My group and I had a chance to play with some of the goodies from Alpha 2 over the weekend. Although we didn't get as much gaming done as we would've liked, our Paladin player got very sick, we did have some comments and interesting discussions on Alpha 2. I apologize if any of these comments are repeated from our Alpha 1 playtest report, or elsewhere on the boards.
tfad
***
Elven Immunities (p.5): It occurred to me that I'd not be sure, as DM, how to handle something like sleeping pollen etc. against an Elf. The immunities paragraph explicitly states magic sleep effects, but it also follows that as Elves don't sleep, they should be immune to all sleep effects. In AD&D, we had the awesome explanation in the 'Complete Book of Elves' about how it works and what the Elves do instead of sleeping. Is this the same for Golarion Elves? A tighter explanation paragraph would solve this.
Barbarian (p.8-11): Our group is not usually interested in Barbarians, but the addition of the 'rage points' mechanic generated genuine interest and excitement for the class. It's a great way to open the class up and expand what it can do. We have to respectfully disagree with those on the boards who "don't want to worry about managing points and just want to hit things" and "it's now no longer a class for introducing newbies to the game". Rage points are no more complicated that HP, GP, (P)PP, spell slots etc. and no class should be dumbed down to the point that it is relegated to newbie status. How would the hard-core cleric players feel if their class was the one dumbed down? There are plenty of ways to introduce new players to the game.
Regarding the rage powers, we had a little feedback. Namely there should be more powers to choose from. In line with Conan, as the stereotypical barbarian, there should be a power that grants a move action (as he's always pouncing like a panther on ape-beasts etc.) and one that eliminates the improvised weapon penalties (as he's always squashing things with giant rocks, fully loaded treasure chests etc.).
There should also be a way of spending more rage points than you have. Barbarians are all about exploding until their heart explodes and a way of trading HP or ability burn for extra instant-use rage points when you have spent all of your rage point pool is an absolute must. We thought a rate of about 5HP per RP was a fair one, although the rules would have to explicitly state that these rage points could not be spent on the Renewed Vigor power. The alignment change was also nice.
In a word - awesome! We can see using barbarians for more than just a playtest, the new mechanics are great and have added interest where there wasn't any before.
Druid (p.14-18) and the new Polymorph stuff (p.81-): Again, we're not a group who uses Druids on a regular basis, but the rules changes generated some interest. Druids were a little overpowered in 3.5 and no one in our group really wanted to play as one because they were never sure exactly what they could polymorph into and just looking at the MM for different forms is kinda intimidating! Like Astral Construct, the polymorphing stuff is now much simpler and easier to balance (although as noted elsewhere on these boards, the spells do all assume that the caster is medium size). We liked this approach and thought is was an elegant solution to an ongoing problem. The slightly more sensible weapon proficiencies and the improved animal companion, including the option to not take one and rely on the Animal Friendship style spells to gain a domain, were also well received. I, personally, was the most impressed and, when I do finally get a chance to play rather than DM, I will be giving the druid a go.
Paladin (p.19-23): Now we're discussing our group's (probably) favorite class! We all like the Paladin as they are quintessential heroes. Anyone who was at Dragonmeet 2000 in London may remember one of our players - he was the Chinese guy shouting that Paladins need to be comparable in virtue to Optimus Prime! That's how strongly our group likes Paladins. So what did we make of the changes after having played with them?
Alignment (p.19) and Code of Conduct (p.22): We were very relived by these bits. As a group we've never bought into the whole 'Paladin of (X)' cr*p and feel very strongly against it. Paladins are Lawful Good and a champion of any other alignment (or bizarre cause) are exactly that, not Paladins but 'Champions of (X)'. Thank you for keeping this the way (we feel) it should be. It was also great to see a Code of Conduct that makes sense and is short and to the point. The more words and stipulations you cram into the CoC (!) for a Paladin, the easier it is for decidedly non-Lawful Good DMs to unfairly screw around with your character and the harder it is for the player to come up with their own unique Code of Conduct that adheres to the game rules. This is something we've loved doing for years and is a great part of the Paladin. Thank you.
Detect Evil (p.19): We are aware that a lot of D&D DMs hate this ability with a vengeance, claiming it ruins their plots as the Paladin strides in then Scan/Smites the BBEG. We were a little nervous this ability was going to disappear, but were very glad it's still there. The above problem is with how the game is run and the pillar of virtue and good that is the Paladin needs to have this ability.
Smite Evil (p.19-20): We saw quite a lot of talk about 'more smites please' online, but we think that the class now has enough. If every attack can be a smite then it ceases to become special. With a high BAB and a great weapon selection, the Paladin is a great fighter. Please don't make any drastic changes to smite.
Aura of (X) (p.20-): The new auras are nice. They add to the role of the Paladin as sort of central figure, holding everyone together, whilst protecting themselves from the things we feel a Paladin should be protected from. Any of the classic heroes from old movies or the 80s cartoon action hour that could be Paladins, have at some point all shrugged off some sort of mind control whilst yelling something like "I'll never join your evil scheme! Never!" ;) Yeah, we liked these as well balanced extras to a class that badly needed some class features.
Divine Bond (p.20-21): We all like the Paladin's mount and have had some strange mounts including a sea snake and a dragon. However it was nice to see a new option that will probably see an awful lot of use. The argument of a mount not being useful in the dungeon is as old as the class itself and we thought a lot of players will take this ability and it reminds us of the AD&D holy sword quests.
However, for ease of reference the rules need a table with the weapon properties and their equivalent enhancement bonus a la the Soul Knife class in the XPH. We do not want to have to flip through pages of the DMG to get this info, it should be there with the other class information.
We know that there was a lot of discussion on the boards about making this ability usable more than once per day. Either way our group okay with this, but it is important that if the chosen weapon can be used more than once a day then the Paladin's mount can also be summoned more than once a day. Don't forget the trusty mount in favor of the new, shiny toys.
Remove Disease (p.21): now works. It's much easier to imagine Paladins being sent or called to areas of plague as they can now do something about it. Logistically, when this ability was per week, the Paladin was peeing into the wind when it came to fighting disease. Great fix.
Holy Champion (p.22): Great crown for the class and brilliant reward for sticking with it! We loved this - another awesome, well done!
Sorcerer (p.26-32): If there's a class we love as much or more than the Paladin, it's the Sorcerer, over 50% of our group plays Sorcerers on a regular (i.e. every character) basis. We know this class, it's strengths and weaknesses, very well. We knew that they would get the better HD and the cantrips at will, but what did we make of the changes?
Class skills (p.26): The class suffers from not having enough class skills based on their primary attribute and the descriptions of the sorcerer (and the mechanics of having the highest charisma in the group) always put it as a central role. At the very least they need to have the option of switching Intimidate for Diplomacy, but seriously, they need both as class skills. Why can't you play a diplomatic sorcerer?!?! Grr! ;P This is real annoyance for our group and we'd like to see Diplomacy on that skill list. If it's not going on the list then can we have an explanation as to why? We'd like to hear the rationale behind not adding it as it makes so much sense to add it. You've got to fix the big things before addressing everything else.
Bloodlines (p.26-32): In a word - awesome! These abilities were enough to get our regular Wizard player to ask if he could switch from Wiz. to Sorc.! The abilities are nice and the bonus feats are good too. Although, much like the rant about Diplomacy above, we were expecting them to get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. It makes sense and fits with the description of the class. Unless Sorcerer's are going to get a flavor re-write, which we don't want, then they need Eschew Materials as a bonus feat.
Obviously we didn't get a chance to test all the bloodlines, but the testing we did do left us happy with the results. Although from reading various threads on these boards, we understand that the bloodlines may get a bit of a re-write as not everyone was as happy as with them as we were. We did have one other comment though:
One of Us (p.32): This makes no sense at all. Why would people still love a rotting Sorcerer, even with a huge Charisma? Wouldn't your average villager run in fear? How is rotting a good reward for sticking with Sorcerer all the way up to level 20? It's a great mechanical bonus but the description of the power is lazy and nonsensical. Please change this for the final release, otherwise we predict an entire generation of Sorcerers who'll retire at level 19, or take a level of (X) just to ensure they don't start rotting. It's hardly a good thing, is it? ;)
Skills (p.36-): YES! Thank you for putting ranks back in! The new system exceeded our expectations and is a better system than the original 3.X. There was quite a lot of discussion about whether this was enough on these boards, but we were largely happy with the result. All of our players were happy with their new skill lists and, as a group with a love of cross-class skills, everyone was able to afford everything they wanted skill-wise. The +3 bonus to class skills is great and offers a real incentive to pick up all/most of your class skills, at least at one rank. This is important as the only incentive to choose class over cross-class in 3.X was the horrible 2 points per rank restriction. Also, there should be a different version of the Skill Focus feat that offers an increased class skill bonus. Perhaps increasing the bonus from +3, to +5, with the prerequisite being a number of ranks in a number of different class skills. With the new freedoms opened up, it'd be great to see some sort of further incentive to stick with the class skills.
We had two points to discuss about skills.
Extra Skill Points at every other level: I've championed this cause here. In summary, characters should be awarded an additional 2 points at every other level, on the levels when they don't gain feats. This has two benefits, being uniformity (something that 3P is moving towards and the goal of a tidy system should be on every RPG design list) and extra skill points without breaking the basic assumptions of the skill system. There's quite a lot of info and analysis of the math behind this as opposed to other systems in the above link.
Bring back the Scry skill: Please bring back Scry as a skill. It works so much better than the will saves in 3.5 and 3P has already taken a step in the direction of magical skills with the Fly skill. It really, really needs to be in there and makes a lot of sense. We understand this is a minority vote, but it's really important to us, as a gaming group, and 3P is the first and only platform we have to shout about this. We've continued to use Scry since it was dropped in 3.5 and never had any compatibility issues. If any of the designers want a more detailed look at this, we'd be more than happy to help in any way we can. :)
Swim (p.38): Thank you for returning Swim to being a Str. skill.
Feats! Not too much to say here, other than:
Combat Expertise (p.50): Pasted from our previous report, linked to above Not really worth taking now as a feat. This is a real shame as it was a group favorite for all classes from level 3 and up. We understand that it needs to be reworked to fit in with the new (and improved) Power Attack rules, but now it is pants. It would work better if it was the same as 'two handed power attack' all the time and offered twice your intelligence bonus to AC for one times the penalty.
Selective Channeling (p.51): Thank you! Just what we asked for!
Turn Elemental/Outsider (p.52): Ditto! Thank you again!
Cover (p.58-59): Again, this is a needless change that is too difficult to work out if you're not using figures. There was nothing wrong or broken with the 3.X cover rules and if it isn't broken, don't fix it!
Grapple (p.61-62): Whilst the Alpha 1 grapple rules where an improvement, the Alpha 2 rules are doubly so. They eliminated the confusion and led to a great scene in our game with our grapple-prone 15th level Wizard trying to wrestle a 2HD tiefling chef with a hand full of spices! The new rules are simple and applying the grappled condition to both grapplers means it is now, as it should be, not a good idea to start wrestling foes when surrounded. Although we didn't try it, these rules will definitely make a mass-grapple of 3+ grappling characters a lot easier. And you know this will happen at some point.... ;P
There's not much to say about spells and magic, other than well done! We looked at the polymorph stuff above, but also just wanted to comment on:
Eyebite (p.87): The 3P version is better than the 3.5 version, but not as good as the 3.0 version. Good middle ground, but it did upset one of our players who loves the spell and wanted to know if there was any plans to revert to the 3.0 version. She's not hopeful though. :)
Reincarnate (p.97-98): Yes! At last a usable version of this spell! Thank you!
XP Costs (p.99): Not an essential change for us, as we didn't mind XP costs, but an interesting one. There are a lot of 3rd party materials which work on XP costs, e.g. Oathbound by Bastion Press has some nice evolutionary paths which cost XP and various books by Fantasy Flight Games which have 'schools' in them, letting you trade XP to learn different techniques in war, magic etc. Adjusting the base XP charts (as is necessary, with the 3.X ones not being in the SRD) had very little effect on the values ascribed to these other costs as 3P stuck to the same scale (i.e. 1000s of points instead of 10s etc.). However, removing XP costs from the game entirely does leave these products in a bit of a Limbo. It's the first point against back compatibility that we've seen in Pathfinder, but it is one. Whilst our group is happy to continue using or modify these costs, we felt i worth mentioning.
Staves (p.106): We like the fact that a staff is now a permanent item, we have been recharging staves in our games for years so it's nice to see it in the rules. However the actual mechanics on how to recharge your staff need looking at. We know that this has been thoroughly discussed and will be addressed with Alpha 3, so are waiting to see what happens. We did have a rules question based on the 3P set up though. As it reads, a Paladin could recharge a Wizard's Staff of Dispelling. Is this intentional? We can't see that this breaks the mechanics of the game, but if this is not intentional, then it would need addressing in the recharge rules re-write.
No XP Costs for Crafting Magic Items (p.106-): As stated above, this is not a deal breaker for us as we didn't mind XP costs. Increasing the GP costs is a great way for the DM to control magic item output, although, again we've never had a problem with the rules as they stood. As pointed out elsewhere on the boards, there needs to be a rule for starting off at higher levels, otherwise crafty PCs can double their starting wealth by making everything.
Item slots (p.109) & Body Slot Affinities (p.115): To be blunt, this is the sort of arbitrary cr*p that us Paizo fans regularly complain comes from WotC. D&D is an amazing game of imagination and not a computer game, limited by programming and graphics. As such, classics like Gauntlets of Ogre Power should be just as possible as Hats of Ogre Power, Boots of Ogre Power, Cloaks of Ogre Power and Rings of Ogre Power. The rules prevent the same type of bonus from stacking, so there is no reason not to allow magic items to function the same, no matter the slot they occupy. There are cultural considerations also, e.g. an African-inspired tribe of people may prefer strength enhancing boots, as they watch the gazelles run across the plains, leg muscles rippling - that is strength to them, being able to run so fast, leap so high etc. Using the 3P set up and this arbitrary rule, I now have to start house ruling magic items from non-generic D&D cultures. Come on Paizo! You're better than this!
Before wrapping up we also wanted to comment on this:
Monte Cook Joins the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game™ Team
Co-creator of 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons® to act as Rules ConsultantPaizo Publishing®, LLC today announced that Monte Cook, the co-creator of 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons and author of the 3.5 PHB and DMG as well as the Ptolus™ campaign setting and the recent Book of Experimental Might™, has joined the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game team as a Rules Consultant.
"This is going to be a lot of fun," said Monte Cook. "Pathfinder is a fresh spin on a rules system that I love and the guys at Paizo are great to work with. They produce nothing but the highest quality products."
"Monte Cook is a legend of third edition and of the Open Gaming movement," said Paizo's Publisher, Erik Mona. "He's also a great DM, and has the best mind for mechanics I've ever seen. To have one of the original third edition designers helping us with the Pathfinder RPG is like a dream come true. With Monte's involvement, I am certain that the future of the edition he helped to create will be very long and very fruitful."
"I am really excited to be working with Monte on this project," said Paizo's Lead Designer, Jason Bulmahn. "His advice has been a great help to the Pathfinder RPG. When it comes to rules design and knowledge of the 3.5 system, there is absolutely no one better."
Monte Cook will also be contributing an introduction to the final Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hardcover, scheduled for an August 2009 release.
Our group had a geekgasm at this. What a coup for Paizo! w00t!
In summary we've really enjoyed being a part of the open playtest so far and will continue to post our thoughts up until it closes for the final release. If our comments on Alpha 2 seem negative, that's only because we didn't want to type "I love you Paizo, thank you!" at least once per page of the Alpha. We loved the changes so far, except for a few of the crazies that have obviously only crept in because you guys are working so hard to give us all what we want. Keep up the good work and thank you!
Peace,
tfad & Group
wow couldn't have said it better myself
I can, to a degree, understand the body slot idea, but not at the expense of altering something like gauntlets of ogre power. I wouldn't have minded if they "belt or head" body slot were an additional slot affinity beyond the normal 3.5 one, because then Pathfinder adventures can have all of the belts of str/con/dex they want, but the value of gauntlets, gloves, cloaks and the like from other adventures doesn't suddenly change since they are "non standard" items.
Thanks for taking the time to read it all!
Yeah, the whole item slot thing is crazy and I'm sure that Paizo will nix it for Alpha 3/Beta. At least I hope they will - the less restrictive that 3P is, the longer it'll last. If there are lots of arbitrary rules like this then it's going to put off the very people that their awesome open products (like the Pathfinder Adventures) are going to attract.
I'm sure that Jason and Monte can get this right;
Say it with me now! I do believe!
;P
tfad
Item slots (p.109) & Body Slot Affinities (p.115):
You can still make any magic item for any slot you want they just cost more money is all
Thanks for taking the time to read it all!
Yeah, the whole item slot thing is crazy and I'm sure that Paizo will nix it for Alpha 3/Beta. At least I hope they will - the less restrictive that 3P is, the longer it'll last.
Just to be clear, they're not banning Gauntlets of Ogre Power (for example); they're just increasing the price by 50% (for an "inappropriate slot" as Joey Virtue pointed out).
The change seems extremely mild to me, but YMMV.
:)
Just to be clear, they're not banning Gauntlets of Ogre Power (for example); they're just increasing the price by 50% (for an "inappropriate slot" as Joey Virtue pointed out). The change seems extremely mild to me, but YMMV. :)
I believe the concern is more centered around how this increase in cost will affect material written prior to the change, specifically the value of equipment or treasure from encounters. Also, while not expressly prohibiting Gauntlets of Ogre Power, the 50% cost increase does discourage it in favor of a Belt of Ogre Power, or perhaps a Shirt of Ogre Power. The end result being the effective removal of a classic D&D magic item in some games.
Elven Immunities (p.5): It occurred to me that I'd not be sure, as DM, how to handle something like sleeping pollen etc. against an Elf. The immunities paragraph explicitly states magic sleep effects, but it also follows that as Elves don't sleep, they should be immune to all sleep effects. In AD&D, we had the awesome explanation in the 'Complete Book of Elves' about how it works and what the Elves do instead of sleeping. Is this the same for Golarion Elves? A tighter explanation paragraph would solve this.
While elves don't naturally sleep, that doesn't necessarily mean they can't be forced unconscious. As for sleeping pollen, I'd imagine that would classify as "poison", which, as stated in the description for Drow sleep poison, elves would not be immune to. But yes, I would also love to hear what elves do instead of sleeping in Golarion.
I believe the concern is more centered around how this increase in cost will affect material written prior to the change, specifically the value of equipment or treasure from encounters. Also, while not expressly prohibiting Gauntlets of Ogre Power, the 50% cost increase does discourage it in favor of a Belt of Ogre Power, or perhaps a Shirt of Ogre Power. The end result being the effective removal of a classic D&D magic item in some games.
Yup, that's what I was getting at. I know that I can still have them show up in games, but the price for them will be kind of out of whack, and, as you point out, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be created by the PCs due to the cost, and they aren't likely to show up in any Pathfinder adventures.
As far as the elven sleep thing goes, I know this might not apply to every setting, but in the Forgotten Realms elves that are particularly ill or in dire health do sleep, and its a sign to other elves that something is very wrong with that elf.
Yup, that's what I was getting at. I know that I can still have them show up in games, but the price for them will be kind of out of whack, and, as you point out, it wouldn't make much sense for them to be created by the PCs due to the cost, and they aren't likely to show up in any Pathfinder adventures.
Tallforadwarf's example was a tribal culture that might want to have Boots of Strength, though -- absolutely nothing has changed regarding the pricing for Boots of Strength from 3.5 to Pathfinder. That's what made me think there was some confusion.
Tallforadwarf's example was a tribal culture that might want to have Boots of Strength, though -- absolutely nothing has changed regarding the pricing for Boots of Strength from 3.5 to Pathfinder. That's what made me think there was some confusion.
Sorry - I picked a duff example! What I was trying to say was that if a magic item that does X in form Y is cheaper than a magic item that does X in form Z, then;
Form Z better offer some pretty good advantages to justify the cost. 'Body Slots' differing in cost is poor 'out of game' reason which places something needlessly arbitrary into the game.
and;
There are going to be a lot more of Form Y items in the world. Sure, some items are going to be more common than others, but this template now carries over the items the PCs will make.
Also, as I understood the Alpha, you couldn't have 'Boots of Strength' without paying the extra.
One of the changes we made to the Pathfinder RPG included moving all of the magic items that boost your ability scores to just a pair of slots: belt for the physical abilities and headband for the mental abilities.
and;
Wondrous items that don’t match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity. (SNIP) Belt - Physical improvement, Boots - Movement
Peace,
tfad
I believe the concern is more centered around how this increase in cost will affect material written prior to the change, specifically the value of equipment or treasure from encounters. Also, while not expressly prohibiting Gauntlets of Ogre Power, the 50% cost increase does discourage it in favor of a Belt of Ogre Power, or perhaps a Shirt of Ogre Power. The end result being the effective removal of a classic D&D magic item in some games.
Exactly!
While elves don't naturally sleep, that doesn't necessarily mean they can't be forced unconscious. As for sleeping pollen, I'd imagine that would classify as "poison", which, as stated in the description for Drow sleep poison, elves would not be immune to. But yes, I would also love to hear what elves do instead of sleeping in Golarion.
I guess I get a bit confused here - is unconsciousness really the same thing as sleeping? Having been both knocked unconscious and having slept, I'd vote no on this one. ;) And isn't the Dark Elf stuff explicitly made to poison Elves though? What about stuff, like pollen, that simply has that effect on creatures who do normally sleep? I guess I'm asking for clarification before this comes up in game because you know if I don't ask, it will!
Thanks for all the comments!
Peace,
tfad
Also, as I understood the Alpha, you couldn't have 'Boots of Strength' without paying the extra.
Yes, but that's exactly the situation with custom magic items now; the sentence you quoted is a direct cut & paste from the SRD:
"Wondrous items that don’t match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity."Nothing has changed with regards to Boots of Strength; they always would have cost 50% more (although you're free to ignore that rule). The only thing that changed is with Gloves of Dexterity, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, Amulets of Health, Periapts of Wisdom and Cloaks of Charisma.
Yes, but that's exactly the situation with custom magic items now; the sentence you quoted is a direct cut & paste from the SRD
Ah! That's not in my 3.0 DMG, so I'm assuming that's a 3.5 update, no? We never wholesale updated to 3.5 as our core books still work fine and we've never had any compatibility issues with any 3.5 materials we've picked up.
Except for the occasional 'whoopsie' like this, although I'll stick to my guns and call this a cr*ppy, crazy rule. Didn't my original post say it felt like something WotC would do? Lol.
Thanks!
Peace,
tfad
tfad, just wanted to say this was an excellent playtest report. Enoyable AND informative! :-)
tfad, just wanted to say this was an excellent playtest report. Enoyable AND informative! :-)
Thank you! *blush*
tfad
Hey it's the Big chinese guy that loves wizards and giant transforming paladins. I think one thing that needs to be added is the wizard, I find the flavour of the class has improved and the abilites does make a player want to take the class to level 20. Not being a fan of multi-classing I find this can only be an improvment.
Detect Evil (p.19): We are aware that a lot of D&D DMs hate this ability with a vengeance, claiming it ruins their plots as the Paladin strides in then Scan/Smites the BBEG. We were a little nervous this ability was going to disappear, but were very glad it's still there. The above problem is with how the game is run and the pillar of virtue and good that is the Paladin needs to have this ability.
Just out of curiousity, why is this so key? I'm relatively sure Optimis Prime doesn't have Detect Evil. He has to make the tough decisions himself. Yeah, I know, Decepticons aren't as deceptive as they maybe should be, but still.
I'm sorry if I'm being a bit harsh, but there's a degree to which I'm bringing up the idea because of the phrase 'The above problem is with how the game is run'. That comes off a little judgemental, there.
I have to admit, it hasn't come up for me yet, because most of my gaming group don't play paladins, and the one who does doesn't use Detect Evil much (I think because it's ICly a privacy issue to her.) However, I can see where any ability that forces a DM to show their hand pretty much at will can be problematic, especially a DM who wants to use a cunning behind-the-scenes manipulator villain or secretly wicked mentor plot. Grant you, a DM can always come up with a reason why the paladin can't auto sniff out and smite a villain or sneaky henchman, but sometimes it can get a bit contrived, and also risks frustrating the player whose class feature is being consistantly foiled.
In my humble opinion, any easily accessable class ability that makes it hard for a DM to run a good solid genre of fantasy plot might could at least use a bit of acknowledgement and tweaking, if not removal. Flavor-wise, Detect Evil is good. Mechanically... it's abusable.
I think that's why I like lawful cities "Why did you smite this man?" said city watchman "Because he's evil, I had used dectect evil on him" said paladin. "But do you have any evidence that the indivdual has committed a crime?"
"um...no"
"so you murdered this man? for committing no crime but bgeing evil?"
"...."
"Would you come this way please sir"
The paladin in my group kept her party members from killing a cleric of Cyric because he hadn't done anything yet. She pointed out that while her detect evil warns her who she can and can't trust, and who to keep an eye on, until that person actively does an evil act, she can't do a thing about it.
I think that's why I like lawful cities "Why did you smite this man?" said city watchman "Because he's evil, I had used dectect evil on him" said paladin. "But do you have any evidence that the indivdual has committed a crime?"
"um...no"
"so you murdered this man? for committing no crime but bgeing evil?"
"...."
"Would you come this way please sir"
Oh, believe you me, in a game I run, if the players are in a highly civilized environment, with modernesque civil liberties, "He detected as evil." isn't reason enough to arrest or attack someone on the street. You'll get in serious trouble that way.
But that is speaking from the perspective of modernesque civil liberties (or society where bad folks in power don't want to get ratted out.) A perfectly lawful fantasy society might be highly religious, however, and take for granted that the gods bestow measurable power and righteousness upon the purest of holy warriors. In such a place, condemnation by a holy person who can tangibly detect your wickedness may be more than enough justification.
But that's neither here nor there. That'd be talking specific setting/city/nation details, and like I said, there are ways to get around Detect Evil. Potion/helm/feather-boa/etc of unknowable alignment, anyone?
I merely sympathize with DMs who've got to put together ways for bad guys to at least try to bluff heroes who can 'at will' tell if they're evil (and therefore, aren't trustworthy.) Sometimes it doesn't fit without some serious squeezing.
... but maybe I'm not qualified to talk about this. I'm not big on alignments in general.
Oh, believe you me, in a game I run, if the players are in a highly civilized environment, with modernesque civil liberties, "He detected as evil." isn't reason enough to arrest or attack someone on the street. You'll get in serious trouble that way.
But that is speaking from the perspective of modernesque civil liberties (or society where bad folks in power don't want to get ratted out.) A perfectly lawful fantasy society might be highly religious, however, and take for granted that the gods bestow measurable power and righteousness upon the purest of holy warriors. In such a place, condemnation by a holy person who can tangibly detect your wickedness may be more than enough justification.
But that's neither here nor there. That'd be talking specific setting/city/nation details, and like I said, there are ways to get around Detect Evil. Potion/helm/feather-boa/etc of unknowable alignment, anyone?
I merely sympathize with DMs who've got to put together ways for bad guys to at least try to bluff heroes who can 'at will' tell if they're evil (and therefore, aren't trustworthy.) Sometimes it doesn't fit without some serious squeezing.
... but maybe I'm not qualified to talk about this. I'm not big on
alignments in general.
I kind of like them because I played in two planescape games and your alighnment is very importnat in where you go in the after life. Plus when your dealing with devils and demons that are much better at fighting than you. you better suck it up or after two or three devils later the pitt fiend comes out.
Just out of curiousity, why is this so key? I'm relatively sure Optimis Prime doesn't have Detect Evil. He has to make the tough decisions himself. Yeah, I know, Decepticons aren't as deceptive as they maybe should be, but still.
Yo!
No the Decepticons are anything but deceptive. The only way I can really accept this is that they earned their name before they all became energon junkies. ;) In fairness though, as cartoon villians they did their job i.e. got you jumping in excitement when they got their a$$es kicked.
I'm sorry if I'm being a bit harsh, but there's a degree to which I'm bringing up the idea because of the phrase 'The above problem is with how the game is run'. That comes off a little judgemental, there.
Apologies. I ended my post, and most of my posts, "peace" because I don't want to offend anyone and for those who don't know me IRL, I certainly don't want to be thought of as judgmental. I'll try to rephrase and clarify what *I* meant and hopefully this time I can do it without sounding like an a$$. :) I say *I* because with some of my group posting here, they can speak for themselves. :)
Our group is a roleplay heavy group, sometimes with several sessions, especially at low levels, between straight knock-down combats. We do a lot of social interaction stuff and enjoy political games. In these games we have a lot of Paladins, as they're a real favorite, running around detecting evil all over the place. Often one of the first things asked when encountering an NPC is "Oooh! Is (s)he evil?" Of course, trying to use this power without the NPC noticing can require skill checks etc. e.g. a bluff check.
There is no harm in the PCs having this information! I'll try to explain the way we play it.
Just because someone is evil doesn't mean they're out to get the PCs. Aside from the 'enemy of my enemy' classic, they're all people too. If an NPC has a name more imaginative than 'goblin 6', chances are they also have a personality and role to play in the ongoing plot. Just knowing that someone is evil doesn't mean that you immediately know everything about them. For example, when making a deal of sorts a CE NPC would be much more likely to screw the PCs over than a LE NPC. It's up to the PCs to figure out who they are and what they want. Knowing they're evil is not the same as knowing who they are. Here's an example from our games:
The Pcs needed help to complete a powerful spell and their ally, an NPC apprentice wizard, suggests a deal with her master's rival (as her master is missing, with no hope of finding him). Allus the Tongue is an evil wizard who is most interested in why his long-missing rival's apprentice has come to him for help. The PCs know he's evil, thanks to the Paladin detecting his aura. They accept his help but don't trust him to keep his end of the bargain.
He does and they continue to suspect him as he continues to help. He gives them powerful magic items as gifts and acts as a sage when they need information.
Eventually the Paladin and the Thief sit down with Allus and have a heart to heart with him. He opens up and tells them that he is seeking redemption for his past evil acts. He explains a little more about himself and the PCs discover that he was never so much as evil, more just very ruthless in his rivalry and now, as an older man, he's trying to set somethings straight before he passes on.
The PCs know that if they had just 'scan/smite', not only would they have not received the help that they needed at the time, but also that they would have killed someone who was trying to be a good person. The players know that every NPC is a person and not just a stat block or XP bottle waiting to be opened. Allus' history was not available with a simple sense motive check or with a quick history roll. Even if it was, as he never made a public 'declaration of repentance', the PCs could never had known he was seeking to do good. And alignments don't just switch over night (although that's another topic for another time).
Also, just because someone is evil doesn't mean they're being evil right now. This might sound silly but being evil is not a smite-able offence. Picture an evil devil eating shrieking souls in a messy fashion in the corner of a suitably planar establishment. The Paladin sees this and detects his aura as evil. Should he immediately go over there and smite him?
Our group could not do this as there are too many unanswered questions in the scene, yet we've seen the same DMs who complain that the ability should go, run scenes like this then scream at the players who didn't get the first blow in "BUT HE'S EVIL AND EATING SOULS!"
For us, it'd look something like this. Are the souls he's eating evil? Did the devil acquire these souls legally (e.g. contracts, trade etc.)? Does the devil want to be doing this (e.g. is he under contract to behave in this way, charmed etc.)? etc. etc. This sort of thing has a huge effect on whether or not the Paladin can associate with the devil also, if the devil is playing by the rules and those are evil souls then there is no reason why they couldn't enjoy a drink together.
Although the Paladin would do well to watch said drink.... ;P
Semi-continuing the above example, as well as having a duty to good, Paladins are also Lawful. Lawful means no starting fights without recourse to the law of the land etc. The above devil could be challenged, but the Paladin could not just 'scan/smite' without breaking the lawful aspect of their code. Remember the 'legitimate authority' bit. That also applies in places like Hell (in Planescape at the very least).
Evil does not mean stupid is another aspect of this argument. We see those same DMs I'm singling out (again) complaining that their evil scheming NPC is a mastermind and the Paladins are ruining their schemes. Real masterminds never get their hands dirty and certainly don't put themselves into the position to be smote! Again, we come back to the Paladin respecting authority, conducting themselves in a lawful manner and treating the NPC like a person, not just another bottle of XP waiting to be opened.
What if the king was evil but his lands were well run, his people protected by a well trained army etc. ? He's only evil because he loves power, wealth and little serving girls, running his kingdom well to ensure he retains that power. If he doesn't have an heir, or if he has warlike neighbors, killing him is going to lead to a hell of a mess and the 'scan/smite' Paladin should be mindful of such decisions.
I guess the core of my argument is very situational and that is what I was trying to convey. Essentially:
The players will naturally respond to the style of game you are running.
Those DMs I'm talking about are in the habit of being brutal towards their players and then act surprised when their players act brutally. I wanted to put out a voice that thanks the Pathfinder devs. for keeping in an ability we love, that we thought might be lost.
As a DM to a group who loves and plays Paladins, I can safely say that I have never felt like I have been forced to 'show my hand' and I've never found it hard to run a 'solid fantasy genre plot'. Oh, and I had great fun with the 'evil mentor' plot back in 2nd Ed. ;)
In direct response to the 'meat' of your question, "why is this so key?", I want to quote your post.
I have to admit, it hasn't come up for me yet, because most of my gaming group don't play paladins, and the one who does doesn't use Detect Evil much (I think because it's ICly a privacy issue to her.)
Flavor-wise, Detect Evil is good.
It's a wonderfully flavorful class feature that we feel enhances our game, not the other way around. It's great to see your Paladin as they see it as a breach of the target's privacy. That's some awesome roleplaying your group would've been deprived of if the ability was gone and we just wanted to shout out a thanks to the devs.
See, all that without referring to conceal alignment magics once!
;p
Seriously, thanks for you question and I'm sorry for any offence caused. I certainly didn't mean any and those DMs I'm singling out in my comments are people my group's met in real life and have had this conversation with too. Although I've also seen similar comments posted all of the internet, I'm trying not to think of them in my post as I've never met them and their problems may well be something completely different.
Apologies for the long answer but I've tried to be thorough!
Peace,
tfad
Hi all -
Paladin player (in the playtest game) reporting in.
Just to say I totally agree with tfad's post above. While I think the idea of viewing "detect evil" as a privacy issue is a really interesting idea, in this game, I do tend to run around going, "Ooooh, is s/he evil?"
But my motivation isn't, "Cus if s/he is, I can SMITE him/her!" it's a combination of curiosity and information gathering.
To be honest, most of the time it's a "confirmation" issue rather than anything else. Unless the Bad Guy is actively trying to hide their nature and intentions (see below), it's probably fairly clear who you're supposed to be fighting in any given situation. And if it isn't, then that's interesting, and, as a player, is going to make me think carefully about my actions regardless of who I can tell is evil.
I understand, I suppose, the problems some GMs have with it, but I guess my feeling is that it's a very specific problem and one that's easily fixed. If a character is sneaky enough to want to try to bluff the PCs, they're probably sneaky enough to get some kind of undetectable alignment spell. Perhaps this comes from playing in Planescape so often where alignment is something that's frequently an issue: perhaps when playing in a game where alignment is nearly never an issue until the Paladin cries out, "Is she evil?!" makes for a different experience, but I think the point still holds.
Certainly if an undetectable alignment magic is not an option, then the obfuscation can be done in reverse, as it were, by introducing the notion that "detect evil" can't be used as a scanning tool to find all the "bad guys" immediately. Introduce some petty crooks, or a guy who has nothing to do with the adventure but is sat in the corner of the bar radiating a ton of evil, or a character trying to atone, or an evil character who's still extremely lawful and useful to the characters.
I guess I just think it would be a shame to lose such a flavourful and fun ability, because sometimes it requires a bit of lateral thinking on the part of the GM for some characters.
Perhaps it's also worth noting that a far more decisive clue as to an NPC's intentions toward the characters (rather than an alignment which might indicate a certain attitude), is a boatload of ranks in Sense Motive, but we don't often hear about the unbalancing effects of that skill?
I merely sympathize with DMs who've got to put together ways for bad guys to at least try to bluff heroes who can 'at will' tell if they're evil (and therefore, aren't trustworthy.)
I didn't see this one pointed out yet. Evil is not untrustworthy. Trust is lawful, cheating and lying is chaotic. For example, LE cares about tradition, loyalty, and order. He is loath to break laws and promises.
I didn't see this one pointed out yet. Evil is not untrustworthy. Trust is lawful, cheating and lying is chaotic. For example, LE cares about tradition, loyalty, and order. He is loath to break laws and promises.
Good catch!
Peace,
tfad
Although I started as a paladin I think I can't realy go back from wizard. I'm a heavy magic player so who doesn't want to be a planeswalker.
All said and done pathfider looks and feels great, I fancy playing a fighter for the first time in ages.
Apologies. I ended my post, and most of my posts, "peace" because I don't want to offend anyone and for those who don't know me IRL, I certainly don't want to be thought of as judgmental. I'll try to rephrase and clarify what *I* meant and hopefully this time I can do it without sounding like an a$$. :) I say *I* because with some of my group posting here, they can speak for themselves. :)
Meh, don't worry about it. I can't remember precisely, but I suspect I was having a bad day and got my feathers ruffled infinitely easier than I should have. My bad as much or more than yours. That said, let me address a couple of points.
Just because someone is evil doesn't mean they're out to get the PCs. Aside from the 'enemy of my enemy' classic, they're all people too. If an NPC has a name more imaginative than 'goblin 6', chances are they also have a personality and role to play in the ongoing plot. Just knowing that someone is evil doesn't mean that you immediately know everything about them. For example, when making a deal of sorts a CE NPC would be much more likely to screw the PCs over than a LE NPC. It's up to the PCs to figure out who they are and what they want. Knowing they're evil is not the same as knowing who they are. Here's an example from our games:
Now, as far as I can recall, a paladin's code literally prohibits them from cooperating with evil aligned creatures. Thereby, the 'Enemy of my enemy' classic is invalidated if the paladin knows the would-be ally is evil. Furthermore, they know someone is not to be worked with as soon as they scan him/her. If the code is not explicit about this, I apologize and have to go back and re-read the Players' Handbook. I haven't consulted the Pathfinder release on Paladins yet.
Quoting just from the D20 hypertext doc: "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
Emphasis added is mine.
And I know you didn't mention this part, but:
I didn't see this one pointed out yet. Evil is not untrustworthy. Trust is lawful, cheating and lying is chaotic. For example, LE cares about tradition, loyalty, and order. He is loath to break laws and promises.
I just cannot buy that as an idea. The most guileful, cunning, backstabbing snake-oilsmen & women in all of D&D are Devils. The epitome of Lawful Evil. If you trust them, they've got a bridge they'd like to sell you.
You can value structure, order, and organization, and not the truth or loyalty except as they pertain to bettering yourself.
And... this brings me back to why I'm anxious about rules and abilities based on alignment. We all have different ideas on what they mean.
Meh, don't worry about it. I can't remember precisely, but I suspect I was having a bad day and got my feathers ruffled infinitely easier than I should have. My bad as much or more than yours. That said, let me address a couple of points.
;)
And... this brings me back to why I'm anxious about rules and abilities based on alignment. We all have different ideas on what they mean.
Yeah, you've cut right to the point with that line. Everyone's game is different and "knowingly associate" means different things to different groups even though it's something that sounds pretty cut and dry. Rules based on morals can be very sticky indeed. ;)
Either way, makes for some awesome debates.
Peace,
tfad
I didn't see this one pointed out yet. Evil is not untrustworthy. Trust is lawful, cheating and lying is chaotic. For example, LE cares about tradition, loyalty, and order. He is loath to break laws and promises.I just cannot buy that as an idea. The most guileful, cunning, backstabbing snake-oilsmen & women in all of D&D are Devils. The epitome of Lawful Evil. If you trust them, they've got a bridge they'd like to sell you.
My take on this: The Devils are lawful, thus you can trust them to adhere to the laws of Hell. Obviously then, lying to a mark isn't unlawful to said adherents of Hellish law. Yes, they will lie, cheat and steal. In fact, doing the opposite (speaking the truth etc.) would be them breaking the laws of Hell and thus going against their own alignment.
|
My take on this: The Devils are lawful, thus you can trust them to adhere to the laws of Hell. Obviously then, lying to a mark isn't unlawful to said adherents of Hellish law. Yes, they will lie, cheat and steal. In fact, doing the opposite (speaking the truth etc.) would be them breaking the laws of Hell and thus going against their own alignment.I didn't see this one pointed out yet. Evil is not untrustworthy. Trust is lawful, cheating and lying is chaotic. For example, LE cares about tradition, loyalty, and order. He is loath to break laws and promises.I just cannot buy that as an idea. The most guileful, cunning, backstabbing snake-oilsmen & women in all of D&D are Devils. The epitome of Lawful Evil. If you trust them, they've got a bridge they'd like to sell you.
On the contrary, you can trust devils to keep to any agreement they make. To the letter. Of course, this usually means they're going to mangle the intent, but that's why dealing with devils is a dumb idea. Imagine insurance companies who've had millennia to understand fine print and exceptions clauses. That's the devils. All this talk of lying is just because people don't want to admit how they were taken advantage of. It's pure propaganda.
Demons you have to worry about breaking heir deal as soon as it's convenient. Devils won't break it as long as you don't. But you're still screwed over in a big way.
On the contrary, you can trust devils to keep to any agreement they make. To the letter. Of course, this usually means they're going to mangle the intent, but that's why dealing with devils is a dumb idea. (SNIP)
You've hit it right on the head there. ;o)
tfad