.
..
...
....
.....
....my work here is done.
/hugs all
I removed a post. Fight over.
I removed a post. Fight over.
Awww man. I always miss the good stuff :(
42 seconds. I missed it by 42 seconds.
I'm seeing nothing in either Barbarian/Monk nor Barbarian/Paladin, or even Barbarian/Paladin/Monk that's striking me as terribly impressive. What's the problem exactly?
If it's a question of barbarian/monks, this is just stupid and adds to metagaming to achieve the same effects. All you loose is Rage from barbarian (for some odd reason) and only while lawful, while monks simply cannot gain levels in monk while unlawful but retain all class features... so technically there's nothing to prevent anything that you could do with barbarian monk that you could do before.
Useless rules that encourage metagaming is one of the reasons I dislike pre-3E rulesets for D&D (oh, sorry Mr. Dual-Classed Fighter 4 / Mage 3, you swung your sword, you get no XP this session).
If it's for balance with Paladin...I'm still not seeing it.
You loose access to all your paladin spells while raging, and honestly combining rage and smite isn't very impressive either; and you'd have been better off to just go strait paladin since you'd get better abilities than what Rage offers.
Someone help me out here.
This looks like Paizo is backsliding into bad rules. Say it ain't so.
.
..
...
....
.....
Say it ain't so.
It ain't so.
OR IS IT O_O
Someone help me out here.
This looks like Paizo is backsliding into bad rules. Say it ain't so.
Well actually they aren't backsliding into anything, the post stated for a fact that the rules were accidently omitted. At no point have the rules changed from 3.5 in their mind nor did the npc that they published contradict that ruling. It has and always will be the same as the 3.5 rules, people saw in the core book that it wasn't spelled out and HOPED it had changed and now are throwing a "fit" because they are saying that was a typo... If you view it as a "bad rule" house rule it out in your games, case closed and everyone is happy.
As for the fluff/concept vs mechanic's... That is something people will never agree on. The simple fact of the matter is game rules/mechanics are a complete and total metagame construct which has nothing to do with fluff, fluff is a decription or in game reasoning of the effects of our metagame rules. Mechanics are something a character never actually interacts with. They might see the general outline draping over the skeleton of game mechanics or get the jist of it, but they never actually see the details below that technically. Only the players of the game do. I personally think it is silly to try and enforce rules because of fluff, and Paizo and most game designers tell you when the rules text contradict or conflict with the fluff, follow the rules. Fluff can easily be changed, changing rules is more tricky as then there are imbalances created which may ripple out into the other rules.
Fluff can easily be changed, changing rules is more tricky as then there are imbalances created which may ripple out into the other rules.
I requested an example of how barbarians retaining their rage while lawful was unbalancing in any shape or form. I'm still waiting. Saying it's unbalanced or would be, and it being so are two very different things you see.
Also, Samurai can be effectively built with the Barbarian class, or Barbarian/Monk or Barbarian/Fighter combinations. The best samurai I've ever seen in terms of rules working with the fluff was a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue. Fluff means diddly in terms of the mechanics.
There is no mechanical reason for Barbarians to need to be unlawful, and it only serves to detract from roleplaying opportunities. I had believed the removal of the ex-barbarian to have been an innovative step in the right direction, for what is otherwise a clunky and poorly written rule that so far serves no purpose.
Be assured I don't put much stock into dumb errata, but I would like to know exactly why this rule was worth putting back in. What mechanical imbalance does it serve? What makes it any more important than Illiteracy which was also (intentionally) removed?
What makes it any more important than Illiteracy which was also (intentionally) removed?
Huh, I hadn't noticed that, but you're right.
Well, then, barbarian peoples of the world. Explosive runes for some, sepia snake sigils for others!
What makes it any more important than Illiteracy which was also (intentionally) removed?Huh, I hadn't noticed that, but you're right.
Well, then, barbarian peoples of the world. Explosive runes for some, sepia snake sigils for others!
Heheheh. ^.^
Fluff can easily be changed, changing rules is more tricky as then there are imbalances created which may ripple out into the other rules.I requested an example of how barbarians retaining their rage while lawful was unbalancing in any shape or form. I'm still waiting. Saying it's unbalanced or would be, and it being so are two very different things you see.
...
Be assured I don't put much stock into dumb errata, but I would like to know exactly why this rule was worth putting back in. What mechanical imbalance does it serve? What makes it any more important than Illiteracy which was also (intentionally) removed?
I agree this particular rule probably doesn't unbalance anything in the long run, it is something that has always been and will always be in the game from what official post has said however. You don't like that fine, house rule it. The mechanics of the official game say barbarians lose rage when not lawful, it has nothing to do with balance nor do all rules in the game have to do with balance, some are there to enforce flavor, some are arbitrary even it seems. The mechanics of the game don't always have some underlying reason, sometimes things *just are* and it is something you should have learned to accept by now. Rules in games are not always how you might like them. They don't always make sense to everyone. That is why they placed a little thing titled "The Most Important Rule" in the book. You'll be waiting for the end of time for someone to prove what you want probably, you can either houserule over the official ruling or get over it and play the game as written.
This rule was never REMOVED, it was accidentally left out. There is a difference.