/ Leadership is the leader or employer of the Cohort
2) Cohort is the follower or employee of the PC w/ leadership.
3) PC and Cohort come to an agreement and/or sign a contract for the cohort's services.
4) They adventure together with the PC's friends, they all heal/buff/help each other in combat with the cohort's primary focus being on protecting himself and his employer.
5) Loot is found, divided up amongst the PC's.
6) End of month/week arrives, the PC w/ the leadership feat gives the cohort his agreed upon salary in exchange for the services he's rendered.
7) Cohort is very happy, he got his pay for doing his job and doing it well.
8) Other party members are appreciative of the cohort and his help and give him a bonus to help the whole party survive, a +2 longsword is in the "party funds" and they give it to him for free.
9) Cohort is even happier.
10) Party of adventurers go on to become rich, respected, feared by their enemies, and famous. Campaign concludes on a happy note with everyone (including the cohort) retiring with vast wealth/power.
Otherwise it'd be like this:
1) PC w/ Leadership is the leader or employer of the Cohort
2) Cohort is the follower or employee of the PC w/ leadership.
3) PC and Cohort come to an agreement and/or sign a contract for the cohort's services.
4) They adventure together with the PC's friends, they all heal/buff/help each other in combat with the cohort's primary focus being on protecting himself and his employer.
5) Loot is found, divided up amongst the PC's.
6) Cohort gets greedy and says, "I am a full member of the party and am now entitled to a full share of the loot!"
7) Party is surprised by the new development and explain that the cohort is in the employ of PC w/ leadership feat and that he will get paid at the end of the week/month as agreed upon.
8) Cohort becomes angry and refuses to do anything else for the party because he thinks that the contract he signed doesn't apply to him now.
9) Party chemistry has broken down, the campaign has broken down to petty arguments, and then the posts on the Paizo boards ensue!
10) The campaign ends, so does the fun.
Tell me, which would you prefer as a GM and a player?
Its important to remember, the cohort doesn't have a giant 'I am a NPC!' sign floating over his head.
He's just another guy who showed up to help the party. Most of the time though the best place for a cohort is somewhere besides the front line, as 1.) They're fragile and 2.) Cause arguments like this.
Sure the cohort doesn't have a physical sign floating over his head, but neither do PC's have signs floating over their heads proclaiming "I'm a PC." That's just a silly argument to me.
I have to disagree with you about the guy showing up to help the party. The cohort is in fact a member of the party invited by 1 PC and his primary responsibility is to help the guy or gal who hired him on or who he decided to follow. That is the PC who took the leadership feat and asked the GM to give them a cohort.
Spook205 wrote:
Whether they get paid is really a decision of the players based on their alignment and the way the cohort gets portrayed in the first place. My general argument is that the DM decides who the cohort is, and how they're built, the player just makes a request.
Like: I'm looking for a crafter.
or
I want a hot elf babe.
And then a gnomish crafter shows up, and he gets a high level expert infant half-fire elemental elf who needs to be changed occassionally.
Frankly, most of the against paying arguments I've heard though sound like junk from KODT. Its not real money, and your money really only matters insofar as making sure you have what you need to progress. The fact you can't get the specific magic item you think will make your build be unstoppable is a feature, not a bug.
This new NPC is the sole responsibility of the person who took the feat and asked the GM to give them a friend/follower/etc. The GM role plays this character most of the time and the Player with the PC who has the leadership feat rolls for them and controls their other actions.
The problem arises when someone thinks that a lower level cohort following the PC with the feat deserves a full share of the party's loot/treasure/money. This is a hired gun of that ONE PC and anything that is found by the party (even with the cohort's help) should be taken solely from that PC's share who hired the cohort. This can be done in the form of a contract via the PC w/ the leadership feat and the new cohort when they come aboard. It does not fall on the rest of the party who didn't ask for this cohort to join them to help support the new NPC, unless they did in fact ask the other PC to recruit someone else to join them. Any additional gear/treasure/loot that the GM wants the cohort to have is solely at the discretion of that GM.
I'm really surprised at how anyone can say that a cohort "deserves" or is "entitled" to an equal split with the rest of the party. This is NOT a normal PC.
There are plenty of guides on here, including the ninja guide at the top of the advice thread with builds. If you do a quick search at the top right you can put in ninja build and find even more ideas on it. Just sayin'
