Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dandu" data-source="post: 6050554" data-attributes="member: 85158">Now, which one would be better to roleplay in a D&D game?It's going to take more contrivance to make a skill like Profession: Cook as useful as Sense Motive for a detective. Feats are rather significant investments for people who are not fighters.Ah, so you'd give Skill Focus: Craft: Poetry additional uses. That's great... but not RAW. So it seems like you're discarding RAW when it is unfavorable as well? I applaud such a decision. The rules are meant to be guidelines. That is exactly why I do not have trouble ignoring the (non-mechanical) fluff.Hold on. Are you suggesting that practice combat plays no part in how a character gains experience? Then what are fighting academies and martial arts classes teaching in the in-game world?And you ignored completely the part where I suggested that they'd be sent out on missions. Which is another way of saying they get into combat.The mechanics of saves are quantized; you can fail 10% of the time, you can fail 15% of the time, but you never get someone who fails 13.5% of the time. If someone does a long study of these probabilities, they might notice it. Historically, this sort of thing has happened; during World War II, South African mathematician John Kerrich carried out 10,000 coin tosses while interned in a German prison camp. (He must have been really bored.)And Max Planck noticed this sort of thing when he tried to explain the emission characteristics of blackbody radiation, which lead to quantum mechanics.So your entire objection to taking an Oracle level later is based on the description of the Oracle class, which requires predestination to take levels in. I understand your position, but will have to disagree.How does it enhance the character more to take more levels of Oracle? Is it conceivable that one level of Oracle might be enough for a character concept? Do you remember the parts of 3.5e rulebooks where it discusses how you can adapt classes and prestige classes? For example, Champion of Corellon has an adaptation section where it talks about changing the deity to another.Do people not do that in Pathfinder? Are the class descriptions straight jackets now? Hold on. Nothing in the Challenge description requires you to warn enemies of your tactics. You simply single him out for more damage and make yourself easier to hit by other enemies. You do not have to be honorable to do this. You could be a some sort of psychopath and still focus your wrath on a single foe in combat.The Ronin option does not require someone to act honorably - to be kind, just, fair, truthful, or ethical. The description of Ronin reads: "Known as ronin, these samurai wander the lands, serving their own code of ideals." He could behave like a Chaotic Evil scumbag - and indeed, the lack of alignment restrictions allows for just that kind of character.""Nothing is more honorable than victory." -Worf, son of Mogh.Seriously, that's your argument? That because Honorable Stand has honor in the title, it requires the character to act honorably, as if there is some sort of truth in advertising policy? Nothing in the actual ability requires you to be an honorable, it just requires you to stand your ground to the bitter end."conflict is all these brutal souls know""they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war""these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death."You know, like many things, it is possible to be racist along a spectrum. You can hate goblins without focusing solely on them in battle to the exclusion of other tactical considerations. That would make as much sense as, say, a Mississippi regiment in the Civil War facing off against the Union and choosing to focus entirely on black regiments even when it would be inadvisable.(If you believe that racism and slavery were not the motivation for the civil war, and that state's rights were, replace "black regiments" with "damn Yankees".)And indeed, Black Jack does exactly that. Tell me what's wrong with it.</blockquote>

Verification