I know right. Those guys in the crusades weren't ultraviolent at all. There's a lot of variety in preachers and their congregations. Not just sitting in pews.The dude leading the congregation in prayer. The mugger does all he knows to survive. The preacher converts the minds of the masses. He's also far more capable of robbing people of their wealth.So preaching makes him more competent at ultraviolence? Reading comprehension fail Khry.
Except the guys actually fighting the Crusades weren't preachers. They were all mercenaries by the 4th Crusade I believe.
Peter the Hermit is attributed with starting the first crusade with preaching
I don't know what your definitions of ultraviolent are, but someone who starts a holy war fits into mine.
the guys actually fighting the Crusades weren't preachers
When did I reference anyone fighting? Your response to my comment is as equally out of context. Thanks for coming out though.
How about we get back to the thread topic now instead of derailing some more.
I'm not sure you understand the concept of violence, much less "ultraviolence".
Convincing people to commit violence =/= being violent.
A person who mugs people is much more capable of carrying out physical violence than a guy who stands on a pulpit and has invested his time and effort into learning religious teachings.
But he is not more capable of COMMITTING violence. He is the one instigating, but he is not the one perpetrating.
In case it slipped your mind, this is a discussion about combat effectiveness. Who is more capable of committing violent acts in combat: The preacher or the mugger? The answer should be obvious.
And my favorite part as well is where it says "violence is the use of PHYSICAL force or power, threatened or actual" which the preacher himself is likely to have very little of, but the mugger is likely to.
We can argue semantics all day if you wish, but as it stands 3/5 definitions of the word refer to physical force or power (one of these being influence/power exerted unjustly), while one refers to strength of emotion, and one is only "a violent act".
And, may I also remind you, the Crusades were not perpetrated under our current definition of violence.
You don't understand what you're arguing because we were never arguing the definition of violence. We were, for the third time, arguing about combat efficiency as related to violence.
It's a simple enough question: Who is likely better in a fight (i.e. committing violent acts), the Preacher or the Mugger?
That's what this entire discussion of "but well violence can be psychological sometimes" stemmed from, you ignoring the point because you wanted to be contrary (and likely because you have some sort of bias against religion, since you implied the preacher in question was both violent and a con artist).
You're now trying to pigeonhole a class by narrowly defining it.
Who's better in a fight? The emaciated mugger who just escaped from prison or the ripped preacher who spends his spare time sparring with his brothers to maintain health and strengthen bonds through sport?
The key word in my post being "likely".
You realize religion has played a role in the development of many martial arts?
You realize violent crime and murder has been around longer than any religion extant?
The joy of posts is that there's documentation.
Indeed. Let's look through the posts.
@Raymond- reason prevails, huzzah!
Funny though I remember arguing with my DM in 2nd ed to get thieves (as they once were called) should get 3/4 progression because who's scarier and more trained at ultraviolence the guy that mugs people or the dud leading a congregation in prayer once a week!
You may recall that 3/4 progression is referring to BaB progression. I.E. how good someone is at hitting things. Which is physical violence.
Your response to this post:
The dude leading the congregation in prayer. The mugger does all he knows to survive. The preacher converts the minds of the masses. He's also far more capable of robbing people of their wealth.
Which is you suggesting that the guy leading congregation in prayer is better in combat than the guy "doing all he knows to survive".
That bolded part is where I got the idea that you may have some bias against organized religion by the by.
When I disagreed with you, you decided to change to a different definition of violence to save face, which led to this current post where I point out that I did, in fact, read exactly what you were responding to.
Guys, what the hell are you talking about? This is stupid. If you want to argue semantics for 5 million words, other parts of the internet are there to accommodate your perversion.
What does it matter if the crusaders were preachers or if inciting a war is violence? Or what a congregation is, for that matter?
It's all completely irrelevant to the cleric's BAB, because BAB is for fighting, not violence and the cleric is not a crusader. Nor is he peter the hermit.
Can we move on?
I asked for a return to the thread topic many posts ago. Rynjin took it upon himself to argue with me based on comments between Gnomersy and myself. Seems like he wants his own crusade.
I'm glad I'm not entitled to an opinion on the Internet when it's substantiated by fact.
I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. What I meant was the cleric is far more general than that.
The fact that there's a crusader archetype doesn't substantiate anything at all. That's just an option to make the cleric more like a crusader, not developer confirmation that he's been one all along.This argument makes no sense, achieves nothing and interests nobody. Take it somewhere else. It's horrible.
I came back here hoping to see new on-topic posts. I'm now wishing there was a way to reply without bumping.
the cleric is not a crusader. Nor is he peter the hermit.
Where do you get that cleric's can't be crusaders? The description says:
"Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith. Yet while they might share similar abilities, clerics prove as different from one another as the divinities they serve, with some offering healing and redemption, others judging law and truth, and still others spreading conflict and corruption. The ways of the cleric are varied, yet all who tread these paths walk with the mightiest of allies and bear the arms of the gods themselves.
Role: More than capable of upholding the honor of their deities in battle, clerics often prove stalwart and capable combatants. "
This doesn't seem far from a crusader to me.
I said he is not one, not that he cannot be one. I'm saying he's much more vague than that, so he shouldn't be expected to represent a guy from that particular series of wars. Every single class could be made to represent a crusader, with the possible exception of the wizard, witch, alchemist and summoner. Even the rogue can do it.
Being a cleric has practically nothing to do with it.
|
I never really had a deep desire to fix the system, I just thought my original post would be interesting to explore. Again, thank you to everyone who revealed stuff I had not considered in the few minutes it took me to write the post.
I did not read all the priest vs mugger posts but it reminded me of old news I laughed my ass off at that I want to share.
A priest was commended for throwing out some ruffians from his church on the news. About one or two weeks later, a new report surfaced explaining the priest was found smoking crack while writing his sermon. Turns out those ruffians were there to collect money the priest owed them.
I like the idea that full BAB can equate more effective parrying thus equaling more HP. I still dislike insisting that all of the classes have a forced marriage of such imposed upon them.
If a tank is suppose to stand between the opponents and the softies, why would a d10/12 class with 3/4 be out of the question? Likewise, if you know you can depend on a real life player to back you up with healing, why should you dismiss a class with a full BAB only because it had a D8HD?
Maybe I am wrong but I personally think the full BAB classes were designed to be easy to play for people new to the game. I really do not have a problem with them being perceived as weaker later on because I have next to no interest in playing them anyway(exception for the Duskblade of 3.5). I also really do not have a problem with them becoming overshadowed as they largely overshadow the other classes early on themselves.
I have no sympathy for people crying about imbalance. If you want everything even, why bother making choices at all? Why not have everyone take a pregen then? Why not take a script that gives everyone a line or turn to shine an equal number of times at that point?
I said he is not one, not that he cannot be one. I'm saying he's much more vague than that, so he shouldn't be expected to represent a guy from that particular series of wars. Every single class could be made to represent a crusader, with the possible exception of the wizard, witch, alchemist and summoner. Even the rogue can do it.
Being a cleric has practically nothing to do with it.
Well, while everyone could pull it off, everyone doesn't have a description including "these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms".
Every single class can be made to represent a preacher. All you need is a decent charisma, points in diplomacy and oratory, and if they're not already class skills the cosmopolitan feat.
Agreed. I'd say _all_ classes can be built to represent _all_ real-life professions ever. In one of our campaign settings there is no definite knowledge of divine magic, and the preachers that can work magic that we know of are bards that believe their magic comes from a blessing of their god (whether that is true or not, I don't know).
However, some classes are designed to point in certain directions - and both preacher and crusader are professions that lie closer to classes like cleric and paladin than to classes like wizard and rogue.
Raymond, Nobody is dismissing the idea of full BAB classes with a d8 hit die. Just because a d8 is ok doesn't mean a d10 wouldn't be better in the case of the ranger, which is the only full BAB class who's hit die was changed.
In practice a hit point per level just doesn't make that much difference, so I'd advise you not to worry about it. HP varies much more from the beefed up toughness feat, Constitution and pathfinder's favoured class bonus than it does from hit die changes, so you'll never notice the difference in play.
I make it a rule never to dismiss cries of imbalance. Balance isn't about everything being perfectly even, it's about keeping characters relevant so players can play. It's about fairness, not sameness.
For example, Guilty Gear XX ^Core + is a fighting video game which is known for being unusually well balanced. No two characters are equally powerful, but every character is a reasonable pick, whether you're newbies playing for laughs or experts competing for prizes.
Obviously pathfinder is team game, but it works out the same: If a class wouldn't be in the running in an encounter solving competition, it won't pull its weight in the party.
Nobody reasonably expects the fighter, rogue and wizard to be equally powerful, but it's not too much to hope that they can all meaningfully contribute.
As it is, the fighter starts out fantastic at his job, but suffers a little because it's narrow. The rogue is quickly outperformed by the fighter on the battlefield and by the wizard off the battlefield. As the game progresses, more and more of the fighter's role is eaten away by the wizard.
We all know that and we all deal with it, because it's hardly the end of the world, but that doesn't mean making it worse isn't a bad move.
You seem to take my entire post out of context and cant see the relevance to what has been substantiated. You've read it backwards and not forward as a whole with reference to everything else posted. I never said you denied me an opinion. But your bigoted statements of how my opinion is now horrible and nonsensical are.
Ok. It's pretty clear that each of us thinks the other doesn't understand. I don't hold the views you're criticising me for. Bigotry seems a very strong accusation given the circumstances and I'm only trying to express frustration, not hostility.
In my experience, when somebody says "you're not reading my posts", nothing more can be accomplished. Let's call it off.