But the very blog you relied on shows you can't tell classes apart. It only told arcan/divine.
So either Classes aren't possible to distinquish or they are are, but nullifies blog meaning can't identify arcane/divine.
An oracle is not a Cleric: Are they?
It does not show nothing of the sort. It shows arcane/divine is very easy to spot.so in with a fast look he can tell if it is arcane or divine but no he didn't look to see if she could channel, or watch her cast spells or make checks after using granted magical ability.
All of those things are easy to spot. If a Bard could tell she was some type of divine caster with a fast look what ya think happens when someone looking to see if she is a cleric will find hum? Not that it would have helped any there, oracle/cleric/paladin is all the same to those folks, tools of the gods and the enemy.
If ya can tell arcane/divine with a fast look {something some of yall say ya can not do} then the other stuff is childs play as it is spelled out. Ya can change it if ya like but if ya use any magical powers it can be ID
I am not sure how you think even a farmer with zero know skills would think him non magical.Because the Warblade is nonmagical. Entirely so.
This is false, they can be but some powers they could take were magical. So to say the class would never ring magical is simply false
This is false, they can be but some powers they could take were magical. So to say the class would never ring magical is simply false
No; you're thinking of the Swordsage. The warblade is limited to the schools with mundane effects: no blasts of fire or displacement or anything else like that. So your hasty claims of this being "false" are, in fact, false.
The same way you'd forget that barbies must be chaotic and monks must be lawful and let him play a barbarian/monk, i guess.Thank you for your useless contribution to this thread!
It's your loss I guess. From watching my friend play a barbarian who slowly becomes civilized through his exposure to the party (and religion) I can honestly say, it looked like an awesome/fun roleplaying experience.
I just don't get why they had to errata in a penalty.Since when does adding more limitations make the game more fun?
I get what you are saying, the barbarian is week enough as it is, this extra hit just wasn't needed.
Personally, I can't wait till ultimate magic comes out and we can see all those spells granting moral bonuses to strength and con.
No; you're thinking of the Swordsage. The warblade is limited to the schools with mundane effects: no blasts of fire or displacement or anything else like that. So your hasty claims of this being "false" are, in fact, false.
Ok man, I'll take your word for it I no longer own the book. If they get zero magical ability I'll call it my mistake on that account then.
1. If the appropriate Spellcraft and Knowledge skills can't tell the difference between something as basic as Divine and Arcane magic, then they can't tell anything. Divine and Arcane is THE fundamental divide in magic, so much so that even when a spell is both Arcane and Divine, a scroll of one type is useless to a caster of the other. Divine and Arcane magicks are different. The Magic section in the Core Rules makes this very clear.
2. In a reality where classes are real, some knowledge of what abilities a person is expected to have as they follow a particular path in life is to be expected. It is not unreasonable to assume that over the thousands of years of Golarion (or whatever world's) history, the idea that someone calling himself or herself a Paladin would also have certain expectations attached is perfectly reasonable and strongly implied.
3. The fact that some words have both general and game-specific meanings does not render the distinctions meaningless. A peasant with a club can be a "fighter" for the Resistance, but announcing to your companions that you are Fighter, as short-hand for "very well trained martial combatant," has a specific meaning as well. It won't take long for anyone associating with the peasant to realize that he isn't a Fighter at all.
4. Names matter. A knight, for example, can be a Fighter, Cavalier, Warrior, Cleric, Aristocrat, etc. If you call yourself a cavalier, however, you will be expected to display the abilities that are commonly associated with being a Cavalier, and will be called out as a fraud if you can't display them.
5. Maintaining a distinction between common usage and game terminology makes things easier for everyone, players and DMs. A priest can be anyone of any class. A Cleric means something specific.
Ya are free to do as ya like in homebrew stuff, but the raw assumption is if ya use a class name ya are of that class.
But nowhere in the rules does it say that.
I'm sorry it doesn't. You seem very sure. But it honestly just does not say what you want it to say.
Sigh, Jake ya said that so much better then me.
Ya are free to do as ya like in homebrew stuff, but the raw assumption is if ya use a class name ya are of that class.But nowhere in the rules does it say that.
I'm sorry it doesn't. You seem very sure. But it honestly just does not say what you want it to say.
Yep it does indeed say just that. The class has a name, The only exception is the warrior as it's to common a word but show me wizard, cleric or paladin anywhere in the rules that is not speaking about those classes?
Heck those fighter only feats I guess are open to anyone claiming to be a fighter as the rules do not state only fighters may use that name.
You are begging the question. In the rules, sure, it specifically means someone of that class. Because those are rules. But that doesn't prove that mechanics and fluff are the same. I can show you instances in fiction where sorcerers and wizards (and witches for that matter) are the same, where an oracle or druid is a type of cleric, and where a rogue doesn't mean a sneaky skillmoney.
Some of this applies to jake's points as well.
About point 2 and 3 (since they are pretty much the same), you'd expect that someone who walked a certain path in life would find someone to teach him the beginnings of that path. Thus, it would be common to see different techniques repeated amongst groups of people. You'd probably have a in-game name for that group. This does NOT mean that it would be the same name as the mechanical class - such as my examples of the shugenja or the red mage.
About point 4, I believe someone already gave an example, as did I, about new classes. Before the APG came out, a mounted fighter could call himself a cavalier because it didn't mean something specific; a spellcaster of any class who specialized in summoning could call himself a summoner. After the APG came out, do those words suddenly gain a history of meaning in the fluff, as well? Did the mounted fighter or the conjuration specialist suddenly become liars because they didn't have the specific class features? What about archetypes? Does my former sniper no longer get to call himself that because he's a ranger rather than the rogue archetype? A class is a set of abilities, and the rules need an easy way to refer to that set so they give the classes names. Because the abilities were built around a very general "fluff" theme they gave them suitable names to fit. As you said in point 5, it is easier on the players and GM to call the classes "fluff" names. But nothing in the rules says that in-game, people think of this specific set of abilities when they hear that name, any more than a warrior thinks about his "attack bonus" or "armor class", or a wizard considers his enemies' "saving throws".
Is this "sos plays in the Order of the Stick Universe" thread #8372?
Is this "sos plays in the Order of the Stick Universe" thread #8372?
???
The errata doesn't say the barbarian forgets how to rage. It says he loses the ability to rage. Also, neither the errata nor the rulebooks dictate how I run my game. Not sure why they seem to dictate the way other people run theirs. You want to allow barbarian/monks? Then allow them.
BIG PLUS 1
About point 4, I believe someone already gave an example, as did I, about new classes.
I can only speak for how I handle the issue. In my game, yes, when a new class comes out, I retcon the term to avoid confusion. The imaginary people who populate my game world have never complained. Not yet, anyway.
To me, there are two issues here:
1. Awareness of Class. No, the people of the "world" rarely go the OotS route. They are not aware of "character classes." They, are however, aware that those who call themselves "Wizards" generally operate under a certain set of rules, even if those rules are not widely understood in detail. I guess you'd call that "subconscious" or "minimal" awareness of class. Wizards do this, Paladins do that. Deviating greatly from what is expected raises eyebrows and prompts questions.
"You can't/won't heal my child? I thought you were Paladin?"
Not all rogues are thieves, not all thieves are rogues. Call yourself a thief, and you're describing how you behave. Call yourself a Rogue, and you are describing your capabilities. I find no great disconnect in assuming that the npc's who populate my game world understand that.
2. Impersonation. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to "fake" a class for very long. Spellcraft and Knowledge rolls (and sometimes Profession) are too easy to make to allow for one type of caster to impersonate another type for very long. It is difficult for me to see how anyone can dispute that a cleric casts a spell differently from how an arcane practitioner does, or even how some other divine practitioners do.
In summary: If you want terms like "Paladin" to have no specific meaning in your game, then, by all means, play it that way. But in a game reality that is "class based", doing so seems (to me) to treat the npcs as more obtuse than they should be. As well as generating a lot of confusion for players and DM alike.
In my games, calling yourself a "Paladin" means something. The Druid of the Eternal Grove, should, imho, actually be a Druid. If he isn't, or I want to obscure the fact that he is, I'll call him/her/it the Priest of the Eternal Grove (or somesuch). YMMV.
Is this "sos plays in the Order of the Stick Universe" thread #8372????
His games take place in a universe in which the game mechanics are known by the actual characters.
This is a conversation that could actually happen in his games
In your game, does the term "Fighter" have any special meaning then?
As for people knowing class powers, with so many alternative class features, how can your average person keep up? Heck, we have the source books and we the players get confused sometimes.
How is farmer Bob supposed to tell the difference between a Ranger who took the Spell-less variant from Complete Champion and a Fighter who takes the Wild Cohort feat to get a pet and invests in Survival?
Or between a Fighter and a Warblade?
Or between a PF Cavalier and a 3.5 Knight?
Basically it's like this. Classes are like Functions in programming. You generally don't care about the internal workings of the Function and instead care about what results it can provide. A Fighter and a Warblade have very different internal workings, but you pass an enemy to them and they spit out the same thing: Deaded enemy due to melee attacks.
The *practical* results of many similarly-themed but different classes can often be similar enough that the inhabitants of the world don't quite *care*. Frankly, farmer Bob is just happy that you rescued her daughter who was lost in the woods and would've been eaten by Owlbears. Does he care whether you have an Animal Companion or a Wild Cohort? Does he care whether you got your Manyshot comes from a "Combat style" or from bonus feats?
Seriously, most of the time people don't care.
Is this "sos plays in the Order of the Stick Universe" thread #8372????
His games take place in a universe in which the game mechanics are known by the actual characters.
This is a conversation that could actually happen in his games
Sigh,No. But in your games ya ignore the rules and a whole pack of 20th level wizards could not tell a 1st level cleric was using divine magic. They be lucky if you allow them to use spellcraft to ID the spell it seems.
1. If the appropriate Spellcraft and Knowledge skills can't tell the difference between something as basic as Divine and Arcane magic, then they can't tell anything. Divine and Arcane is THE fundamental divide in magic, so much so that even when a spell is both Arcane and Divine, a scroll of one type is useless to a caster of the other.
The Spellcraft and Knowledge skills can tell you all kinds of things. Honestly, Spellcraft is already a very powerful/useful skill without tacking a bunch of extra abilities that aren't in its description onto it.
Beyond that, I don't see why "I can't use the opposite kind of magic's scroll without UMD" somehow implies "therefore, I can instantly tell which kind of magic is being cast whenever it is."
Interesting debate, and one that hasn't fundamentally changed from the first post to the last. Whether its the discussion of the fluff of what constitute's "rage" and what constitutes visible, noticable difference in classes, it all boils down to interpretation and how people choose to run it in their own games. Certain differences are going to be noticable, like the difference between arcane and divine magic and the differences between a typical druid and a typical paladin, however many differences are going to be so small that only a dedicated effort is going to reveal them, and simple knowledge checks and spellcraft rolls arent going to be enough unless the person doing the questioning can meet some very high DCs.
The differences between an oracle and a cleric and even a druid can be obvious or miniscule depending how the character is built and how close his behavior matches the norm of the world in question. Same with a wizard and sorcerer or ranger and inquisitor.
As far as names go, they are important to a point, but even in the real world there is frequently a great deal of overlap in titles and job descriptions. It is not all that much of a stretch for an oracle to be called a witch, holy man, diviner, oracle, prophet, priest, occultist, or sorcerer even by those who are perfectly capable of telling that it couldn't possibly be a "witch" or "sorcerer" due to the fact that he is clearly casting divine spells (which is one thing I do believe is possible within the written rules), and many of the "divine" titles could just as easily be a druid, cleric, or even paladin. It boils down to what do you personally call yourself and what do you do to support it; if you call yourself a priest of a certain god, and can recite the proper prayers, perform the ceremonies accurately, and in general are capable of doing what people expect from a priest of that religion, the vast majority of people aren't going to care if you're a "cleric", an "oracle", or just some lucky bastard with a ton of spell like abilities. Even the need for a holy symbol isn't much of a hindrance with the birthmark trait.
On the original topic of the barbarian losing the ability to rage if he turns lawful, one, it was probably necessary to avoid confusion for organized play, and two, is rage really so great at first and second level, which is what many barbarian/monk builds do, to be that much of a loss? The extra speed, and uncanny dodge (if you go with two levels), along with the martial weapon proficiency is personally the stuff I would be looking at as being the real gains, not the ability to rage, which is nice but still not an overwhelmingly great power at level 2.
Also back to the original concept.
I agree with the rules 100%
If you are non lawful, you can rage and go full out bat s&$t on your enemies, and possibly your not so close friends. (I miss the Frenzied Berserker)
If you are a monk, you need a very high level of inner discipline to be what you are.
The two do not mix. Yes, you might have a short temper as a monk, and fight while enraged. This is not the same as a barbarian rage!
Alignment isnt all black and white as people think. Just because you have a lawful character, this does not mean that your character is unable to lie, or cheat people out of something, it just means you edge more towards evil. Poison use is also okay, unless you have a code that states that you will not use poison. Not every lawful good character is "Paladin lawful good".
Okay, now that that is out of my system, i would like to rant a bit about changing alot of rules like the alignment restrictions on these two classes. In the end, there isnt too much of a problem with this, but please realize that these are in place for a reason.
I have seen these kind of threads alot here recently, and I dont like it. People are busy wanting to change the rules, and I call dibs that somewhere along the line someone is going to want to substitute his con score for his sorcerer's charisma score, because he casts spells from his "toughness"...
We need to draw a line somewhere ppl.
Peace
On the original topic of the barbarian losing the ability to rage if he turns lawful, one, it was probably necessary to avoid confusion for organized play, and two, is rage really so great at first and second level, which is what many barbarian/monk builds do, to be that much of a loss? The extra speed, and uncanny dodge (if you go with two levels), along with the martial weapon proficiency is personally the stuff I would be looking at as being the real gains, not the ability to rage, which is nice but still not an overwhelmingly great power at level 2.
Rage is best at low levels. A 1 level dip in Barbarian is one of the best dips in the game for any martial character. It adds more to hit and damage than any other class can for a reasonable level. The Monk's biggest issues are hit and damage. You will need to pick up the extra rage feat if you want to do it alot, but it is a huge bennefit.
But that is not the problem most people are having. Combining Barbarian with Monk is not broken, or really an issue of ballance at all. They blocked the combination because of flavor, and that is the problem people have. A rule that blocks character concepts for no reason other than to block character concepts is a bad rule.
I guess all the penalties kind of made me wary of rage; even if most of them don't actually come up all that often, I tend to rate anything that reduces my AC to be at best a neutral ability that has its good at what it is designed to do, but has significant weaknesses as well.
The flavor issue is fundamental to the game itself, and even if it wasn't the barbarian and monk don't fit together argument, or arguing about the what something is or should be called, or the ever popular paladin alignment debate, people would find something else to argue about that boiled to the same flavor argument that all the above topics tend to eventually turn into.
Would you expound on that?
We tend to really hate house rules (in our games).
We avoid making house rules in our games wherever we can. They add extra complexity to the game that often isn't needed. Getting everybody to understand the normal rules, the new rules, AND why there were changes in the first place can be a real pain (especially when introducing new players). In any event, in our group there is an overriding feeling of "if you aren't going to play by the rules, why play this game at all--why not a different game?"
RD, Most d20 based RP games are incredibly complex. Pathfinder is by far my favorite, but having said that I can probably think of at least a dozen rules that I think either don't make sense or I dislike severely. If it were not for house rules, there would be no game that fit my likes completely unless I undertook the mammoth task of designing my own. As you can see, there are many people who completely agree with you and many people who completely disagree with regards to this errata. The designers will never be able to make everyone happy and the game will always reflect their vision of how things should be, which may or may not be yours or mine. I think if you remain unwilling to house rule, you will forever be disappointed and never find a game that matches your ideas completely. By all means discussion of rules is healthy and I am not trying to dissuade you from your posts. Just understand, they will not likely change any of the rules you are unhappy with, so the reality is, house rule, or live with it. I recommended house rules, they will probably make your players happier.
Phrase.
Phrase? Is this another one of those "Hi Welcome" things?
You're right but Munchkin builders really hate losing any of their dipping toys.
If you're a munchkin gamer, you play a straight, single-classed wizard or cleric. You don't waste levels in ANY melee class, much less two of them.
Need another beer Mr. Drunken Satyr?
Do I look like I say "no"?
Well played.
Thank you. And might I add, it's a pleasure to have someone else on the boards who has played the game past 10th level and actually used dice -- or at least enemies with a functional intelligence above 5.
[Combining monk with barbarian if it was something I saw only once in a blue moon might be a character concept. But it's very clear from that the vast majority if not nearly all of these players aren't looking to make a "concept" they're gaming the system to min/max BAB, saves, and character dips.
OK, if someone were determined to play a melee character (accepting that he's a caddie at 10th level regardless of what combo he picks), a 1-level dip into barbarian (for the +4 Str and Con on command) and a 2-level dip into fighter (for the bonus feats) were obvious things to do in 3.5.
These are mechanical considerations, though, and have to do with those two classes being heavily front-loaded and otherwise useless on the back end. They have nothing to do with "character concept" -- they don't interfere with it or prevent it in any way.
A quick fix for barbarian that we used was simply to scale the rage ability bonuses better with level: only +2 at 1st level instead of +4, but scaling all the way up to +10. This discourages the "quick dip" into barbarian, but does not in any way interfere with concepts like the monk/barbarian, which can still be an interesting and enjoyable character.
Don't be so quick to conflate fluff considerations with mechanical issues. If the muffler is spitting smoke, you take the car to a mechanic, not a chrome spinners vendor. If the barbarian's front-loaded rage ability causes problems, it makes sense to start with that, instead of banning specific combinations (especially ones that result in a sub-par character still being woefully sub-par above 5th level or so).
OK, if someone were determined to play a melee character (accepting that he's a caddie at 10th level regardless of what combo he picks), a 1-level dip into barbarian (for the +4 Str and Con on command) and a 2-level dip into fighter (for the bonus feats) were obvious things to do in 3.5.
It's true -- there's a reason why 3.5 melee characters almost invariably had 1-2 levels of a ton of different classes.
Well, several reasons, actually, one of the major ones being that the first two levels of random full base attack class X almost invariably gave you a better benefit than one more fighter feat (what you'd get for 2 more levels of fighter.)
Being a super-mutt with ten classes by level twelve still couldn't stop the eventual and unquestionable superiority of the caster classes, but it at least let you feel like you were contributing for a few levels longer.
Ironically, the super-mutt warrior looked like a powergamer's character to people who either don't know better or didn't think very hard about it, but it still paled before straight wizard or straight cleric.
All that being said, and back to the original point, to me, the monk and barbarian are somewhat antithetical concepts and I can't see rage going with a monk. I don't have a problem with a monk variant/ability/PClass that mechanically duplicates rage, though. So I agree with the "cheese all you want, it still can't catch up, so who cares?" take, but flavorwise monk/barbarian still bothers me.
|
OK, if someone were determined to play a melee character (accepting that he's a caddie at 10th level regardless of what combo he picks), a 1-level dip into barbarian (for the +4 Str and Con on command) and a 2-level dip into fighter (for the bonus feats) were obvious things to do in 3.5.
Also remember that you want to be a Lion-totem Barbarian for the Pounce ability.
+1 to Mistah Green.
If you're making a cross-class monk/barbarian, it sounds like you're already ignoring alignment restrictions to some degree. I don't see how the addition of an extra alignment restriction would stop you from playing the game in the way you want to play it.
No, it soumds like you followed them. Remember Alignment isn't a straightjacker. You can change alignment if you wish.
So you'd start Monk (LN for example) then over a level be more and more chaotic till DM agrees you are no longer Lawful.
Then start Barbarian levels.
That is what alignment means.
This extra restriction that you must be a Monk first who becomes a Barbarian is what the ruling caused.
Prior in Pathfinder (before errata): You could be a Barbarian/Monk. Start Barbarian NN becomes Lawful so you can be a Monk.
Phrase? Is this another one of those "Hi Welcome" things?Phrase.
[This space intentionally left blank.]
Why? Why was "This space intentionally left blank"? And,again, what is "Phrase" supposed to mean?
As such Hi Welcome or similar are the only ways one can respond to such a person other than ignoring them outright which does not let them know they are making a grave mistake and should consider fixing that.
So you claim to be trying to pass on advice, but you're doing it in code and are either unable or unwilling to explain what the code means? That makes sense to you?
Hi Welcome started as an innocuous phrase. One day one of the forum moderators over there woke up by falling off the bed, found there was a scorpion in his shoe, and was made late for work by traffic. So he decided to ban Hi Welcome.A massive outrage followed, including the use of words such as Phrase. and [This space intentionally left blank.]
In short it is at once an inside joke, a lesson not to take things so seriously on the internet, a lesson to take a step back and learn, a big running joke among DDO players that is spreading to many other forums, a lesson to moderators to not be overly strict, and a literal greeting of a new player. All at once.
That's a lot of power for two little words.
And I have explained their meaning, so what are you talking about?
I asked what "phrase" meant and you responded with "This space intentionally left blank." That doesn't explain anything. That's being deliberately obtuse.
And, since the moderator here reacted poorly to the "Hi Welcome" thing, I suspect that the DDO Mod had more of a reason to ban the phrase than you indicate. Most likely due to annoyance at a perceived condescending attitude and air of "clique-ishness". I also suspect that he or she was correct in doing so.
Good Luck with your game.