PDA

View Full Version : 3.5/pf is it just me or is neutral alignment the best mechanics wise?



randomhero00
2011-01-12, 02:39 PM
Seems like they haven't given enough bonuses to either good or evil. Neutral isn't affected by any of the [special] spells. Seems unfair, unless I'm missing something which I might be.

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-12, 02:51 PM
Some of dem feats are nice. Insane Defiance, Intuitive Attack, etc.

Keld Denar
2011-01-12, 02:53 PM
Its an advantage for the 4th level spells (Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Chaos Hammer, something Law something), as regardless of source, you'll take at MOST 1/2 damage, and you'll never be affected by the 2ndary effect.

Unfortunately, the 7th level versions (Holy Word, Blasphemy, Word of Chaos, Dictum? I hardly knew em!) target non-X targets. Thus, if you were true neutral and were simultanously caught in the area of all 4, you'd be...well, pretty screwed.

Beheld
2011-01-12, 02:57 PM
Mechanicly you want to be one of the four corners.

No one cares about Chaos Hammer or Holy Smite or the level 4 spells of that type. Being neutral saves you from some minor debuffs that you could make a saving throw to negate.

Instead, you should concern yourself with Holy Word, and the other three spells like it.

Ideally you would be lawful good, but have the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, or reverse.

That would make you immune to all four. Still subject to Word of Balance probably, but meh.

Keld Denar
2011-01-12, 03:06 PM
I don't think having all 4 alignments would help. The wording is non-good, or non-evil, or non-lawful, or non-chaotic. If it was worded "good people be immune, fool!", then you'd be right, and having all 4 alignments simultaneously would help. Unfortunately, such a character would be non-good, non-evil, non-chaotic, and non-lawful simultaneously, and would be subsequently vulnerable to all 4 spells. Its a negative qualifier, not a positive one.

Now, if you were a Horizon Walker with the Aligned planar mastery trait, you'd be pleasently immune, but as it stands, being a Succubus Paladin gets you screwed from all directions. :smallcool::smallwink::smallcool:

EDIT: Better?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-12, 03:08 PM
Now, if you were a Horizon Walker with the Aligned planar mastery trait, you'd be pleasently immune, but as it stands, being a Succubus Paladin gets you screwed from all directions.
Isn't that how she likes it? :smallconfused:


:smallamused:

Keld Denar
2011-01-12, 03:11 PM
Congratulations, I left you with a DC 0 spot check to notice that pun, and you just HAD to point it out and ruin it for everyone else? Le sigh...

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-12, 03:21 PM
Congratulations, I left you with a DC 0 spot check to notice that pun, and you just HAD to point it out and ruin it for everyone else? Le sigh...
Hey, there's a fine line between a Double Entendre (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleEntendre) and Accidental Innuendo (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AccidentalInnuendo). Considering the rest of your post (and lack of self-congratulatory smilies!) I thought I'd leap at the chance :smallbiggrin:

TalonDemonKing
2011-01-12, 03:42 PM
I'd be okay with being smitten by a succubus paladin, actually.

Arbane
2011-01-12, 04:00 PM
I'd be okay with being smitten by a succubus paladin, actually.

Don't you mean 'smitten with'?

Ravens_cry
2011-01-12, 04:01 PM
Hmmm, discussing best mechanical alignment you are, way of the Munchkin this be, Dark side that is.:smallamused:

Person_Man
2011-01-12, 04:09 PM
Evil gets the best feats, prestige classes, and soulmelds, but tend to have a lot of spells and effects that target them. Also, many of the best Necromancy-ish effects are Evil.

Good Bards can use Words of Creation, doubling their Inspire Courage bonus. And Good Rangers can get Favored Enemy (Evil) with a PrC. I'm sure there are a few other niche reasons to be Good out there, but for the most part, there isn't any default reason to be Good unless you have a specific class or PrC option that requires it.

Neutral tends to avoid the most negative spell effects. But I can't think of a Feat or PrC that requires it (though I'm sure there are a few obscure examples of the latter somewhere).

Keinnicht
2011-01-12, 04:19 PM
Plus if you get to high levels you can severely annoy your DM by trying to get him to let you buy Holy Unholy Weapons or Axiomatic Anarchic Weapons.

It's best from a certain perspective, but there aren't very many neutrality oriented prestige classes. Plus alignment is not something you should pick from a purely mechanical perspective, unless your class has some sway over it.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:22 PM
Plus if you get to high levels you can severely annoy your DM by trying to get him to let you buy Holy Unholy Weapons or Axiomatic Anarchic Weapons..

There's a creature in MM IV (the Concordant Killer) that has a weapon which (when held by it) counts as Holy, Unholy, Axiomatic, and Anarchic.

So- that might imply it's not logically impossible for a weapon to work like that.

nedz
2011-01-12, 04:31 PM
Neutral tends to avoid the most negative spell effects. But I can't think of a Feat or PrC that requires it (though I'm sure there are a few obscure examples of the latter somewhere).

Not directly perhaps, but plenty of indirect ones.
I'm thinking of those which essentially require Druid etc.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:34 PM
Underdark (3.5) has a few Neutral-centric spells and items, and a cleric domain - "Balance".

There's also the Regalia of Neutrality in Arms & Equipment Guide. (3.0)

So- theres some Neutral-centric stuff out there.

(and the Rilmani (Neutral Outsiders) in Fiend Folio).

Benly
2011-01-12, 06:06 PM
Good Bards can use Words of Creation, doubling their Inspire Courage bonus. And Good Rangers can get Favored Enemy (Evil) with a PrC. I'm sure there are a few other niche reasons to be Good out there, but for the most part, there isn't any default reason to be Good unless you have a specific class or PrC option that requires it.

Don't forget Nymph's Kiss. That feat is great for skillmonkey/face types. For PrCs, Sacred Exorcist and Radiant Servant are both worth mentioning in this regard.

This thread is particularly amusing to me because a friend of mine was rolling up a level 15 Pathfinder oracle last night and complaining about how much less appealing the level 7 cleric list becomes when you're TN. :smallsmile:

Chilingsworth
2011-01-13, 11:49 AM
Ideally you would be lawful good, but have the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, or reverse.

That would make you immune to all four. Still subject to Word of Balance probably, but meh.

Not true. If you have an actual alignment that differs from any alignment subtypes you have, you are treated whichever is worse for you. So, the above would make you vulnerable to everything.

Callista
2011-01-13, 11:52 AM
I think it's probably the best, mechanically, yes. If you're Good, then Evil guys will plan to kill Good-aligned things; if you're Evil, then Good guys will plan to kill Evil-aligned things. Same with Law and Chaos. There's no specific plan against Neutral.

But who actually min-maxes to the point of choosing the optimum alignment? I mean, depending on your character concept, you aren't going to want to play Neutral all the time. It's just not enough of a trade-off for the fun you'd have. Unless you're really fond of true neutral characters--and I guess some people are--there are better ways to optimize than picking true neutral alignment.

You don't have to get the absolute most powerful character, after all. You just have to build one that will fit into the party and be useful while he's at it.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-13, 12:05 PM
You don't have to get the absolute most powerful character, after all. You just have to build one that will fit into the party and be useful while he's at it.
And this is why I am glad Pun-Pun exists. We have now seen the most powerful character possible.
So go you home and rest your sword, young optimizer. That battle is won.

Callista
2011-01-13, 12:12 PM
LOL, yes, exactly! Now that we've hit infinity at first level, what more is there to do? And who would want to play pun-pun anyway? It'd be fun for, like, thirty seconds. And then you'd be like, "Okay, screw this, this isn't even a challenge. Where's that Halfling Barbarian I was working on?"

hangedman1984
2011-01-13, 12:15 PM
This thread is why the alignment system is a bad idea, we now have people trying to optimize alignment!

Callista
2011-01-13, 12:22 PM
...uh, except half of us are talking about why it'd be a silly idea to try to optimize alignment.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-13, 12:31 PM
This thread is why the alignment system is a bad idea, we now have people trying to optimize alignment!
By that logic, any rules are a bad idea because people can and do optimise those as well.

Benly
2011-01-13, 12:35 PM
Oh boy, another thread turning into "optimizers are the devil".

I optimize. I make a character concept, and then I make the build as good at doing whatever it was I envisioned as it can be. Personally, I feel that alignment should not be an optimizable factor, because that leads to putting the cart before the horse - it makes what should be a decision of character concept a decision of rules viability.

It is unfortunate that using only un-houseruled first-party material, the best way to meet the concept "wizard/cleric dual caster" requires being evil, the best warmages have to be LN/LG/NG/TN, and a wizard who takes up pact magic must be nongood to be halfway decent at it. Personally, I favor houserules that remove these restrictions (or, in the more broken cases, remove the broken option) but in games that don't permit the houserule I will never begrudge someone making the decision that lets their character concept do the things they want it to instead of limping along sadly.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-13, 12:40 PM
Did I say that?
No.
But trying for the 'most powerful character possible' is pointless as it has already been done.
Optimizing isn't bad, not at all. After all, you need differing amounts in different campaigns to stay alive.
But being optimized is a task completed, a dragon slaying, a MacGuffin recovered.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-13, 12:43 PM
For Clerics a neutral alignment makes sense, as it gives you access to all of the alignment based spells. Otherwise it rarely matters.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-13, 12:46 PM
Oh boy, another thread turning into "optimizers are the devil".

I optimize. I make a character concept, and then I make the build as good at doing whatever it was I envisioned as it can be. Personally, I feel that alignment should not be an optimizable factor, because that leads to putting the cart before the horse - it makes what should be a decision of character concept a decision of rules viability.

It is unfortunate that using only un-houseruled first-party material, the best way to meet the concept "wizard/cleric dual caster" requires being evil, the best warmages have to be LN/LG/NG/TN, and a wizard who takes up pact magic must be nongood to be halfway decent at it. Personally, I favor houserules that remove these restrictions (or, in the more broken cases, remove the broken option) but in games that don't permit the houserule I will never begrudge someone making the decision that lets their character concept do the things they want it to instead of limping along sadly.

No, but devils make excellent optimizers. Lawful Evil is all about the loopholes and fine print, after all.

Benly
2011-01-13, 12:55 PM
Did I say that?
No.
But trying for the 'most powerful character possible' is pointless as it has already been done.
Optimizing isn't bad, not at all. After all, you need differing amounts in different campaigns to stay alive.
But being optimized is a task completed, a dragon slaying, a MacGuffin recovered.

"Being optimized" is a meaningless statement. Optimization is defined in terms of what goal you are optimizing towards. That can be "the most powerful possible character" but in practice it pretty much never is, rendering Pun-Pun a straw man. More often it's something like "the best Mystic Theurge I can be" or "a guy who can charge enemies with his battleaxe and inflict massive damage", and for both those sample concepts alignment enters the optimization process for essentially arbitrary reasons.

hangedman1984
2011-01-13, 01:05 PM
i wasn't saying optimizing was bad necessarily. Trying to optimize something that should have been mostly if not entirely fluff is, why it shouldn't have been made an actual mechanic.