The 4 next PFRPG core classes to be announced at Gen Con


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 730 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

mdt wrote:

Ah,

I see, I misread the previous quote you were quoting from. However, I do limit alignments. Not that I will not allow someone to play an evil character, or a lawful good, but I won't let anyone play an alignment diametrically opposed to someone else in the party on the good/evil axis.

I think you can't generalise like this. It all depends on the characters, not just the alignments. I've seen mixed campaigns, and it can be a great opportunity for roleplay. You just need the right people to play the respective extremes.

Sovereign Court

darth_gator wrote:


Kudos to you for creating your own campaign, but your statement that Golarion Hellknights have no place in the core rules is totally absurd! Of course they do...it's the PATHFINDER RPG, and the PATHFINDER Campaign Setting. It's all designed to revolve around Golarion, because, believe it or not, a lot of D/GMs don't have the time, energy, or creative capacity to create everything aside from basic mechanics from scratch! If the campaign setting specific PrCs have no place in the "Core" rules, how then the campaign setting specific dieties? There should be a splat book that covers those sorts of campaign setting specific details, and you should have to buy it or create your own, right?

Actually the stated goal many times that people seem to ignore is that the Pathfinder RPG is divorced from the Golarion Setting. I've seen different Paizo staff say it numerous times across dozens of threads. But I'll repeat it. The Pathfinder RPG has NOTHING to do with the Golarion setting. There is a single PrC that is designed to show how to create setting specific PrCs (just like the original red wizard of Thay PrC in the original 3.0 DMG) but other than that you aren't going to be seeing hellknights, or bloat mages or anything else golarion specific in the Pathfinder RPG.


KaeYoss wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:


There is a huge difference between the core rules dictating alignment and the DM telling players they absolutely cannot play a particular alignment!

I don't quite say they absolutely cannot play a CE character in my average campaign, but considering the nature of CE, I all but say it. I don't consider that absurd at all.

Wu Chi wrote:


I'm wondering exactly how such a DM adjudicates the evil actions of one of the players (even though they may not be of evil alignment). Does he simply say, NO! You can't do that, it's evil?

If we agreed beforehand that this won't be an all-evil game and that characters will generally play nice?

Depends on the action. Could be a "this puts your alignement closer to evil", in cases like "That thug we captured discusts me, I don't care about the sheriff - I'm sending this one straight to hell.", or could be "this character is an NPC now and you get the hell out of my house" in cases like "I don't like that the lady won't just give the apple to me, so I'm torching the whole marketplace with meteor swarm".

The only people I allow to play evil in my campaigns are those who have proven to me that they can do so without screwing the rest of the party or destroying the campaign. Though in my last experience with an epic campaign and an evil PC, even a good roleplayer literally destroyed the campaign world when his evil character wasn't getting his way so...

Sovereign Court

KaeYoss wrote:


I think you can't generalise like this. It all depends on the characters, not just the alignments. I've seen mixed campaigns, and it can be a great opportunity for roleplay. You just need the right people to play the respective extremes.

+1 I hate when DMs try to have characters restricted by alignment. I've had good characters in an evil party and evil characters in a good party both as DM and player and seen them played well.


We can put the Hellknight base class debate to rest, as it's officially a PrC in Council of Thieves. The Player's Guide even has the prerequisites.

On the other hand, I could see a Hellknight class in the core rules. You just don't have to add any of the Golarion flavour. As long as there's Hell or something like that in the game, there can be Hellknights devoted to ultimate law, with a hierarchy fashioned after the legions of Hell.


KaeYoss wrote:
Depends on the action. Could be a "this puts your alignement closer to evil", in cases like "That thug we captured discusts me, I don't care about the sheriff - I'm sending this one straight to hell.", or could be "this character is an NPC now and you get the hell out of my house" in cases like "I don't like that the lady won't just give the apple to me, so I'm torching the whole marketplace with meteor swarm".

Certainly, that is the way most DM's would handle the situation, but how can a DM that does NOT allow his players to be evil threaten to move the player's alignment closer to evil? The logic of this evades me.

Furthermore, if evil exists within the campaign world, then not allowing players to play an evil character is absolutely, patently absurd!


Zurai wrote:
lordzack wrote:
I think the Church Knights could almost be clerics. Definitely give them the Holy Warrior variant to exchange domains for Good BAB. It's not perfect, but Paladins don't work because of the Paladin code primarily, but also due to the fact that they don't have certain spells. Wizards have too many different kinds of spells. You'd be unlikely to see a Pandion throwing a fireball, for instance. The cleric isn't perfect either, but I think it's the closest.

Totally off-topic but no, I disagree. Actually, the books specifically point out at one point (been a while, but it's in the first trilogy) that the Church Knights used both fire and lightning. Paladin code can be waived; it's a different campaign setting, it just overwrites the paladin code with an order-specific code. Clerics also don't work because three of the four orders use full plate mail and Pathfinder clerics don't have heavy armor proficiency ;)

They're definitely paladins with an alternate spell list and custom vows. Even the strongest of them, magically, never cast a spell that'd be past 4th level in D&D, and many of them could hardly cast any spells at all (Kalten...).

I'm pretty sure the "fire and lightning" you speak off was a special, one of a kind thing, if you're talking about the Zemoch invasion. The removal of Heavy Armor Proficiency is a new development. The fact that they don't cast higher level spells is because A.) they're not that high level, and B.) they don't have high enough ability scores (Kalten having like less than 10 in that ability score). There are examples of characters doing things that are higher than 4th level, such as Martel's demon summoning. Of course trying to equate things in non-RPG related media to things in RPGs tends to not work as often as it does so...


Wolfthulhu wrote:
Dude, chill. There is nothing to be gained by telling people that the way they play is 'patently absurd'. Your games are not inherently better simply because you have the time to devote to creating your homebrew world. It's great that you do, but realize that without the success of the APs you look down your nose at, there would likely be no Pathfinder RPG.

Why don't you show me the quote where I look down my nose at the APs? I simply said that the time and effort it takes to create your own fantasy world is no more labor intensive than reading all those APs. I think you're the one that better chill, DUDE!!!


Wu Chi wrote:


Furthermore, if evil exists within the campaign world, then not allowing players to play an evil character is absolutely, patently absurd!

It may be absurd, in some cases. But not absolutely. There are many good reasons to ban the alignment altogether. Sometimes, it just doesn't fit the campaign concept, or the GM knows his players cannot pull it off.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:


Furthermore, if evil exists within the campaign world, then not allowing players to play an evil character is absolutely, patently absurd!
It may be absurd, in some cases. But not absolutely. There are many good reasons to ban the alignment altogether. Sometimes, it just doesn't fit the campaign concept, or the GM knows his players cannot pull it off.

Or the GM knows his players can pull it off all too well.

And on the scale of utter absurdity, I'd say banning things because they're useless when all you've seen is a name seems far more absurd than banning alignments that tend to cause problems as a lot of players aren't mature enough to deal with them, wouldn't you? Guess that also means the Pathfinder Society is also 'patently absurd' as they also ban evil alignments to prevent inter-player conflict from degenerating into endless PvP.


Wu Chi wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Depends on the action. Could be a "this puts your alignement closer to evil", in cases like "That thug we captured discusts me, I don't care about the sheriff - I'm sending this one straight to hell.", or could be "this character is an NPC now and you get the hell out of my house" in cases like "I don't like that the lady won't just give the apple to me, so I'm torching the whole marketplace with meteor swarm".

Certainly, that is the way most DM's would handle the situation, but how can a DM that does NOT allow his players to be evil threaten to move the player's alignment closer to evil? The logic of this evades me.

Furthermore, if evil exists within the campaign world, then not allowing players to play an evil character is absolutely, patently absurd!

I absolutely will change a characters alignment, and have done so in the past, based on things they do in the game. However, if the campaign is to be a 'good' campaign, when they slip into evil, they have some time to try to redeem themselves in game, if they fail, their character usually ends up in jail, executed, or banished, by the powers that be. I just don't allow people to start a game with diametrically opposed alignments. I know my players, they will self destruct if I do (has happened before) and it's too much of a headache.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Wu Chi wrote:
Why don't you show me the quote where I look down my nose at the APs? I simply said that the time and effort it takes to create your own fantasy world is no more labor intensive than reading all those APs. I think you're the one that better chill, DUDE!!!
Wu Chi wrote:
Any campaign settings that manage to make it into the core rules are nothing more than advertisement for that campaign setting, a not-so-veiled attempt to create more revenue instead of encouraging imaginative thinking on the part of the DM.

You just said that using printed rules (i.e. campaign settings, adventure paths) do not encourage imaginative thinking. Despite the entire Shackled City Wiki and forums.

Also, your constant use of multiple exclamation points and the caps lock DUDE indicate a heated and derisive argument. Hence the suggestion you need to calm down.


KaeYoss wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:


Furthermore, if evil exists within the campaign world, then not allowing players to play an evil character is absolutely, patently absurd!
It may be absurd, in some cases. But not absolutely. There are many good reasons to ban the alignment altogether. Sometimes, it just doesn't fit the campaign concept, or the GM knows his players cannot pull it off.

I notice you conveniently deleted the first half of my quote, so please explain to me how a DM can threaten a player with an evil alignment shift for doing an evil act (and you, KaeYoss, already gave some excellent examples of this) when the DM does not allow evil player characters in his campaign.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
lordzack wrote:
Zurai wrote:


They're definitely paladins with an alternate spell list and custom vows. Even the strongest of them, magically, never cast a spell that'd be past 4th level in D&D, and many of them could hardly cast any spells at all (Kalten...).
I'm pretty sure the "fire and lightning" you speak off was a special, one of a kind thing, if you're talking about the Zemoch invasion. The removal of Heavy Armor Proficiency is a new development. The fact that they don't cast higher level spells is because A.) they're not that high level, and B.) they don't have high enough ability scores (Kalten having like less than 10 in that ability score). There are examples of characters doing things that are higher than 4th level, such as Martel's demon summoning. Of course trying to equate things in non-RPG related media to things in RPGs tends to not work as often as it does so...

I'm going to chime in and say Duskblades with Battle Caster. A houseruled spell list as well. ^_^


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
Why don't you show me the quote where I look down my nose at the APs? I simply said that the time and effort it takes to create your own fantasy world is no more labor intensive than reading all those APs. I think you're the one that better chill, DUDE!!!
Wu Chi wrote:
Any campaign settings that manage to make it into the core rules are nothing more than advertisement for that campaign setting, a not-so-veiled attempt to create more revenue instead of encouraging imaginative thinking on the part of the DM.

You just said that using printed rules (i.e. campaign settings, adventure paths) do not encourage imaginative thinking. Despite the entire Shackled City Wiki and forums.

Also, your constant use of multiple exclamation points and the caps lock DUDE indicate a heated and derisive argument. Hence the suggestion you need to calm down.

I think you need to learn something right here and now. Telling people to chill and calm down tends to piss them off even more!!!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Wu Chi wrote:
I think you need to learn something right here and now. Telling people to chill and calm down tends to piss them off even more!!!

When they are highly emotive and not used to reasoned discussion, yes. Me, I try to take a step back when I'm told to chill and return to the argument with a calmer head. Even when I want to scream at the other person about how they are wrong and stupid.


The Forgotten wrote:
Brian E. Harris wrote:
The Forgotten wrote:
Please tell me somebody at Paizo has heard that WotC has trademarked "Players Handbook". Going to need a different name.

This guy is going to be upset:

http://www.playershandbook.com/ (Possibly NSFW?)

He'd get more money if he sold his PDF on RPGnow...

My understanding is that this guy is the main reason WotC/Hasbro trademarked players handbook (and that the cease and desist is in the mail).

I certainly hope he has (or can afford) a competent lawyer, and tells WotC to go take a hike.

It doesn't matter who the company is, I'm tired of anyone trademarking (or attempting to trademark) common words like this. If what you're telling me is accurate, this guy isn't even competing with WotC for a similar market.

http://www.hardingesimpole.co.uk/biblio/1843820889.htm <--- Chess-Players Handbook. Obviously, has the qualifier of "Chess" in there, but still - the words identify it as a handbook for players - published originally in 1847. For WotC, the "Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition" is the qualifier in this case.

This strongly smacks of Intel attempting to trademark numbers prior to the creation of the idiotic "Pentium" word.

Alright, getting frustrated with corporate BS, I'm done being off-topic.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
I think you need to learn something right here and now. Telling people to chill and calm down tends to piss them off even more!!!
When they are highly emotive and not used to reasoned discussion, yes. Me, I try to take a step back when I'm told to chill and return to the argument with a calmer head. Even when I want to scream at the other person about how they are wrong and stupid.

Ditto on the "wrong and stupid" part!!!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Wu Chi wrote:
Ditto on the "wrong and stupid" part!!!

And this is why your arguments are falling on deaf ears. You are personally attacking the other party. You are displaying hostility towards someone just because they disagree with you. And when they express that they wish you would calm down and actually discuss the argument, you get mad instead.

Edit: Thank you Paul.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wu Chi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
I think you need to learn something right here and now. Telling people to chill and calm down tends to piss them off even more!!!
When they are highly emotive and not used to reasoned discussion, yes. Me, I try to take a step back when I'm told to chill and return to the argument with a calmer head. Even when I want to scream at the other person about how they are wrong and stupid.
Ditto on the "wrong and stupid" part!!!

But obviously calling people's actions 'patently absurd' is part of a calm, rational discussion that should elicit no negative feelings whatsoever. Physician, please heal thyself.

Liberty's Edge

Wu Chi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
Why don't you show me the quote where I look down my nose at the APs? I simply said that the time and effort it takes to create your own fantasy world is no more labor intensive than reading all those APs. I think you're the one that better chill, DUDE!!!
Wu Chi wrote:
Any campaign settings that manage to make it into the core rules are nothing more than advertisement for that campaign setting, a not-so-veiled attempt to create more revenue instead of encouraging imaginative thinking on the part of the DM.

You just said that using printed rules (i.e. campaign settings, adventure paths) do not encourage imaginative thinking. Despite the entire Shackled City Wiki and forums.

Also, your constant use of multiple exclamation points and the caps lock DUDE indicate a heated and derisive argument. Hence the suggestion you need to calm down.

I think you need to learn something right here and now. Telling people to chill and calm down tends to piss them off even more!!!

Before this gets in a "flame war" on all sides. Let's just "agree to disagree"

You feel that premade stuff stifles the imagination and that anyone can create thier own campaign. The first half of that argument I can kind of conceed but the second half of that argument I have to respectfully disagree with. For me there are things like a lawn to mow, pets to take care of, children and grandchildren to attend to, visitors to cater for, a house to clean, meals to prepare (I am the "head cook" in my family), groceries/clothes/housewares to buy, the occasinal house hold project (a.k.a. the "Honey Do List") to tackle and let us not forget about the job to go to to pay for all of this! So as you can see, for some people, it is not as easy as you seem to think! I mean if you have the time and talent, then more power to you but time is a commoditiy that not all of us have in abundance.


Paul Watson wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
I think you need to learn something right here and now. Telling people to chill and calm down tends to piss them off even more!!!
When they are highly emotive and not used to reasoned discussion, yes. Me, I try to take a step back when I'm told to chill and return to the argument with a calmer head. Even when I want to scream at the other person about how they are wrong and stupid.
Ditto on the "wrong and stupid" part!!!
But obviously calling people's actions 'patently absurd' is part of a calm, rational discussion that should elicit no negative feelings whatsoever. Physician, please heal thyself.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting pissed off, especially on a message board. You get far more honest responses from people who have an emotional attachment to their position. I stated my logic behind saying that such a position is "patently absurd." Why don't you try addressing that instead? Of course, you'll have to go back and read the thread from the point I came in. What? You haven't done that already?

The Exchange

Wu Chi wrote:
so please explain to me how a DM can threaten a player with an evil alignment shift for doing an evil act (and you, KaeYoss, already gave some excellent examples of this) when the DM does not allow evil player characters in his campaign.

It is simple: I don't threaten anybody with anything. Players who want me to run a game for them have to agree on this alignment restriction before the campaign starts. For me this isn't even a a matter of the player's maturity but a matter of my own preferences (and principles). And as the players have full control over their characters, they also have full control over their character's actions. If those act in an evil way, the players get plenty of warning before their character's alignment shifts to evil. But if it comes to this, they have two choices:

- actively seeking to atone for their deeds which eventually will result in their alignment shifting back
- creating a new character as their old one becomes a NSC (and probably one of the campaign's villains)

All these things I make known BEFORE the start of the campaign. And if any player can't agree to this restriction it's probably wise if we simply don't play together because one of us won't have much fun in this particular game.

Quote:
if evil exists within the campaign world, then not allowing players to play an evil character is absolutely, patently absurd!

In my world Evil exists to be fought by the players, not to be fought by the GM. And as I repeatedly stated before I also won't run a campaign in which Evil is successful. I won't go into the reasons why and I also stated before I don't mind other people thinking differently on this matter. To each one's own I guess. The worst thing which can happen is that we won't play a game together but I'd rather make this decision as long as we're on friendly terms but to make it after we're already quarreling.


Wu Chi wrote:
Obviously, I'm not willing to wait and see, none of these will ever make it into my campaign except as NPC's. Golarion Hellknights are specific to Golarion. They have no place in the core rules. Believe it or not, some people create their own campaigns and the only thing they require are the core rules. Furthermore, dictating the alignment of your players is patently absurd!

I'm mostly with you. The commitment to 3-4 hardcovers / year concerns me. The Paizo folks seem to be pretty well grounded though so I have a little hope and will probably give them a chance. The summoner sounds interesting but none of the other classes excite me. The idea of some interesting alternate class features really interests me more though.

Paizo will keep their hellknights in Golarian where they belong. I'm guessing they will be in an upcoming Chronicles or AP.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wu Chi wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
I think you need to learn something right here and now. Telling people to chill and calm down tends to piss them off even more!!!
When they are highly emotive and not used to reasoned discussion, yes. Me, I try to take a step back when I'm told to chill and return to the argument with a calmer head. Even when I want to scream at the other person about how they are wrong and stupid.
Ditto on the "wrong and stupid" part!!!
But obviously calling people's actions 'patently absurd' is part of a calm, rational discussion that should elicit no negative feelings whatsoever. Physician, please heal thyself.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting pissed off, especially on a message board. You get far more honest responses from people who have an emotional attachment to their position. I stated my logic behind saying that such a position is "patently absurd." Why don't you try addressing that instead? Of course, you'll have to go back and read the thread from the point I came in. What? You haven't done that already?

WormysQueue has already explained why to my satisfaction. I agree with what he says. You don't. Good for you. Both of us can play the way we, and our respective players, like. But it is not absurd.

EDIT: Removed baiting comments.

Scarab Sages

FWIW, "No evil PCs" is the single most common campaign restriction I've encountered, both in real life games and in online PbP games.

The Exchange

Wu Chi wrote:
Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting pissed off, especially on a message board. You get far more honest responses from people who have an emotional attachment to their position. I stated my logic behind saying that such a position is "patently absurd." Why don't you try addressing that instead? Of course, you'll have to go back and read the thread from the point I came in. What? You haven't done that already?

I hope my last post explained well enough why there's nothing absurd in my position. This said and as you're new to this boards maybe a piece of friendly advice:

Here at paizo.com we're a bunch of overall nice and friendly fellow gamers who enjoy discussing matters in a friendly, mature way (even if we disagree). we don't think it necessary to provoke persons to create honest responses as we've learned that it's more likely to create personal attacks.

You're welcome to discuss things on the same basis we're used to, but as it seems you prefer to come across as needlessly confrontational and offensive. I doubt that this behaviour will be successful in the long term as others have tried before and failed so far but that's your prerogative.

But, please, think about what's more important: to discuss the topic at hand in a friendly, mature way or to discuss your behavior. Because it's the second what we're doing right now and (I guess) it's just as annoying to you as it is to us. And I guess we're all much more interested in what you think about the topic but in what you think about people disagreeing with you.


WormysQueue wrote:
Wu Chi wrote:
Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting pissed off, especially on a message board. You get far more honest responses from people who have an emotional attachment to their position. I stated my logic behind saying that such a position is "patently absurd." Why don't you try addressing that instead? Of course, you'll have to go back and read the thread from the point I came in. What? You haven't done that already?

I hope my last post explained well enough why there's nothing absurd in my position. This said and as you're new to this boards maybe a piece of friendly advice:

Here at paizo.com we're a bunch of overall nice and friendly fellow gamers who enjoy discussing matters in a friendly, mature way (even if we disagree). we don't think it necessary to provoke persons to create honest responses as we've learned that it's more likely to create personal attacks.

You're welcome to discuss things on the same basis we're used to, but as it seems you prefer to come across as needlessly confrontational and offensive. I doubt that this behaviour will be successful in the long term as others have tried before and failed so far but that's your prerogative.

But, please, think about what's more important: to discuss the topic at hand in a friendly, mature way or to discuss your behavior. Because it's the second what we're doing right now and (I guess) it's just as annoying to you as it is to us. And I guess we're all much more interested in what you think about the topic but in what you think about people disagreeing with you.

It's nice to know that you get to decide how I present my arguments. I feel so much better now. Perhaps now we can discuss your condescending attitude!

Scarab Sages

So aside from the other discussions in this thread has there been any word yet on the next four classes?

The Exchange

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Paizo will keep their hellknights in Golarian where they belong. I'm guessing they will be in an upcoming Chronicles or AP.

As I've somehow started this discussion again I should probably explain that I didn't say that the Hellknights should be in the APHB. I just said that I find them much more interesting than the Blackguard.

When I said this I probably came across a bit too confrontational myself and for that I'd like to apologize. If other people feel like the Blackguard is a needed part of their game, then they are totally in their right to tell this to the people with the power (aka Paizo) to bring it back into the rules.


I wonder if the Oracle will have the ability to affect fate and probabilities similar to what I came with up for a Witch base class (that I can't link to because searching is disabled).

It would work like Bardic Music or a Monks Ki Points but can be used to force rerolls on enemies or allow them for allies among other things. It's not a new idea but one that was only previously used in a couple of PrCs, Fatespinner being one them.

Needless to say, I would really dig a class like this.

The Exchange

Wu Chi wrote:
It's nice to know that you get to decide how I present my arguments. I feel so much better now. Perhaps now we can discuss your condescending attitude!

OK, I tried. Knew I would fail but I'm sometimes dumb like this. Probably having infected with this smurfluenza going around on these boards

Dark Archive

Loki Planejammer wrote:
So aside from the other discussions in this thread has there been any word yet on the next four classes?

Exactly. I'm still confused as to what they are ;-(


Frogboy wrote:

I wonder if the Oracle will have the ability to affect fate and probabilities similar to what I came with up for a Witch base class (that I can't link to because searching is disabled).

It would work like Bardic Music or a Monks Ki Points but can be used to force rerolls on enemies or allow them for allies among other things. It's not a new idea but one that was only previously used in a couple of PrCs, Fatespinner being one them.

Needless to say, I would really dig a class like this.

That sounds pretty interesting when you put it that way. Would an approach like that have any non-combat applications, or would this be a basically battle-only concept, do you think?

.... Well, first off, I'd say if that's true, don't play cards with an Oracle .... ;)

(Still want to trade cavalier for gish, though!)


I can understand why the Blackguard would not be in the APHB. It's the evil version of the Paladin. It's not a class that PCs typically should be using. It belongs in the ADMG along with the [b]Blighter.

Okay, I just threw that last part in there. I wouldn't mind seeing the Blighter as a villianous class similar the Blackguard. It's terrible as a PrC since it's absolutely no good until higher levels since you have to wait for the spell progression to catch back up.

The Exchange

Frogboy wrote:

I wonder if the Oracle will have the ability to affect fate and probabilities similar to what I came with up for a Witch base class (that I can't link to because searching is disabled).

It would work like Bardic Music or a Monks Ki Points but can be used to force rerolls on enemies or allow them for allies among other things. It's not a new idea but one that was only previously used in a couple of PrCs, Fatespinner being one them.

Needless to say, I would really dig a class like this.

Oracle = Scarlet Witch? I'm all for it ^^


Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
Would an approach like that have any non-combat applications, or would this be a basically battle-only concept, do you think?

I never sully fleshed it out. The examples I gave we're mostly for combat but could be used to reroll skill checks and such as well.


Frogboy wrote:
I can understand why the Blackguard would not be in the APHB. It's the evil version of the Paladin. It's not a class that PCs typically should be using.

Last I looked, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil are all potential Player Character alignments in the PF Core Rulebook. Have these been taken out of the rules? The fact that the Blackguard is the evil version of the Paladin is exactly why it should be a base class, the theory being that the choices player's have should be balanced, not skewed toward one alignment or another.

And while we're at it, why is this "not a class that PCs typically should be using." I'd truly appreciate you quoting the rule or rules that led you to this conclusion.


Wu Chi wrote:
And while we're at it, why is this "not a class that PCs typically should be using." I'd truly appreciate you quoting the rule or rules that led you to this conclusion.

Sure:

PFRPG, page 166 under The Nine Alignments wrote:
The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains. With the GM's permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them.

Playing Evil in my campaigns is allowed only for players that have proven themselves capable of playing such in a mature and realistic manner. In my 25 years of gaming, very few players have so proven themselves.

Liberty's Edge

I don't wanna dis how anybody plays the game;
I'd like a blackguard though.
I think the pally yearns to cross steel with him.


I'm kind of interested to see the cavalier. I'm not sure what the new spin on the class will be, but its should be interesting nonetheless.

I've always liked the idea of an alchemist class that was playable as an adventurers, since the days of 1st edition when I first saw the alchemist NPC class in Dragon Magazine.

As far as the Oracle goes, I do want a divine class that is analogous to the sorcerer as the cleric is to the wizard. I don't know if that name will be the final one, but I don't have any problem with "Oracle" meaning "voice of god" instead of "guy that gets accurate perceptions of the future."

I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole summoner bit, but when I heard the explanation, I immediately thought of a class ability called "Create Deadline Monster."

;)


Heathansson wrote:

I don't wanna dis how anybody plays the game;

I'd like a blackguard though.
I think the pally yearns to cross steel with him.

I can see this, but I'm betting it shows up in a GM book instead of a player's book, which gives the GM the option of allowing it or not, given that it kind of assumes some things about the campaign that probably isn't true of every campaign (i.e. allowing evil characters).

The Exchange

Heathansson wrote:

I don't wanna dis how anybody plays the game;

I'd like a blackguard though.
I think the pally yearns to cross steel with him.

Nice try. You're just hoping to create a diversion for your kind, right? And then to backstab the pally from behind.

Didn't know that werewolves are so sneaky. ^^

Liberty's Edge

I think the Oracle might have something to do with those Tarot card things from the 2nd ap.

Liberty's Edge

WormysQueue wrote:
Heathansson wrote:

I don't wanna dis how anybody plays the game;

I'd like a blackguard though.
I think the pally yearns to cross steel with him.

Nice try. You're just hoping to create a diversion for your kind, right? And then to backstab the pally from behind.

Didn't know that werewolves are so sneaky. ^^

Shows what you know.

I just snuck a blackguard class into the conversion section, and it didn't even show up in the recent 10.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Heathansson wrote:
I think the Oracle might have something to do with those Tarot card things from the 2nd ap.

I'd think not as those are very Golarion flavoured and I'd suspect these are going to be generic classes.


You are correct when you say there is no rule removing evil alignments or evil classes from the players.

However, in my game, I do not allow evil alignments, nor evil classes. In fact, I don't allow CN either.

What you allow in your game is up to you.

-- david
Papa.DRB

Wu Chi wrote:
And while we're at it, why is this "not a class that PCs typically should be using." I'd truly appreciate you quoting the rule or rules that led you to this conclusion.


As for the rest of the "Advanced Player's X," I wouldn't mind seeing similar class substitution abilities to what showed up in Unearthed Arcana, without the way out game assumption changing options, and perhaps a little more fleshed out than some of the options were.


I would have to agree with others I do not allow an evil pc or class. So to me blackguard while cool is not for most players as that would be a class outright banned by at lest half of all groups anyhow

451 to 500 of 730 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The 4 next PFRPG core classes to be announced at Gen Con All Messageboards