Caineach, I can agree with that mostly. Everything is setting/GM dependent really. However by default if you use a class name it is expected your that class. If you say your a wizard and are not, kinda easy to spot. Other wizards will say your a fake. Deviating from the common is a setting things really. Allowing anyone to call themselves a paladin and paladins calling themselves clerics and being excepted as such by everyone is not default.
So when you say stuff like "everyone excepts my fighter is a paladin as he belongs to that order" that is pure setting as by the rules a great many people will know he is simply not a paladin.
I removed some additional posts. Really, folks, is it that hard to treat each other with mutual respect?
Creative Director
|
I say this often: The greatest strength that tabletop RPGs have over computer games is that the GM can change anything and everything to suit his and his players' style of play. This goes from building your own world and own adventures all the way down to tiny rules changes like removing the restrictions on ex-barbarians.
The rules for ex-barbarians have been in the game since 3rd edition, and we always intended to keep those rules in the PFRPG, but they accidentally got left out; adding them back in is simply making the game adhere to what we at Paizo want it to do and what we wanted it to do from the start (there's a barbarian/monk NPC in Pathfinder #28, for example, who follows these rules and lost his rage powers when he turned lawful, for example).
What it means in game is that the ability to rage requires you to be willing to let go of your inhibitions and unleash your inner mayhem and wrath in a way that a more structured mind/personality cannot do—that's why the restriction is in the game. It's got very little to do with game balance, actually, and more to do with flavor. Removing this restriction has no real effect on game balance.
When designing a rules element, there's more to it than just balancing numbers. It's important that rules elements are evocative and flavorful, and there's lots of ways to establish that. One way is to establish limits—you can define things as much by saying what they are as by saying what they aren't. By the rules, a barbarian in Pathfinder is not lawful—he/she can certainly be devoted to his/her tribe, honor ancestors, and carry a personal code of honor—such a barbarian would probably not be chaotic, but he doesn't have to be lawful to have these personality traits. You can still be a neutral good or neutral or neutral evil barbarian.
In the end, it's just one of countless bits of flavor we've decided to infuse the rules with, and the fact that it was accidentally left out of the initial release was just that—an accident.
Whether or not you like or hate alignment is an entirely different argument, and not one I'm interested in starting up or taking part in beyond saying that alignment is a fundamental part of the game and its history and legacy, and throwing it out is and never was an option. I love the alignment system.
Oh, and Batman is Chaotic Good and Jack Bauer is Lawful Good and James Bond is Lawful Evil.
Caineach, I can agree with that mostly. Everything is setting/GM dependent really. However by default if you use a class name it is expected your that class. If you say your a wizard and are not, kinda easy to spot. Other wizards will say your a fake. Deviating from the common is a setting things really. Allowing anyone to call themselves a paladin and paladins calling themselves clerics and being excepted as such by everyone is not default.
So when you say stuff like "everyone excepts my fighter is a paladin as he belongs to that order" that is pure setting as by the rules a great many people will know he is simply not a paladin.
You are assuming that people in the game world even use the term Wizard or Paladin. People will know the fighter does not have the holy power to heal, but why should that make him less of a Paladin in their eyes? Someone with that power who is taking the Paladin class may not be in the order, and he would be the fake. If you have a Paladin player who never uses his obvious healing, will your game world hunt him down too? He shows just as much holiness as the pure fighter to anyone not using detect good.
|
It's got very little to do with game balance, actually, and more to do with flavor. Removing this restriction has no real effect on game balance.
By the rules, a barbarian in Pathfinder is not lawful—he/she can certainly be devoted to his/her tribe, honor ancestors, and carry a personal code of honor—such a barbarian would probably not be chaotic, but he doesn't have to be lawful to have these personality traits. You can still be a neutral good or neutral or neutral evil barbarian.
Preach it James.
What I assume is the rules work. Unless ya change them or rule "you can't tell" it becomes clear to anyone with those powers or anyone with any kind of detect AL spell the fighter is not what he claims to be.
The rules are simply not invisible, a commoner with know arcane who sees your "wizard" cast a spell could possibly tell, much less a wizard who watches him for any length of time.
By default names like wizard and paladin are not titles. They are a statement of fact. You can change this in your world, but then it's pure setting. As it stands any class with magic can be spotted, and called out with ease.
That depends on how you treat these things in your game world, which is highly GM dependant. In one game world, being a Paladin could be a title that any pious warrior can take, and thus fighters, cavaliers, rogues, bards, or any other class could take claim the title. In this case, the game world may see a difference between the different people, but just accept that not everyone who trains to be a holy defender gets the same powers. In annother, only people who have the Paladin's abilities may be able to claim the title, and anyone without those powers may be hunted. Different settings, different interpretations of powers. It is something that is really up to the GM.
This. "Paladin" is a title. It's shorthand for "holy warrior of goodness." Paladin does NOT necessarily stand for "CHA to saves, Smite Evil, Detect Evil at will, etc" "Rage" is just another shorthand. It is shorthand for "+4 Str, Con, +2 Will saves, -2 AC"
There is no reason for a Monk to not be able to get an ability that gives "+4 Str, Con, +2 Will saves, -2 AC." People might just call it "Rage" for convenience's sake, but it can just as easily be called "Offensive Stance of the Tiger" or something.
A Wildshape Ranger can call himself a Druid and do druidic duties, and in the game world, people would think of him as a druid BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THE GAME WORLD DON'T HAVE CONCEPTS OF CLASS.
And if a Factotum calls himself a Rogue, I don't see how there's any practical way for someone to say he's lying. He probably thinks of himself as a rogue (and has never heard of the word Factotum before).
Most people would have a hard time telling the difference between a Sorcerer/Rogue/Arcane Trickster and a Beguiler.
Stop tying titles and fluff to specific mechanics.
Class features's visible appearances is how you describe it. One person's Cure Light Wounds might be a glowing light on her palm gently laid onto the wound. Another's might be collecting holy energies in your mouth and then spitting on the wound (at touch range). Seriously. there's a cleric of Gruumsh in a game I'm playing and that's how she describes her Cure spells.
Everyone approaches their powers differently.
I dare him to find a way where people in-game can practically tell the difference between a Factotum and a 3.5 Rogue in terms of the Factotum calling himself a Rogue. Can find traps? Check. has a lot of different skills and is versatile? Check. Can perform Sneak Attack? Check.
Even if *some* class features are visible, there's no reason to point at one particular set of abilities and say, "THAT! THAT AND ONLY THAT IS HOW A PALADIN SHOULD BE LIKE! NO OTHER IS ALLOWED TO TAKE ON THAT MANTLE!"
I mean, Sanya, Shiro, and Michael Carpenter all have varying abilities and skillsets, but they're all Knights of the Cross.
Trust me, I've tried to convince him of this many, many, MANY times. He refuses to budge.
We don't need to convince him. We just need to convince the question-askers and advice seekers that our views work better than his.
Class features's visible appearances is how you describe it. One person's Cure Light Wounds might be a glowing light on her palm gently laid onto the wound. Another's might be collecting holy energies in your mouth and then spitting on the wound (at touch range). Seriously. there's a cleric of Gruumsh in a game I'm playing and that's how she describes her Cure spells.
Everyone approaches their powers differently.
I dare him to find a way where people in-game can practically tell the difference between a Factotum and a 3.5 Rogue in terms of the Factotum calling himself a Rogue. Can find traps? Check. has a lot of different skills and is versatile? Check. Can perform Sneak Attack? Check.
Even if *some* class features are visible, there's no reason to point at one particular set of abilities and say, "THAT! THAT AND ONLY THAT IS HOW A PALADIN SHOULD BE LIKE! NO OTHER IS ALLOWED TO TAKE ON THAT MANTLE!"
I mean, Sanya, Shiro, and Michael Carpenter all have varying abilities and skillsets, but they're all Knights of the Cross.
Personally, In most game worlds I agree. I have no issues with a GM definining it otherwise though. If a GM wants to make it so that there is only 1 way to perform a certain spell, and that is why you can use spellcraft, that is his perogative. Likewise, he could require in game organizations to be forced to take certain feat chains, or do something else. This was one of the reasons behind orgainzation-specific prestige classes.
I kind of love that there's this:
Calm blue ocean, every snowflake is beautiful and different, rational explanation.
And then you attempt to pour gasoline on a tire fire on the way out:
Oh, and Batman is Chaotic Good and Jack Bauer is Lawful Good and James Bond is Lawful Evil.
Ironically, at our last Kingmaker session I (in seriousness) described my PC's alignment as "Jack Bauer Lawful Good" and thereby horrified most of the people at the table, including the GM.
I predict Seeker will chime in about class features being visible in the world.
That was last page really. This one two I think. The thing is game mechanics and fluff are intertwined. Sure you can change it, but by default it is what it is.
If it looks, sounds and acts like a duck it is a duck. Of coarse on your would you can rule ducks are called dragons, but that does not change that by default it is a duck.
So unless someone stats they are talking about a homebrew or a specific setting I always reply as if they asked about default assumptions. Ya know the ones where fluff is often tied to the class in ways it takes houserules to remove.
I predict Seeker will chime in about class features being visible in the world.That was last page really. This one two I think. The thing is game mechanics and fluff are intertwined. Sure you can change it, but by default it is what it is.
If it looks, sounds and acts like a duck it is a duck. Of coarse on your would you can rule ducks are called dragons, but that does not change that by default it is a duck.
So unless someone stats they are talking about a homebrew or a specific setting I always reply as if they asked about default assumptions. Ya know the ones where fluff is often tied to the class in ways it takes houserules to remove.
You're one of those people that have problems when people want to play a Warblade but call their characters (both in character and out) "Fighters" aren't you?
Fluff and Mechanics are not intertwined except somewhat with the Paladin. Show me where in the SRD it says Fluff and Mechanics are intertwined.
I say this often: The greatest strength that tabletop RPGs have over computer games is that the GM can change anything and everything to suit his and his players' style of play. This goes from building your own world and own adventures all the way down to tiny rules changes like removing the restrictions on ex-barbarians.
As we used to sing in church: "A-a-amen, A-a-amen, A-amen, amen, amen" Now would you say this same thing over in the interminable fudging thread?
|
|
I give a +4 to Str scores. What am I?
I add 1d6 to damage rolls on all attacks. What am I?
A chilling column of frost falls on an enemy. What mechanical effect does it have?
A leader of men raises his standard with a war cry. What mechanical effect does this have?
Mechanics need fluff, but they don't need a specific fluff. Fluff needs mechanics to interact with the game system, but they don't need a specific mechanic.
A paladin can be spotted anc called out by the rules. If your warblade is using any magic without items he too will be called out as a "magic user"
You simply can not hide some things. The paladin will ding "ultra good" for starters, and only a cleric can do the same. But then the cleric can't match some of the paladins other abilities.
They are simply not invisible.
As for the rules being intertwined, read the paladin, pretty much the whole thing is fluff/mechanics mix. Same with the wizard, cleric,druid,ranger,wizard and bard for starters. Ya have to rework things to take out the fluff for the most part.
Some classes are very easy, others take a rewrite or ignoring other game rules to pull off.
TOZ,IF make the correct know rolls then yep I know what you are. I know what type of spell causes that effect, if it is magic, ya can not hide it unless you change the rules.
Non magic abilities can possible be hidden but as it stands any magical ability ya can not hide, or fake for long.
A paladin can be spotted anc called out by the rules. If your warblade is using any magic without items he too will be called out as a "magic user"
My Warblade is calling himself a Fighter. And there's not a difference as far as the game world is concerned.
|
|
TOZ,IF make the correct know rolls then yep I know what you are. I know what type of spell causes that effect, if it is magic, ya can not hide it unless you change the rules.
Non magic abilities can possible be hidden but as it stands any magical ability ya can not hide, or fake for long.
I made no mention of magic or non-magic. My point stands.
I notice that Seeker generally do not respond to alot of our specific points.
Seeker, let me ask you this. Before the APG came out, if a player had wanted to be a cavalier, I assume you'd let him be a fighter with mounted combat feats, or a paladin, yes? But once the APG came out, I'm guessing a cavalier now must be a member of the Cavalier class. Do all such characters in the world spontaneously retcon? Can the other residents of the world instantly tell the difference? ("Bob, you called yourself a cavalier, and until last week everyone in the world believed you, but now we suddenly know better! You're just a fighter!"). That said, if I want to be a holy man, I assume I can't be a cleric or an oracle; do I need to write up a Holy Man character class and submit it for approval? How do you decide which classes "count" and which ones don't? Is it just arbitrary, or is it constantly changing based on new rules supplements, or what?
I made no mention of magic or non-magic. My point stands.
You did really, column of frost is magic:) My point stands as well.
I notice that Seeker generally do not respond to alot of our specific points.
I did respond to your points. If your warblade used magic he would be called a magic user of some type by most folks. If he did not how would anyone know?
Now if he called himself a paladin however he is easy to spot as a fake. But fighters are not magical so nothing to call out there, unless he does magic.
Seeker, let me ask you this.?
By default, I have no issue with non magical classes{for the most part}, but by the rules magical ablilites of any type are not invisible. They just arn't. If a fighter wants to call himself a priest and he has the skills and plays the part he is a priest. He is however not a cleric, and calling himself a cleric is a boldfaced lie. But he can be a priest of a god or a holy man. He is just not a cleric of hat god is all.
The issue is mundan vs magical, by the rules magic can be spotted, we have many skills that cover magic and how to spot and categorize magic. So any "class" that has magical ability at all simply can not hide them from everyone, unless the GM changes the rules.
Off hand I can't think of any reason to say everyone of this caviler order must be a caviler, there may be a reason but I would have to know the order really.
You guy are trying to apply what I said to everything, when I myself did not do so.
Or it's my gnome engineer's ice cannon landing a volley on the enemy. :)You did really, column of frost is magic:) My point stands as well.
I made no mention of magic or non-magic. My point stands.
And know rolls would have told me that. It was a magical effect and all it takes is the correct rolls to understand what it was, what made it, what could have made it and where it came from.
|
I just want to say something to the anti-houserule crowd. Your game exists because someone houseruled a wargame. People have been houseruling D&D since it was published (Arduin was nothing but a bunch of OD&D houserules, for one, and every roleplaying game that came out after Arneson and Gygax gave everyone the idea of roleplaying games could be said to be houseruled D&D in a way).
I just don't get your stance. It runs contrary to the DIY ethic that has driven the industry for nearly 40 years now. Get over it and play the game the way you want, and forget what the rulebook says.
Not sure if that was aimed at me, but I got no issue with house rules. I use them myself everyone does. However ya can't answer someone asking about the game with something that only works because you house ruled it.
I have yet to see anyone with any game that does not houserule. Even folks on here claiming not to have been shown to use em, it seems. I am not sure it is possible to run a game without houserules :)
No one ever does :), he claims not to but from his posts his group house rules all the time. I really am not sure what the issue here is outside of PFS, it's just a non issue.
Oh, and Batman is Chaotic Good and Jack Bauer is Lawful Good and James Bond is Lawful Evil.
You forgot Han Solo . . . ;)
Seeker, let me ask you this.?By default, I have no issue with non magical classes{for the most part}, but by the rules magical ablilites of any type are not invisible. They just arn't. If a fighter wants to call himself a priest and he has the skills and plays the part he is a priest. He is however not a cleric, and calling himself a cleric is a boldfaced lie. But he can be a priest of a god or a holy man. He is just not a cleric of hat god is all.
The issue is mundan vs magical, by the rules magic can be spotted, we have many skills that cover magic and how to spot and categorize magic. So any "class" that has magical ability at all simply can not hide them from everyone, unless the GM changes the rules.
Off hand I can't think of any reason to say everyone of this caviler order must be a caviler, there may be a reason but I would have to know the order really.
You guy are trying to apply what I said to everything, when I myself did not do so.
Come to think, Golarion itself contradicts you on this. There's an entire religion that has people who call themselves clerics, but there are no clerics. Bards are very important in the Razmiran faith for this reason, iirc. If I cast Cure Light Wounds and call myself a cleric, am I lying? Sure. Could you tell? Not really, so long as I didn't do any bard specific stuff - and even then, I could say that I was multiclassed as a cleric/bard. (Or rather, in character, say that I had training in both, or perhaps that I was using a domain ability you were unfamiliar with.)
Oh, yeah - James Bond is Lawful Neutral, and Batman is Neutral Good.
|
|
Come to think, Golarion itself contradicts you on this. There's an entire religion that has people who call themselves clerics, but there are no clerics. Bards are very important in the Razmiran faith for this reason, iirc. If I cast Cure Light Wounds and call myself a cleric, am I lying? Sure. Could you tell? Not really, so long as I didn't do any bard specific stuff - and even then, I could say that I was multiclassed as a cleric/bard. (Or rather, in character, say that I had training in both, or perhaps that I was using a domain ability you were unfamiliar with.)Seeker, let me ask you this.?By default, I have no issue with non magical classes{for the most part}, but by the rules magical ablilites of any type are not invisible. They just arn't. If a fighter wants to call himself a priest and he has the skills and plays the part he is a priest. He is however not a cleric, and calling himself a cleric is a boldfaced lie. But he can be a priest of a god or a holy man. He is just not a cleric of hat god is all.
The issue is mundan vs magical, by the rules magic can be spotted, we have many skills that cover magic and how to spot and categorize magic. So any "class" that has magical ability at all simply can not hide them from everyone, unless the GM changes the rules.
Off hand I can't think of any reason to say everyone of this caviler order must be a caviler, there may be a reason but I would have to know the order really.
You guy are trying to apply what I said to everything, when I myself did not do so.
Yeah, but that whole religion is founded on a guy who "thinks" he's a god but really isn't.
|
|
RD likes his games official. He has as long as I've seen him posting, going all the way back to d20 modern before Gleemax.
And? So then he should have no complaint. Barbarians lost their rage powers if they took a lawful alignment "before gleemax" existed. Paizo said they goofed. So, he's only been allowed to "officially" play a raging lawful barbarian monk for a very short time.
Sounds like he either needs to a) get over it and make a houserule, or b) not complain about something that was pretty obviously a mistake in the first place and was fairly quickly resolved.
|
Oh, and Batman is Chaotic Good and Jack Bauer is Lawful Good and James Bond is Lawful Evil.You forgot Han Solo . . . ;)
While we're on the subject of alignment, Han Solo is Chaotic Evil ;) !!! Greedo was only the first of many victims!!!
Evidence!-Link
Come to think, Golarion itself contradicts you on this. There's an entire religion that has people who call themselves clerics, but there are no clerics. Bards are very important in the Razmiran faith for this reason, iirc. If I cast Cure Light Wounds and call myself a cleric, am I lying? Sure. Could you tell?
Yep your spells are arcane, and will be ID as arcane spells, A great many people know they are fakes and frauds. Golarion does not contradict what I said. They use the name priests not clerics.
Actually, I think liquid nitrogen would be an alchemical effect. I forget what knowledge skill that falls under.
See ya can still tell then:)
|
|
I am a divine caster in metal full plate from head to toe. I ride atop a wolf and keep my visor down over my face. I have been seen to cast divine spells on many occasions, and frequently provide healing to those in need. They call me a cleric and praise Erastil. Are they wrong?
Edit: This is addressed to you seeker.
OOOH! I did! And since my post didn't rile up enough folks...Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
Agreed
I am a divine caster in metal full plate from head to toe. I ride atop a wolf and keep my visor down over my face. I have been seen to cast divine spells on many occasions, and frequently provide healing to those in need. They call me a cleric and praise Erastil. Are they wrong?
With the correct rolls other clerics would know if your what you claim to be yes.
|
|
Did you miss my post, sir? HAN ALWAYS SHOOTS FIRST. Chaotic evil all the way ;)Oh, and Batman is Chaotic Good and Jack Bauer is Lawful Good and James Bond is Lawful Evil.You forgot Han Solo . . . ;)OOOH! I did! And since my post didn't rile up enough folks...
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
Pfft. So, in your universe, Smart = Evil. ;)