Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Slade]

So Thunderstones don't just deafen, now they deal sonic damage.

So thunderstone rock now, that is a positive.

Maybe, Pathfinder will find a middle ground and make 6 x damage really good and not just decent?

Granted, history with Gunslinger shows they are bad at it.

[GâtFromKI]

So Thunderstones don't just deafen, now they deal sonic damage.

So thunderstone rock now, that is a positive.

Thunderstones deal damages that are 6 times too low to be useful - except if you're an alchemist. This is almost the same as "not dealing damages at all".

[Slade]

So Thunderstones don't just deafen, now they deal sonic damage.

So thunderstone rock now, that is a positive.

Thunderstones deal damages that are 6 times too low to be useful - except if you're an alchemist. This is almost the same as "not dealing damages at all".

Seeing as thunderstones were rarely used before that doesn't seem a nerf for them. For the rest of alchemy items sure. They now suck likely.

[Foxwarrior]

I thought the implication was more that the damage would remain level-appropriate (as well as Paizo can gauge such a thing) for Alchemists, while being only a decent amount of damage for other people when they're level 1 or 2.

[Shrieking Banshee]

I thought the implication was more that the damage would remain level-appropriate (as well as Paizo can gauge such a thing) for Alchemists, while being only a decent amount of damage for other people when they're level 1 or 2.

I assumed so as well.

[Username17]

I thought the implication was more that the damage would remain level-appropriate (as well as Paizo can gauge such a thing) for Alchemists, while being only a decent amount of damage for other people when they're level 1 or 2.

The large relative bumps in damage imply that they will not be level appropriate amounts of damage at very many levels for single classed Alchemists, and won't be level appropriate at all for non-Alchemists past level 1 or 2. My prediction is:

• Without the Alchemist damage bonus, alchemical items won't be doing level appropriate damage at any level, meaning that they will only be used in obscure situations involving elemental damage being needed for various reasons.
• With the Alchemist damage bonus, alchemical items still won't be doing level appropriate damage, and the Alchemist bomb thrower is released as a dead archetype.
• Noticing that alchemical bombs keep "falling short," multiple pieces of expansion material will attempt to patch this up. Feats that increase damage boosts, sneak attack style conditional damage boosts that you can arrange to just about always have, and special higher tier types of alchemist fire that do more base damage. Probably none of these things will be enough to make the archetype viable individually, but internet charop groups will exhaustively detail how you voltron that shit together and make something that hits way above its weight class.
• There is an at least 50% chance that the super alchemical damage builds only turn on at levels significantly higher than anyone would actually want to play PF2 at, but the discussions on Paizo's dwindling message boards will be exactly the same whether this build is able to do big damage at 6th level or 19th.

-Username17

[rasmuswagner]

It's not a *6 jump at level 19, it's a multiplier that increases gradually. Still stupid, especially since they pre-close the design space of "actually useful alchemical items past level 3".

[rasmuswagner]

So, my level 7 party just found a +1 Vorpal Scimitar in last night's canned adventure.

First beatstick: "Eeehhh....don't wanna. I like two-handed weapons" - and he's right, switching to the new shiny would make him less effective.
Ranger: "Eh, I like bows". He is still the best candidate to use the damn thing, though.
Second beatstick: "I'm dex-based and I don't have the one specific feat that would make that work with a scimitar. Nope".
Midcaster 1: Not proficient, not really a fighter.
Midcaster 2: I can only get relevant attack and damage bonuses with one specific weapon, and it ain't scimitar.

[phlapjackage]

So, my level 7 party just found a +1 Vorpal Scimitar in last night's canned adventure.

First beatstick: "Eeehhh....don't wanna. I like two-handed weapons" - and he's right, switching to the new shiny would make him less effective.
Ranger: "Eh, I like bows". He is still the best candidate to use the damn thing, though.
Second beatstick: "I'm dex-based and I don't have the one specific feat that would make that work with a scimitar. Nope".
Midcaster 1: Not proficient, not really a fighter.
Midcaster 2: I can only get relevant attack and damage bonuses with one specific weapon, and it ain't scimitar.

They need to have this happen in a movie or something. Gimli finds an amazing Valar-forged sword, lovingly recounts the history of it....and then tosses it back in the pile of loot with a shrug and says he likes axes better.

[OgreBattle]

That happens in Kentaro Miura's Berserk. Guts gets a magic axe from the first actual sorcerer to show up in the series after many many years but says he wants to stick with the weapon he's had all this time. But they also explain that all the monsters he's killed with his dragonslayer sword has already imbued it with magic.

[Slade]

That happens in Kentaro Miura's Berserk. Guts gets a magic axe from the first actual sorcerer to show up in the series after many many years but says he wants to stick with the weapon he's had all this time. But they also explain that all the monsters he's killed with his dragonslayer sword has already imbued it with magic.

So Berserk's DM cuddled him and let him draw out the magic of that axe into his sword. Better than nothing the DM thought.

[Shrieking Banshee]

So Berserk's DM cuddled him and let him draw out the magic of that axe into his sword. Better than nothing the DM thought.

Rules of Narrative. A D&D campaign adapted to film would be dreadful to watch.

Its the show where nobody makes mistakes, and nobody develops as a character.

[Wiseman]

fix your tags.

[Slade]

So, Paladins are no longer Lawful Stupid. They can choose good over law and not fall by the rules.

And they can use poison (not part of code anymore).

But for playtest and likely core book, only LG paladins.

And Lay of Hands, heals and grants AC Bonus now.

[GâtFromKI]

Paladin can't commit murder anymore, and that's the most important rule (it comes before protecting innocent people). In a game where the base assumption is "you break in some place and kill everyone inside".

Is there a country where "breaking in somewhere and kill everyone" isn't considered as murder ?

[Wiseman]

Because your doing it for heroic reasons? Protecting the innocent, saving lives? Do I just have a different experience with D&D than other people here?

Regardless, all that does is the same thing paladin codes have always done, either the game is limited to a way other players might not want to play, or the paladin player has to make a different character.

[Username17]

The definition of murder is "killing that is not justified." Jews, Christians, and Muslims all recognize the "Thou Shall Not Murder" commandment as being one of the biggest, sent directly from God. Hasn't stopped the Middle East from being a non-stop killing field for the last three thousand years. You can always come up with some kind of justification for killing a dude, and then it's not murder. Hell, sometimes the local law enforcement will even agree with you: see the dreaded black children with skittles.

A prohibition on murder is basically irrelevant to a Paladin. They are a soldier. Any and all killing they do is by definition not murder. While they are at it, they might as well be forbidden from kissing their elbows or making square circles.

-Username17

[Schleiermacher]

Well, it's a little more of an issue than that because it's not the Paladin themselves who decides what justifications will fly, but the Big Guy in the Sky.

But basically, what Frank said is correct. Plenty of leeway for a Paladin to kill people as long as it's the right people for the right reasons (and here you can apply scare quotes and deconstruction asterisks to taste, if that's your jam.)

[infected slut princess]

It's action movie morality. You can justifiably kill people who are attacking you and you can go into the bad guys' base and kill bad guys. From there some common sense proportionality will help you the rest of the way (probably shouldn't kill a Chaotic Evil guy whose only crime is stealing a few copper pieces).

Pahtfucker is probably too shallow and stupid to lay out the objective moral philosophy that underlies its game, but it probably intends for there to be one of some kind. D&D stuff seems to go with the idea that morality is baked in at the metaphysical level. So while a shady paladin might come up with any 'justification', there is probably a supposed to be an objective standard to say whether that attempted justification is valid or not. Although I guess a campaign world could posit entirely subjectivist morality (red vs. blue).

If a paladin player wants to run around and kill children with the 'justification' that "children smell bad", I don't think that would comply with the "do not murder" rule except in an extreme subjectivist sense that is probably not intended for something like Pathfuckerverse.

[RobbyPants]

Well, it's a little more of an issue than that because it's not the Paladin themselves who decides what justifications will fly, but the Big Guy in the Sky.

Apart from the DM stepping in to declare what the Big Guy in the Sky wants, it's not like the god is sending any direct battle orders. So long as you don't offend your DM's sensibilities for what a Paladin is "supposed to be", you can kill indiscriminately.

[WiserOdin032402]

So, reading the paladin's tenants, I am keenly aware of one too many DMs that would basically put the paladin player in a state of perpetual falling. This is just...bad writing. Sounds way too abusable for my tastes. I'll bet you that they're going to make a Chaotic Good paladin variant that has none of the restrictions and has access to the insane developer handjob Desna, the chaotic good goddess who can do no wrong and is better in every way than the other gods, gets. Especially considering that they're trying to push the paladin closer to their deities and link the game closer to the Golarion.

[GâtFromKI]

Because your doing it for heroic reasons? Protecting the innocent, saving lives?

Protecting the innocent and saving lives are the second rule, while "thou shall not murder" is the first. And the "big improvement" Paizo are so proud of is there's a priority order between the rules: if the rules 1 and 2 are in conflict, you have to follow the first one.

The definition of murder is "killing that is not justified."

This is not the definition of murder; if you kill someone and justify it by "I didn't like his face" or "I really wanted his +1 sword", this is still a murder.

Let's take an official campaign: Curse of the Crimson Throne. The first minute of the first book: There is a guy, let's call him Mr X (I don't remember his name), he's a petty criminal and each PC has something against him (they have to define it at character creation). Someone reunites the PCs and gives them the address of Mr X. The book expects the PCs to break in Mr X's house, kill his 4 guard and kill Mr X.

How doesn't this count as 5 murders ? Mr X is a small criminal, but there's no way any law allow random people to enter his house and kill him. I've seen a lot of "revenge movies", and none of them pretends the main character isn't murdering people.

Hasn't stopped the Middle East from being a non-stop killing field for the last three thousand years.

Because "travel 5000 km and kill a lot of people" is considered as war; while "enter some house in your hometown and kill a few inhabitants" is considered as murder.

A prohibition on murder is basically irrelevant to a Paladin. They are a soldier. Any and all killing they do is by definition not murder. While they are at it, they might as well be forbidden from kissing their elbows or making square circles.

I agree with this - we may redefine "murder" in a way the Paladin can't do it.

Frank, you're the one who explained D&D's rules are too long (as long as War and Peace). Don't you think a new edition of D&D should remove any useless rule, like "the paladin is forbidden to do stuff he can't do" ?

[Username17]

This is not the definition of murder; if you kill someone and justify it by "I didn't like his face" or "I really wanted his +1 sword", this is still a murder.

This probably sounds like wisdom to you, but it is not. Killing someone because you don't like their face is actually Manslaughter. Murder is a relatively high bar, with even many forms of criminal homicide not qualifying.

Murder is literally the unlawful killing of another person without justification or excuse. That's what Murder is. Seriously. That's the actual definition. If you have a reason, even a shitty reason that doesn't keep you from going to jail for a long time, it still isn't murder. Armed soldiers can kill almost anyone and have that not be murder. "I thought they were an enemy combatant" might not be enough to keep you from being guilty of a crime if your reason for believing that wasn't that great, but it almost certainly is enough to make that crime not be specifically Murder.

-Username17

[GâtFromKI]

This is not the definition of murder; if you kill someone and justify it by "I didn't like his face" or "I really wanted his +1 sword", this is still a murder.

This probably sounds like wisdom to you, but it is not. Killing someone because you don't like their face is actually Manslaughter. Murder is a relatively high bar, with even many forms of criminal homicide not qualifying.

Murder is literally the unlawful killing of another person without justification or excuse. That's what Murder is. Seriously. That's the actual definition. If you have a reason, even a shitty reason that doesn't keep you from going to jail for a long time, it still isn't murder. Armed soldiers can kill almost anyone and have that not be murder. "I thought they were an enemy combatant" might not be enough to keep you from being guilty of a crime if your reason for believing that wasn't that great, but it almost certainly is enough to make that crime not be specifically Murder.

-Username17

In the case I described in Curse of the Crimson Throne, this is a murder. Even without the "felony murder rule", the PCs enter the house of Mr X with the intend of killing him (hence premeditation is established), and it's not "in the heat of passion" or "after losing control of their action": Mr X cheated them a long long time ago, now they come for revenge knowing what they're doing. This kind of situation in not uncommon in D&D.

If you add the "felony murder rule" or an equivalent into the mix, it's even harder not to be a murderer in D&D: a burglar (like entering the house of the BBEG) is enough to qualify the homicide of any guard as murder.

So OK, maybe "I lost the control of my action because he had a nice +1 sword" is enough to qualify the crime as manslaughter. Entering a dungeon to kill its owner is always a murder, while entering a dungeon and incidentally killing the guards is a murder in a lot of jurisdiction (as well as in common sense).


(You can't compare PCs with soldiers or police officers, since the PCs usually aren't. Due to their function, soldiers and police officers have legal protections other people don't have.)

[Username17]

D&D player characters are soldiers, and obviously so. When adventurers break into a dungeon the model is invasion as in "the conquistadores mounted an invasion of Aztlan" not "the home invasion robbery escalated to violence." D&D characters do not live in an advanced republic with a bureaucratic state that has a monopoly of violence. They live in a pre-industrial society where "Viking" is a fucking career. There aren't even Westphalian States of mutually recognized tyrannies, lich lords just declare themselves owners of however much territory their ghoul squads can physically patrol on any given night and nearby lords put up with it only until they can mount an expedition by some paladins to go smash the phylactery. It's like playing Crusader Kings in Central Fucking Asia - you always have the conquest option against all of your neighbors and sometimes you just put together a bunch of warriors together to go loot nearby temples.

Modern legal frameworks don't matter because you're looking at a pre-modern society. In that context, when a paladin kills someone for following a rival god this is not only "not murder" it's considered praiseworthy.

Now I agree that paladin codes have always been stupid and this one is also stupid. And having a discussion about what constitutes "murder" in Golarion sounds fucking awful to me. And having the results of such a conversation have important effects on the game seems retarded beyond belief. But the correct answer is that pretty much nothing a paladin is going to do or even seriously consider doing is ever going to count as murder. They are a divine martial authority, which means that they can stab someone in the face as an act of war or justice - and there just aren't a whole lot of reasons to kill people that can't be boiled down to "we are in opposition to them (war)" or "they did something we don't like and we're mad about it (justice)."

-Username17