House rule whatever you want, alignment restrictions have no effect on game balance.Disagreed
Care to elucidate?
What you're asking for in a lawful-barbarian is a loyal Nixon square who also drop acids to tune-in/turn-on/drop-out. Or (as a more 90s analog), Conan wears a three-piece suit and drives a minivan to his 9-5 job after dropping the kids off at Soccer High as his sword slowly rusts away in the attic.
That's not what I think anyone is asking for at all (certainly not me). If you have any hint of genuine belief that anyone is actually asking for this (as opposed to merely posting snark with little concern for relevance), then that would betray, I suspect, a severe lack of understanding of what you are snarking about.
Still waiting on you to show how a Lawful barbarian like Beowulf is a negation of the concept of the class. I note you neglected to do so in this post, so here is a reminder if you are willing.
Perhaps we could assume for the purposes of this hopefully upcoming demonstration that neither of us care about Nixon, soccer, children, the seventies, or the nineties, and therefore that any potential Pathfinder barbarians, Lawful or otherwise, eschew any relationship to any of that in favor of more setting-appropriate concerns.
So, what does lawful mean again?
Does it mean you're law-abiding and organized and in control of your emotions and respectful of authority and honorable and a strict observer of tradition and follow a rules-based moral code and dislike freedom?
Because I've seen all of those things given as examples of what it means to be lawful. What if only half of those apply to me? What if most of them apply to me, but not all the time?
In order to be chaotic do I have to break laws casually and be disorganized and be led by my emotions and an enemy of all authority and dishonorable and contemptuous of tradition and follow a moral code based around whatever seems best in the current situation and love freedom?
It is a discussion about lawful barbarians.
In order to judge if lawful barbarians are OK, you need a clear definition of 'lawful' and 'barbarian'.
Inevitably 'alignments are stupid' and 'classes are about mechanics, not flavor' will also be discussed.
|
It is a discussion about lawful barbarians.
In order to judge if lawful barbarians are OK, you need a clear definition of 'lawful' and 'barbarian'.
Inevitably 'alignments are stupid' and 'classes are about mechanics, not flavor' will also be discussed.
Then, as I asked earlier, are we talking about Barbarian, the class, or Barbarian, the concept?
|
|
Those are all combinations which the alignment rules would not permit, and I believe for good reason. Well, they can all happen, bu someone needs to be a "fallen" something to make it work.
Now you need to prove how any of those are out of balance to validate alignment restrictions as a balancing factor.
Ex-Monk/Barbarian is a common cheat from back in 3.5, so that's not a valid example. You can do the same with the Ex-Monk/Antipaladin as well.
Since Paladin/Assassin will need Int and Cha along with his physical scores, I doubt it's much worse than single-classed Paladin. Paladin/Barbarian is better, but I also doubt its game-breaking potential.
|
|
House rule whatever you want, alignment restrictions have no effect on game balance.DisagreedHow?
Seriously I know players enjoy playing varying alignments. But please show how Class alignment restrictions, or lack of, affect the actual Mechanical game balance.
Paladin-Assassin
Paladin-Barbarian
Monk-Barbarian
Monk-Antipaladin
Those are all combinations which the alignment rules would not permit, and I believe for good reason. Well, they can all happen, bu someone needs to be a "fallen" something to make it work.
You say these class combos are unbalanced?
The burden of proof is upon you.
Also, two of those examples are doable, and records show, they suck.
I'm sorry, you're saying that I need to defend the rules as written? I don't see any reason to do that outside of the Homebrew forum, which this isn't.
I don't think its defending rules as written as much as your own statements. You say it breaks game balance if you allow those things, so why? Those are just things that don't happen, not things that are mechanically broken.
Edit: Did the OP disappear?
When I think of overpowered things in Pathfinder I think of the Assassin prestige class.
When I think of overpowered things in Pathfinder I think of the Assassin prestige class.
Ever since they took out that spell crap its let me focus the real potential of the class.
My favorite part of the Assassin is that if you enter it after Rogue 5 like the game obviously expects you to then you end up with the same BAB as an equal-level wizard and with a death attack whose DC is probably less than a first-level wizard's first-level spell DCs.
My favorite part of the Assassin is that if you enter it after Rogue 5 like the game obviously expects you to then you end up with the same BAB as an equal-level wizard and with a death attack whose DC is probably less than a first-level wizard's first-level spell DCs.
Well yeah, could you imagine a low level power that could take people out or outright kill them?
So use those RAW methods to get it done.
Because a martial artist isn't a monk? Because you shouldn't have to waste a trait to do something you should be able to do anyway? Because that doesn't help the OP at all? There isn't a trait for every alignment/class combination dontcha' know.
|
|
Guys, really, if you don't want to play Pathfinder, that's fine, but this is a Pathfinder forum. It's my basic assumption that discussions in these forums assume that.
And if you don't want to discuss Pathfinder, that's fine, but this is a Pathfinder forum. We will discuss what we want about Pathfinder here with or without you.
Which is an odd thing for you to say, because I do want to discuss Pathfinder, in which Monks are Lawful, and Barbarians aren't (with niche exemptions), but for some reason there is discussion of a home brew game based on Pathfinder with evil Paladins and good Assassins possible.Guys, really, if you don't want to play Pathfinder, that's fine, but this is a Pathfinder forum. It's my basic assumption that discussions in these forums assume that.And if you don't want to discuss Pathfinder, that's fine, but this is a Pathfinder forum. We will discuss what we want about Pathfinder here with or without you.
To be fair, its a direct result from your statement about it being about mechanical balance, because this leads to people asking why you think that, and now its house rules instead of us discussing it. We could instead talk about the house rule lawful barbarians not losing their rage because arbitrary.
Homebrew is also a completely valid suggestion unless your going for PFS or another no house rules situation, so long as you state that it is homebrew and not pose it as a part of the game. Most of us do use homebrew and houserules.
Which is an odd thing for you to say, because I do want to discuss Pathfinder, in which Monks are Lawful, and Barbarians aren't (with niche exemptions), but for some reason there is discussion of a home brew game based on Pathfinder with evil Paladins and good Assassins possible.To be fair, its a direct result from your statement about it being about mechanical balance, because this leads to people asking why you think that, and now its house rules instead of us discussing it. We could instead talk about the house rule lawful barbarians not losing their rage because arbitrary.
Homebrew is also a completely valid suggestion unless your going for PFS or another no house rules situation, so long as you state that it is homebrew and not pose it as a part of the game. Most of us do use homebrew and houserules.
Yeah, considering the OP was asking if there were any ways to play a lawful Barbarian, telling them what those possibilities are here seems to be better than telling him "no, there aren't, but it could be house ruled, perhaps go ask on that board?" - especially as some of the responses may be 3PP rather than house ruling which makes more sense keeping it here in advice as otherwise you'd have to split the question across multiple boards.
And this from me who probably wouldn't feel right houseruling a lawful Barbarian, but doesn't really see any reason why another GM shouldn't if they want to.
Actually, I'd love to see something along the lines of an open playtest focused on the changes that would occur were alignment altogether removed. By changes, I mean the play impact, mechanical impact, theme impact, and balance as well.
While we can say there is "no change" or it is a "huge change," removing alignment is a gamewide, system-wide, tradition changer.
It deserves its own open playtest. One that runs the gamut of a serious discussion, with theorycrafting on one side, and playtesting reports on the other.
As it is, we have examples here and there. We have "he said" and "she said."
If nothing else, a more formal treatment would help bring these to a close.
Actually, I'd love to see something along the lines of an open playtest focused on the changes that would occur were alignment altogether removed. By changes, I mean the play impact, mechanical impact, theme impact, and balance as well.
Me and I know some other people on the forum choose not to use it. Even with the variety of house rules I have now it hasn't exploded yet. I know its anecdotal, but its nice to know some people already do it right? How you do it and handle it is something else though. I usually link to this post when people talk about removing alignment. There are also quiet a few alignment alternatives, like using factions.
Imo, its not actually a huge thing that requires lots of play testing. Even if it was a large play tested thing, people still contest things even if its right in front of them. Things like martial-caster disparity for instance, but that's a whole nother' can of worms.
Actually, I'd love to see something along the lines of an open playtest focused on the changes that would occur were alignment altogether removed. By changes, I mean the play impact, mechanical impact, theme impact, and balance as well.Me and I know some other people on the forum choose not to use it. Even with the variety of house rules I have now it hasn't exploded yet. I know its anecdotal, but its nice to know some people already do it right? How you do it and handle it is something else though. I usually link to this post when people talk about removing alignment. There are also quiet a few alignment alternatives, like using factions.
Imo, its not actually a huge thing that requires lots of play testing. Even if it was a large play tested thing, people still contest things even if its right in front of them. Things like martial-caster disparity for instance, but that's a whole nother' can of worms.
Hey there, and yeah from some angles I can see that. I also appreciate your response. Part of why I propose this is that it is such a part of tradition. In a way, an open test lets everyone have their say in a respectful fashion.
Importantly, it offers the chance to settle the "what if's". Finally, a way to organize ideas and responses for reflavoring class features, spells, and other adjustments.
For example, after reviewing the link, I wouldn't say I enjoyed all of the proposed changes. For example, turning smite evil into "smite" changes the intrinsic flavor of the class. The ranger likewise runs into much narrower options. It's possible paladin would need to become more like the inquisitor and the narrowed FE would benefit from playtesting.
I point these out not to nitpick, but to reiterate that a discussion on removing alignment completely is going to touch on many areas of the game as well as others' enjoyment of it.
Opening a broader but focused discussion and soliciting ideas and opinions seems then the sane thing to do.
As this thread has become "bash the dissenter" and the OP has provided no clarification, I see no further reason to frequent it.My heart bleeds for you, sir.
I'm still here, just observing. I was looking for a legal way for a lawful barbarian, but I don't mind the convo going anywhere ya'll want to take it. Bur here's a two copper piece thought: a lame oracle level or two can make any barbarian immune to fatigue...that's a lot better than using swift actions so often, right? I've always thought that alignments could be used as a game-balancing tool, but I don't see that as being the case in Pathfinder. And since this convo has already slightly been derailed, is there any third party (or I guess official, but optional) publications that give an alternative to the alignment system? I realize one could just drop it entirely, but that seems a bit lame. Like, someone mentioned factions...
Well, I just typed a lot of stuff, and this "smart phone" ate it. Gotta love technology. So, I'll briefly recap. Assassins aren't any more evil than a sneak attacking rogue, or a crit based fighter. They're trained to kill enemies quickly? So is everyone else. I also typed out how I loved the concept of a barbarian monk oracle who goes Zen, unlocks inner gates, whatever. Hungry ghost monk who wields an improved crit katana, was a wild rager (another attack means another chance to crit) and the celestial totem to double the healing I receive when I crit. I still love the concept, but decided a simple champion of irori who uses a katana might be more powerful (but the previous toon will probably appear as an NPC somewhere in some adventure that I write).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ninjas get an ability literally called "Assassinate" that is basically the Assassin's death attack except better - it starts with a higher DC, requires less study time, works at range, and the DC keys off an ability score that the Ninja's other class features actually use. This ability is not alignment-restricted, nor are Ninjas in general.
But it's important to game-balance that Assassins be evil so that they can guard the ancient evil art of being completely ineffectual.