Sacred Cows of D&D and Pathfinder

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

I have three questions about Sacred Cows in D&D/Pathfinder:
What are the Sacred Cows (elements of the game that some feel should not be changed)?

What Sacred Cows are "good" and/or under what conditions do Sacred Cows contribute to the game?

What Sacred Cows do not contribute to the game?

Another way to view the questions are what are some of the core, classic elements of D&D/Pathfinder. I'd like to hear what elements make the game better and what elements might benefit from change.

An example of a Sacred Cow is fighters not having spells. In the 3.5 submission guidelines for Dungeon magazine this was a rule, not to create feats that let fighters cast spells. I would say this Sacred Cow can work but is not integral to the game. There are many threads on martial/caster disparity and this Sacred Cow is not the source of that controversy(imo). Giving fighters spells similar to a ranger or paladin might be interesting for a one-shot, but I don't think it would add anything to the game.

Another example could be the Tarrasque. The Tarrasque is the powerful monster that powerful monsters are judged by, and iconic in its own right. The Tarrasque is class D&D at its best, a powerful monster that is a powerful monster for the sake of being a powerful monster (and epic challenge for adventurers).

The "fire and forget" spell system is another Sacred Cow. I like the D&D spell system, and recognize it has its flaws. Spontaneous casters mix it up a little but use the same system.

Wealth By Level could be viewed as a relatively new Sacred Cow (introduced as RAW in 3.0). I could never go back to 1st/2nd ed. "no wealth by level" rules after playing and running WBL.

Any Sacred Cow could be its own topic of a thread, but I'm interested to hear what other posters think of them.

[Rynjin]

Three I don't like:

Caster/Martial disparity. Some players and even the devs think this is something that should be preserved, because "magic users SHOULD be better than non-magic users".

Vancian casting. I think the system is simple, yes, but the way it works actively contributes to caster/martial disparity. From a non-game balance perspective, I think a change is in order after all these years, at least an updating of the system to make it more balanced and streamlined, as well as having its own unique flavor.

The Paladin Code. Both too vague and too strict at the same time, and the only reason it exists is because it's been that way for forever. It's no longer needed as a balancing factor to the Paladin's power as compared to others; he's already balanced with the other martial classes, no need to pile on a built-in self-destruct the GM can press at any time.

[Bill Kirsch]

Wizards not being able to cast healing spells.
Which I think is just fine.
But I'm an "old guard" D&D player (almost 30 years now).

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Rynjin wrote:

The Paladin Code. Both too vague and too strict at the same time, and the only reason it exists is because it's been that way for forever. It's no longer needed as a balancing factor to the Paladin's power as compared to others; he's already balanced with the other martial classes, no need to pile on a built-in self-destruct the GM can press at any time.

Oh. My. Gods. Yes!

On top of the reasons you gave, none of the special abilities are against chaos; just against evil. The classic 'Holy Warrior of Good' would happily be of any good alignment.

[Laithoron]

Here's a few that annoy me:
.
.
.
.

• Rolling for hit points.
  
• Rolling ability scores.
  
• Leadership as a feat instead of a story development.
  
• The need for higher-level characters to gain iterative attacks.
  
• AC/Defense does not improve with level.
  
• The baseline assumption that everyone in the world who isn't an adventurer is 1st level.
  
• Spell Resistance.
  

[Kimera757]

Vancian casting.

Paladin code.

+X items. From power gaming in earlier editions to required (and stress-inducing) in d20. Ug. Get rid of them, and get rid of the math requirements. Please.

BAB/THAC0 increases with skill... but AC does not.

[kmal2t]

Never heard the term vancian casting. Had to look that up.

I would say alignments for me. Lets fit the complexity of morality into 7 categories. If you even challenge it people get up in arms and try to defend it.

[Threeshades]

kmal2t wrote:

Never heard the term vancian casting. Had to look that up.

I would say alignments for me. Lets fit the complexity of morality into 7 categories. If you even challenge it people get up in arms and try to defend it.

9 categories actually.

I agree with Rynjin on all points.

As for magic/martial disparity; I think magic should be as versatile as it is, that's what its all about but not more powerful than what an equal level dedicated martialist has to offer. If you have really powerful spells, they should take time. I'm thinking of something like the first Conan the Barbarian movie, in which the wizard takes a day-long ritual covering conan in runes from head to toe to heal him.

[Calybos1]

Lack of support for parrying; why must every character (including barbarians) be draped in steel just to get a decent AC?

[Hama]

Because most people whine horribly when you ontroduce class based AC to the game, even though it was done beautifly in Wheel og Time d20 and pretty well in Star Wars revised.

[Vincent Takeda]

THACO! oh wait. You said SACRED cows... Not sacrificial cows... Sorry. Move along... Nothing to see here.

[Blake Duffey]

The argument could be made that making significant changes (removing Vancian casting, for example) turn the existing system into something very different. (ie - it's not 'D&D' any more)

There have been some variants over the years (such as the Skills and Powers optional rules TSR put out in the mid 90's) - but typically D&D is viewed as having some things that are essential to it's identify.

Now - *I'm* not making that argument. :) I'm just saying some will. I'm a big fan of class balance for example (caster vs non-caster)

Someone started a thread not too long ago about 'what changes should be made in a hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0' - and I'll say the same thing I did then: you change it too much and you run the risk of blending in with the rest of the market. Our group switched to Pathfinder primarily because we didn't like what 4th edition turned out to be. Pathfinder was 'familiar' yet 'improved' over D&D 3.5.

If you make massive changes, you encourage people who are fairly happy with the existing system to start looking at Savage Worlds, Hero Fantasy, or even running back to Wizards for D&DNext.

It's a fine line between 'sacred cow' and 'essential part of the system'.

[Artanthos]

Calybos1 wrote:

Lack of support for parrying; why must every character (including barbarians) be draped in steel just to get a decent AC?

This has not been a requirement for quite some time.

Even a wizard can have an AC in the 40's.

[Porphyrogenitus]

Vincent Takeda wrote:

THACO!

Gesundheit.

Blake Duffey wrote:

If you make massive changes, you encourage people who are fairly happy with the existing system to start looking at Savage Worlds, Hero Fantasy, or even running back to Wizards for D&DNext.

It's a fine line between 'sacred cow' and 'essential part of the system'

Yep; if you change it too much, you'll break the base. Again.

People's ideas of "sacred cows I like" and "sacred cows that should be BBQ'd" vary too much.

It would be nice if they could find a way to reduce the Caster-Martial Disparity without losing the flavor people like, though. But beyond that, I dunno; I'll stay mum I suppose.

[Blake Duffey]

Artanthos wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

Lack of support for parrying; why must every character (including barbarians) be draped in steel just to get a decent AC?

This has not been a requirement for quite some time.

Even a wizard can have an AC in the 40's.

I can't speak for Calybos, but I agree with his initial sentiment (but I'll clarify mine)

why must every character be draped in steel OR MAGIC just to get a decent AC?

[Haladir]

I'll preface by saying that I've been playing D&D for 30+ years, and there's a certain distinctiveness in the D&D family of games that I wouldn't want to change. Some of that is...

1) Vancian magic. It's a cornerstone of the resource management aspect of the D&D family of games, and is a very big part of what makes a game feel like it's part of the D&D legacy. I'll never replace Vancian magic in my D&D games. (If I want a non-Vancian magic system, I'll play a different game, like Ars Magica.)

2) The Nine Alignments. Another major and important aspect of the game is the alignment system. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive, and is to be used as a roleplaying aid rather than a straightjacket. I like that the rules are deliberately loose, but at the same time have real in-game consequences. Alignment is another aspect I'll never drop from my D&D games. (And, again, if I want to play a game without alignment, I'll use a different system, e.g. Hero System.)

3) Distinctiveness of the Character Classes: This is yet another fundamental game design choice that the rest of the game is built around. In a class-based game, your character's class defines his or her abilities. Class abilities are innate to the class, and cannot be acquired by characters that are in a different class. This makes the D&D family of games distinct from other skill-based systems where, concievably, any character could acquire any ability. Again, if I want to play a skill-based game with that level of flexibility, I'll play another system (e.g. GURPS).

4) Paladins are Lawful Good. I don't want to start YAPT (Yet Another Paladin Thread), but I like that paladins are restricted to Lawful Good alignment. They're kind of like Superman: their greatest weakness is also their greatest strength: their innate goodness and humanity that forces a self-imposition of restrictions on action. That said, I work with each individual player of a paladin to put together a personal code for that chacater and religion. This is so that both the player and I are on the same page about it.

Some sacred cows about D&D that I can happily live without:

1) Rolling for stats. In my games, we always use point-buy for stats and average hit points, and average starting gold. Removal of the randomness for character design makes, in my opinion, a more-balanced game.

2) Stat-dumping. The counter-argument to the above. Why does everyone have to drop their Charisma to 8?

3) Standard-Issue Must-Have Magic Items. ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, belt of physical stat-bump, headband of mental stat-bump, cloak of resistance, boots of striding and springing. BOOORRR--IIING!

4) Iterative attacks. (New for the 3.x family of D&D!) They slow down the game and encourage stupid tactics (i.e. "stand there and HULK SMASH!!!"). I'd prefer a system where you only get one attack, but how hard you hit goes up with level.

5) General reliance on magic items at mid-to-high level. If, as a GM, you want your characters to rely less on magic, you need to change the whole Challenge Rating system. This ties in with Wealth By Level, which I'm also not a big fan of.

[Artanthos]

Blake Duffey wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

Lack of support for parrying; why must every character (including barbarians) be draped in steel just to get a decent AC?

This has not been a requirement for quite some time.

Even a wizard can have an AC in the 40's.

I can't speak for Calybos, but I agree with his initial sentiment (but I'll clarify mine)

why must every character be draped in steel OR MAGIC just to get a decent AC?

So the true question is, "Why are characters equipment dependent?"

Magic item dependency, in the general sense, is a sacred cow. It is not specific to armor class.

[Blake Duffey]

Artanthos wrote:

So the true question is, "Why are characters equipment dependent?"

Magic item dependency, in the general sense, is a sacred cow. It is not specific to armor class.

I'd agree with that assessment. I've always had an issue with the assumption that 'every PC of level X has this variety of magic items appropriate to X'.

Sometimes I run a low fantasy campaign where items are scarce. All of a sudden some of the underlying assumptions of encounter design fall apart.

[Blake Duffey]

Rynjin wrote:

Three I don't like:

Caster/Martial disparity. Some players and even the devs think this is something that should be preserved, because "magic users SHOULD be better than non-magic users".

Vancian casting. I think the system is simple, yes, but the way it works actively contributes to caster/martial disparity. From a non-game balance perspective, I think a change is in order after all these years, at least an updating of the system to make it more balanced and streamlined, as well as having its own unique flavor.

The Paladin Code. Both too vague and too strict at the same time, and the only reason it exists is because it's been that way for forever. It's no longer needed as a balancing factor to the Paladin's power as compared to others; he's already balanced with the other martial classes, no need to pile on a built-in self-destruct the GM can press at any time.

I could live without Vancian casting, tbh. I've looked at some variants (including the Skills and Powers books I mentioned earlier). I know many will agree with what Haladir said (it's too much an essential part of the system). I'd be happy to try other ways of doing it.

[Pendin Fust]

I like the idea of being able to create a character who relies on magical items...and his luck. There are stories of just such people scattered all throughout any medium. The problem I have is what Haladir mentions...boring choices. I can't think of the thread right now(EDIT oh yeah the Magic Item Hate thread), but I saw one the other day where somebody mentioned how they just disliked the +X to stat items. They argued for truly magical items that were situationally awesome but only generally cool. I like that idea.

Which brings me round to my point I guess. People are either entirely too afraid to fail or are entirely too assured of success...because, I think, of how CR scales at higher levels and SR and...and...you get the point.

If I were to sacrifice a Sacred Cow, it's the current CR system in PF and how monsters in general scale their AC/CMD.

Shoot me if you want, but I actually like iterative attacks...it just implies to me how much more awesome my character is at the next level.

Item Crafting and WBL. Item Crafting really needs to be in a game system for me. WBL can take a hike.

[Blake Duffey]

Pendin Fust wrote:

I like the idea of being able to create a character who relies on magical items...and his luck. There are stories of just such people scattered all throughout any medium. The problem I have is Haladir mentions...boring choices.

I like the idea of being able to create a character who relies on his wits - and doesn't have to use his items as a crutch. (I'm not criticizing your choice, but I would like to see the base system support either/or)

Pendin Fust wrote:

Shoot me if you want, but I actually like iterative attacks...it just implies to me how much more awesome my character is at the next level.

My main issue with iterative is that it slows the game. Even as far back as 2nd edition you had a '3/2 sequence' for certain classes at certain levels. By the time that awesome PC gets some level, his player at the table rolls his attack, rolls a handful of dice, rolls his next attack, rolls that handful of dice, etc. It breaks the flow I'm trying to achieve. A round of combat takes 10 minutes of real time.

[Pendin Fust]

I can agree with you on both choices Blake Duffey. I like the idea but I don't know how to support it in the base system without becoming what I dislike :)

Agreed as well on slowing down flow. I've started instituting a house rule for our above 10th level play where you roll all attack dice then roll all damage dice (and if it looks like it will kill or come close I handwave and say they killed the beast). It helps but still slows down the play.

OOO!

Super complicated spell results. I can do without that. That slows down gameplay to a standstill when the player (or myself) has to research the spell effects, then research some game mechanic the spell uses, and what the effects of a condition it causes, blah blah blah.

[Alzrius]

Haladir wrote:

3) Distinctiveness of the Character Classes: This is yet another fundamental game design choice that the rest of the game is built around. In a class-based game, your character's class defines his or her abilities. Class abilities are innate to the class, and cannot be acquired by characters that are in a different class. This makes the D&D family of games distinct from other skill-based systems where, concievably, any character could acquire any ability. Again, if I want to play a skill-based game with that level of flexibility, I'll play another system (e.g. GURPS).

This is the only one of your big four that I disagree with.

For a while now, I've become discouraged with character classes as being too limiting. Most character concepts that my group comes up with are fairly specific in nature, and in many cases, are difficult to model with the existing class structure (primarily around the idea of "supernatural powers that aren't spellcasting").

Worse, this feeds directly into the supplement treadmill. That is, the idea that the restrictions on what sorts of characters can be made is lightened a little by buying more and more books that push new classes, new prestige classes, new class archetypes, and new feats (and make no mistake, feats are simply universalized class options) that help you to approximate your original idea (something that feeds into the whole mix-and-match mentality that seems to go hand in hand with min-maxing).

I simply got tired of having to comb through a series of books and products to try and put together something that remotely resembles the cool idea I had. Even a website like d20PFSRD only helps so much - not due to the limitations on what it has so much as it still requires a lot of combing through myriad options to try and find the ones that seem to work best (if they work at all, rather than falling into "thematically nice but mechanically weak"). And that's after eliminating issues of costs to buy these books, lugging them around, and storing them at home.

The class-less point-buy character-builder supplement that I've been trying to raise awareness of for a while now was something I started using because of this burnout (I'd been flipping through it for a while prior to that). Since I've started using it, I'm able to make characters that are viable in a Pathfinder/d20 game while going much further afield than a standard class could (such as the aforementioned character who relies on luck and wits, but not magic items).

As it is, this also goes back to issues with Vancian casting - I like Vancian casting, but I think that rather than replacing it, you can have other magic systems work alongside it, with the different choices of magic systems being new ways to differentiate your characters (though obviously this is easier in a point-buy system).

[Blake Duffey]

Pendin Fust wrote:

Super complicated spell results. I can do without that. That slows down gameplay to a standstill when the player (or myself) has to research the spell effects, then research some game mechanic the spell uses, and what the effects of a condition it causes, blah blah blah.

agreed - I sometimes consider a table rule that you can't refer to the book to look up spell effects - it's in your character sheets or it isn't used

[Blake Duffey]

Alzrius wrote:

For a while now, I've become discouraged with character classes as being too limiting....

I don't disagree with the sentiment - but many will make the argument that D&D/PF is a 'class based system' at it's core - and that changing that makes it something else. There are other systems already on the market for classless systems (I personally own Savage Worlds and the HERO system, for example)

Class based is simply, but can be restrictive.

Classless can be less restrictive, but is often more complex.

[Alzrius]

Blake Duffey wrote:

I don't disagree with the sentiment - but many will make the argument that D&D/PF is a 'class based system' at it's core - and that changing that makes it something else.

I know, and I'm sympathetic to this argument, even if I don't agree with it. For one thing, it's a personal judgment, which means that "problem" is as easy to solve as it is to change your mind on the subject.

Likewise, when you can build a character that's similar enough to a class-built character, but has some tweaks that you've wanted for a while now, and the game still otherwise uses all of the same mechanics (e.g. hit points, Armor Class, three saving throws, etc.) then it feels like the same game...at least to me.

Quote:

There are other systems already on the market for classless systems (I personally own Savage Worlds and the HERO system, for example)

The issues there are largely practical ones, at least for me. Namely, I don't want to spend the money on new systems (particularly when there's a book that accomplishes the goal I want so artfully).

Moreover, I'd have absolutely no luck convincing my group to invest in a new system altogether, as much due to the money issue as the investment of learning a new set of rules when all they want to do is tweak one aspect (character creation/advancement) of the game they already like.

Quote:

Class based is simply, but can be restrictive.

Classless can be less restrictive, but is often more complex.

I won't say it's not complex, but I think that Pathfinder/D&D is already a fairly complex game (yes, there are more complex ones, but this is still one of the less-simple systems). Using point-buy character rules does require greater knowledge of the system as a whole, greater oversight by the GM in terms of what powers are (dis)allowed or tweaked, and greater collaboration between the GM and the player regarding the player's character (which has, in recent years, become an area where players expect more unfettered agency).

That said, I think the results are eminently worth it. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[kmal2t]

Touche. I forgot about Lawful neutral and Neutral evil, so it is 9. Either way its silly.

And for me probably the biggest Sacred Cow that hasn't been mentioned (from how I see it): The Wish spell.

If it were up to me it'd be gone as its a lame cop-out spell that enables you to do virtually anything you want. Blah blah blah its expensive, blah blah blah it has drawbacks and catches. IT doesn't matter. It should have been booted long ago.

[Blake Duffey]

Alzrius wrote:

The issues there are largely practical ones, at least for me. Namely, I don't want to spend the money on new systems (particularly when there's a book that accomplishes the goal I want so artfully).

Moreover, I'd have absolutely no luck convincing my group to invest in a new system altogether, as much due to the money issue as the investment of learning a new set of rules when all they want to do is tweak one aspect (character creation/advancement) of the game they already like.

I guess I was saying that in terms of a Pathfinder 2.0, or something similar. If (when?) that happens, you'll have to buy all new content regardless. :)

One of my gaming friends and I have often talked about the benefits of classless systems. For the more experienced gamer, it certainly provides a level of customization that is really difficult in a class-based system.

I'm not sure Paizo could release a supplement that has a class-building ruleset and have it mesh with existing classes.

[Blake Duffey]

kmal2t wrote:

If it were up to me it'd be gone as its a lame cop-out spell that enables you to do virtually anything you want. Blah blah blah its expensive, blah blah blah it has drawbacks and catches. IT doesn't matter. It should have been booted long ago.

This had never occurred to me as a sacred cow. I agree - add it to the list!

[Blake Duffey]

Alzrius wrote:

Likewise, when you can build a character that's similar enough to a class-built character, but has some tweaks that you've wanted for a while now, and the game still otherwise uses all of the same mechanics (e.g. hit points, Armor Class, three saving throws, etc.) then it feels like the same game...at least to me.

I agree with you - it's nice to be able to 'build' that PC which really fits your concept - even if it's got pieces of multiple classes.

[MeatForTheGrinder]

Bill Kirsch wrote:

Wizards not being able to cast healing spells.

Which I think is just fine.
But I'm an "old guard" D&D player (almost 30 years now).

Infernal Healing on a Magus is fun. Until my DM ruled that the evil descriptor would taint my soul, and be readily observable as such while casting. Oh well.

[Alzrius]

Blake Duffey wrote:

I guess I was saying that in terms of a Pathfinder 2.0, or something similar. If (when?) that happens, you'll have to buy all new content regardless. :)

Well, that depends on how far the changes go. If I can jump ship on D&D after about fifteen years for changing too much, then no game is irreplaceable. >:)

Blake Duffey wrote:

One of my gaming friends and I have often talked about the benefits of classless systems. For the more experienced gamer, it certainly provides a level of customization that is really difficult in a class-based system.

I agree completely.

Blake Duffey wrote:

I'm not sure Paizo could release a supplement that has a class-building ruleset and have it mesh with existing classes.

I think they could, but as I mentioned, I think that it's already been done.

That said, there are different expectations of what "mesh" means here. As I noted, any such system is going to require greater GM interaction to go along with the increased freedom. Moreover, while any system can be twisted, a point-buy system is certainly more open to abuse by the players - it requires a certain degree of the players not wanting to build the most combat-powerful PC that they possibly can, rather than acting like the character-creation rules are presenting boundaries that need to be pushed.

Blake Duffey wrote:

I agree with you - it's nice to be able to 'build' that PC which really fits your concept - even if it's got pieces of multiple classes.

More like "especially" if it's got pieces of multiple classes.

[Rynjin]

I did it, to a working degree. It's hella hard to get some classes to fit (Monk and Druid make you want to rip your hair out) and magic is hard to balance as an option (...as per usual), along with a few problems, but a classless system using the existing abilities can be done.

["Devil's Advocate"]

A few sacred cows I wish would change arw
1.) Paladins as LG. To me NG seems a lot better an idea for a class focused on finding and fighting evil above all else. NG also implies that said character's focus would be about being the best good one can, rather than divide loyalties between order and holiness.

2.) Drop patron deity from Clerics as the standard. It restricts the class too much for no reason at all. It also mechanically prevents some really cool concepts like the hidden cultist or emporer palpatine from actually working.

3.) Vancian Casting. Only a tiny bit. 3.5 had some fantastic alternate styles that where still Vancian Casting and it would be really nice to have some of those be the standard. Or even break it up a bit. Maybe Wizard and Druid use the basic Vancian Casting, Clerics and Bards use Spell Points, and Sorcerers and a few others might get recharge magic. (just an example)

4.) Point Buy Personally Ive never been a fan. I both like the randomness of rolling (its definetlt part of the feel of "rolling up a character"), but honestly point buy just is not a fair or balanced alternative. It really favors SAD classes over MAD classes, and is probably the reason that SAD/MAD issues even exist. As much as I hate to say it, aside from rolling stats, the better alternative might be sort of MMO like, to have a small amount of Point Buy, but that your starting class sort of predictates mostly how your stats look. Unfortunatly, that doesnt help with multiclassing so much. (and leading me to the final one I can think of. . . )

5.) Multiclassing, or the PF lack thereof. That was one of the greatest strengths of 3E, and PF has kind of ignored it. Being able to customize was one of the things that set 3E apart from other editions, and probably a good reason that many fans had a different reaction in the end to it vs 4E. Im not saying that to insult 4E or to start a fight, just saying that was a great thing about the d20 system and Archtypes just dont do it well. Especially for aome classea that just dont work well with Archtypes (and would probably really benefit most from them) by just not having many Class Features.

[Alzrius]

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

but honestly point buy just is not a fair or balanced alternative.

This is demonstrably untrue, though I suspect that this is going to come down to wildly differing (or ill-defined) ideas of what constitutes "fair" and "balanced."

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

It really favors SAD classes over MAD classes, and is probably the reason that SAD/MAD issues even exist.

This is confusing. How is a point-buy system that Pathfinder doesn't use responsible for the issues it has with multiple attribute dependency?

As it is, the idea of a point-buy system favoring single-attribute dependency is somewhat overstated - you're still playing Pathfinder/d20, after all, and it you want to change the fact that your bonus hit points are determined by Constitution, you're going to have to pay quite a bit for it (assuming that the GM allows you to do it at all).

That's without getting into the idea that, if everyone's using that system, the "issue" is the same for everyone anyway.

EDIT: Wait...did you mean point-buy ability score generation, as opposed to point-buy class construction?

[Rynjin]

Wait, how is PB a "system Pathfinder doesn't use"? PB and arrays are the expected form of getting stats in Pathfinder, not rolling.

[kmal2t]

Devils advocate is right. When you think about it Paladins really should be Neutral Good or Chaotic Good

["Devil's Advocate"]

I was kind of confussed at that too.

As far as PB being less fair, its true that all classes get the same points, but not all classes have the same number of used stats and not all stats are as useful as others. Its nice to have a decent Str, Wis, & Cha on you Wiz, but they are perfectly fine without them (in general). In general, they probably want Int maxed, and some ok Dex and Con which is great for PB. Monk on the other hand really has to choose what they will be pretty bad at and its going to be a more meaningful issue for them. They can dump Cha, but then with PB they kind of have toso that they will at least have a little in everything else, which they need all of. Clerics are kind of the same, generally leading to them dropping probably two of Dex, Int, or Cha so they can be viable. In 3E Paladin was the same way, but PF dropped the Wis requirement (spellcasting) which works well mechanically.

[Alzrius]

Rynjin wrote:

Wait, how is PB a "system Pathfinder doesn't use"? PB and arrays are the expected form of getting stats in Pathfinder, not rolling.

Rynjin, see the edit in my previous post.

[Blake Duffey]

Alzrius wrote:

Well, that depends on how far the changes go. If I can jump ship on D&D after about fifteen years for changing too much, then no game is irreplaceable. >:)

Fifteen? Try 30 for me. :)

["Devil's Advocate"]

kmal2t wrote:

Devils advocate is right. When you think about it Paladins really should be Neutral Good or Chaotic Good

Im not sure I would go with CG either. Not unless you mean in the "Alignment: any Good" sense, but with that Im not sure there would be any reason to not have Paladins of all alignments either (not something Id want personally).

[Rynjin]

Alzrius wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Wait, how is PB a "system Pathfinder doesn't use"? PB and arrays are the expected form of getting stats in Pathfinder, not rolling.

Rynjin, see the edit in my previous post.

Ohhhhhhh.

[kmal2t]

If they are crusaders of "good and justice" they don't give a crap about local laws and will carry out their justice as they see fit.

[Laithoron]

Haladir wrote:

2) Stat-dumping. The counter-argument to the above. Why does everyone have to drop their Charisma to 8?

*reviews his group's character sheets

Wait, are you saying some people actually create characters with sub-18 charisma scores? Huh...

;)

Re: SAD/MAD PB... While I firmly believe that a GM who allows rolled stats is opening themselves up to have an unbalanced party, as a player I have run into situations where the PB that allowed the players of the rogue, fighter, and mage to excel simply fell short for MAD and multiclassed character concepts. In those cases, it was like the MAD/MC character needed additional PB just to rise to the same level of effectiveness in their party role.

[Alzrius]

kmal2t wrote:

If they are crusaders of "good and justice" they don't give a crap about local laws and will carry out their justice as they see fit.

To be fair, the idea of a Lawful Good character with a code of conduct that promotes order and law, as well as justice, doesn't mean that he'll obey whatever the local laws are.

It means that he'll obey the laws of his religion, his code of conduct, and maybe his home country as well. Other laws are simply obstacles. Or at least, I think that's an acceptable way to look at it while staying true to the main idea of the class.

[kmal2t]

then if he only obeys his own laws then he thinks they are good and then he isn't that lawful now is he?

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

The single patron god Sacred Cow is one that could easily go. The term henotheistic describes a person who worships one god primarily while also believing in other gods. The single god setup of D&D/Pathfinder doesn't take into account the henotheistic nature of D&D religion- if you worship and receive spells from Sarenrae and another cleric worships and receives spells from Asmodeus, you probably believe that Asmodeus exists.

I'd like to see Pathfinder Skills and Powers kind of book with variant options for all of these Sacred Cows. I haven't seen an alternative to Vancian casting that I like but would like to see options. Arcana Unearthed had an option for converting spell slots to spell slots of other levels. It was a cool concept that could be abused. Spell points were an option in Unearthed Arcana, and could be abused more easily than converting spells slots but were also a cool idea. I'd like to see fighters have a bonded weapon and bonded armor similar to a Paladin's bonded item, I think it would make things better. I especially agree that the 'Christmas Tree' effect of required magic items is a problem- there are items that CR assumes the party has (stat boosting items, cloaks of resistance, etc). There is a thread on that topic so I won't go into my thoughts further here.

One benefit of Pathfinder is that it encourages system mastery. The class, feat, spell, and magic item set-up makes it easy to learn which choices are better than others. But taken to an extreme some of these things no longer become choices (there is a thread on this as well). Which is why I think a book of variant options would be nice, keep the core system the same but give groups options to replace segments of rules. Maybe an option to improve AC and saves as a class bonus with reduced WBL, making bonuses given by (required) magic items a part of the character's abilities.

[Rynjin]

It takes it into account fine.

Remember, knowledge and belief are different. You KNOW both Sarenrae and Asmodeus exist. But you don't BELIEVE in both of them.

I may know for a fact both Democracy and Socialism exist, but I will only believe in one of them.

[Alzrius]

kmal2t wrote:

then if he only obeys his own laws then he thinks they are good and then he isn't that lawful now is he?

It's not "his own laws" - they're the laws of his god, his order, and his state. It's not a question of picking and choosing, beyond his initial choice to be a paladin. He's found the higher authority that he answers to, and that authority alone.

[Aelryinth]

He will respect other laws that do not actively conflict with his own...that's what being Lawful means.

A CG paladin would ignore any code but his own unless it were in furtherance of his mission. respect of other lifestyles is not a part of Chaotic behavior, which is entirely individualistic.

A NG Paladin might acknowledge laws, might not. Depends if they are part of the solution or the problem, as he sees it. If they are a useless law with no purpose as he sees it, he'll likely ignore it as such.

A LG paladin puts up with the inconvenience of other laws because he believes most laws are good things for most people. If they CONFLICT with his own personal standards, however, he'll actively seek to get them changed and oppose them. If laws further evil, he'll oppose them outright and ignore or strike them down if possible.

The main difference is that a LG paladin will seek to change the laws, and NG and CG will just ignore or oppose them without needing to go beyond that point.

==Aelryinth