Aravashnial

Nox Aeterna's page

1,056 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,056 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The intention to me seems simple enough.

By everyone getting +1 at every lvl, the gap from one to another PC dimishes, this way everyone may attempt a task.

So instead of, one guy being at stealth, but the party refuses to do it cause the others arent, one guy is good at climb, but the party refuses to do it cause the wizard or whatever isnt, the other guy is good at X and the party refuses to do it cause they arent...

You in turn have more situations where everyone might not be as good as the other guy, but they are still willing to try cause they are high enough lvl and thus have a good bonus to whatever it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have rolled perception and saves for my players since the longest of times.

Also roll other skills from time to time if i think there is a need for it.

When i GM i simply use a sheet to keep track of pretty much all my players have and can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly because many disagree with you there. That simple.

It was motive of multiple discussion threads even before the playtest started, in which it was more than clear that some want a open paladin, some think it could be only good and me and others believe it should remain LG only.

Simply put, while you might drop the restriction, i would quite literally add it back in my games second one if it wasnt there to begin with. No way im GMing a pathfinder game with a non LG paladin in it.

Ultimately it was left open to change based on playtest feedback during surveys. So who know where the final edition will stand. One can assume some questions they will ask will be referent to this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, will have to agree here.

Im hoping the playtest will radicaly change the magic system, but if it doesnt, then honestly nothing else written in any 2.0 book matters to me.

I will not GM or even sit to play a 2.0 game that is for sure.

With this said, for said negative feedback to be given now when change can still come and hope still remains, i do advise playing the playtest and taking part in the surveys.


Overall higher preset character creation.

Simply put, stuff like background, anathemas that set classes more in line and so on.

Background itself is something im +- about, since until there are tons of them it is a bit iff and ofc, even then some will always be missing, but it shouldnt be hard for a GM to make on the fly for his players anyway.

Anathemas i quite like. It was abhorrent to me how clerics could follow a god, but quite literally not at all represent said god in PF1. So this is a big plus.

Class locked stuff. This needs change here and there, but the direction is great. Simply put, being a class should matter quite a bit to me, so each having unique and powerful tools that set them appart is a great direction to follow. Ofc, right now this needs work, but im considering the thought.


Well, dunno, from my usual table only I cared enough to check out dates and the launch of 2.0. I told them about it, for now as far as i have seen they were neutral about it.

Tonight we will sit to play, i will be giving my first impressions, which to be honest are... mostly negative and we will see from there.

With this said, i do intend to playtest it, if nothing else because i have played PF1 for so damm long, that i think 2.0 should atleast get a shot until it is released and fixed in stone.

The overall idea was nice, the execution, to me atleast, was poor.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Greatly favor the new restrictions.

Honestly in PF1 clerics were far too generic and what god will you serve was a question more of "what domains you want?" than of "what the idea behind the god is?".

More times than i can number i saw clerics that to pretty much all effects forgot what gods they served and just went ahead being generic good or evil guy.

Anathemas are a big plus, but honestly i will take anything that sets clerics of different gods appart from each other.


It is interesting to see the game go more for an anime feeling with skills, which arent magic, allow for normal individuals to perform such feats, like falling from any place and take 0.

Just checking the blogs now, but still cant wait for the book.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

I think game terms are used in game, not in world.

I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.

Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.

Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.

I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.

Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.

Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.

Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.

The way I see it, you can't say "I'm a Paladin" anymore than you can say "I'm level 6". Those are metagame terms to explain mechanics. Like "attack of oportunity" and "squares" are. Your wizard does not point fireballs to corners of squares, he point them to points in the space.

Yeap, fundamentally different ways to play, that is all.

To me a class isnt divided from what it is ingame.

A PC with the class paladin, is also a paladin in game...

If the PC doesnt have the paladin class, then he isnt a in game paladin...

Ofc this goes for other class aswell, but again, some are harder than others to divide due to being a more generic term, like the assassin case.


Neurophage wrote:
Would they be? What if all of their formal magical knowledge came from studying at a wizard's college, from which they graduated (if only barely)? They cast arcane spells using their intelligence modifier, prepare them out of a spellbook and have to use material components barring taking the Eschew Materials feat. Would it still be a lie for them to claim to be a wizard? Because if that was my magus's background, he would definitely call himself a wizard.

First lets assume he did go to a college, in said college there would be multiple courses, not just the wizard one, he would be well aware there are magus, wizard, arcansists... and that those things are different.

If we go beyond and say that he went on with your story, the player would be well aware his PC is wrong in the claim, cause i would have told him so when he made the PC, but he can still go on with it, i mean, dont people often believe they are things they arent?

Maybe eventually people could caught on with this and so on...

Pretty much how guy can go to the temple and there are people training to be be a paladin or a cleric or a inquisitor... he would know these arent the same from the get go, same way most NPCs that belongs to a religious orders would know a paladin isnt a inquisitor, a cleric...

This ofc gets more complex the more generic a term is.

Neurophage wrote:
And if that's how you want to do things, then more power to you. But if I don't want to, I don't think the game shouldn't assume that I do. How you do things shouldn't have to conflict with how I do things.

By no means im playing the better way here. You do you, i will do me. Ofc, as i said above, i believe in informing players as much as i can about these things, houserules... so after the game starts they suffer for things they didnt know.

Ultimately, they might, simply cause we run them differently. Ofc, there is a room for middle ground, for example, the mounted knight player wanted to call himself a cavalier at all costs, he didnt want this to be a mistaken by any means... i might consider banning the entire cavalier class then, if there are no cavaliers as a class, then the player wouldnt be wrong.

Neurophage wrote:
Would they still need to if their principle responsibility at their temple was clerical work? If their primary function in the temple of Razmir where they serve is to provide general support and assist in the ongoing functioning of the temple in an official capacity, then I think of them, in the most literal interpretation, as a cleric of Razmir.

Yes, because i would explain such to them, because the term cleric wouldnt mean the person that does things X and Y in the temple, it would mean people that belong to this class, who have this skill set...


Malk_Content wrote:

And what happens when a class is added? Was your character lying all along?

PF2E launches and I make a knightly mounted fighter. He refers to himself as a cavalier. He goes around cavaliering for 2 years until the release of a book that adds the Cavalier class. Do I now have to rewrite my character?

This is a very unique case in which no, I wouldn't force a player to get out of his way for something that wasn't even there when the game launched. When he made the PC this was perfectly valid and thus should remain till the next game starts.

Changes made during play should be for very serious reasons as far as I'm concerned. And mostly should be things the entire table can agree on, even more after 2 years of play.

But let's be honest here, classes aren't that common for this to happen all the time.


Malk_Content wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.

So if your Paladin was tasked with rooting out corrupted members of the order they would be lying if they used the label inquisitor? Thats kind of absurd to be honest.

Yeap he would be lying. An inquisitor is not the same a paladin. That simple.

You may work to enforce the law, that doesn't make you a police officer.

You may know how to build a house, that doesn't make you an engineer...

Just because your head cleric said, go clean the house, doesn't mean a paladin turns into a inquisitor as far as I'm concerned.

Ofc, some stuff blurs this due to being generic, like the Assassin case...


Neurophage wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.
I hope for the opposite. Few things in a class-based game irritate me more than character classes being in-universe terminology. The only purpose it serves is to limit what concepts and character types are allowed to be expressed by which classes. Like, my favorite class is the magus, but not a single one of my magi has ever referred to themselves as a magus. They've been knights, swordsmen, spell-fencers, scholars, magicians and just wanderers. I've never defined a single paladin as just being a paladin. Demon hunter? Sure. Crusader? Sometimes. Hero? only one occasion. As far as I'm concerned, the class name is for the players' convenience and nothing more.

Like I said different strokes for different folk.

A magus would be a magus in mine. Ofc, again, you can call yourselves whatever you want and honestly none of what you said had to be a lie. But let's say you called yourself a wizard, THEN you are lying.

Point is, you can't jump on other classes , without lying anyway, cause they are in world things, but you sure call yourself things that go beyond your class without issues.

To make a simple analogy.

That Razmir for example.

If you have a sorc who is a priest/follower...

If someone ask "Are you a priest/follower... of Razmir" Assuming the sorc is one, this isn't a lie.

But if they ask "Are you a cleric of Razmir" and they say yes, then they are rolling a bluff check.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

I think game terms are used in game, not in world.

I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.

Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.

Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.

I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.

Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.

Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.

Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.

Honesty it went from paladin is a in world thing that means something on itself.

To people who thought it meant suddenly meant everyone could instantly see you are a paladin.


Honestly, i find it so much simpler than that, it is like our world, people can 1, say they are the thing they are: "Im a paladin/police officer...",yes people could also lie about it, bluff all the way, 2, people can be recognized by others "This man is a paladin *said the town cleric*...", and so on.

Actuallty, funny enough, the false priests fit into this right in. They are lying about being clerics, cause people understand what is a cleric, that is why they get powers to fool people. Just like you could try to fool people that you are a paladin, the issues being when you are caught ofc :P.

Anyway, this wasnt the point you were trying to make.

Your solution does grasp the heart of the matter, which is, paladins are paladins in universe and that they shouldnt have their niche changed. Your solution is far from the worse i saw around actually, it could use some refining and im unsure about the whole any class thing, but it could fit i guess.

The issue I have with this is that, lets be real here, this wont ever happen, cause there is no way paizo is dropping the paladin as a class. In the core book, by the end, paladin will for sure be there, it wont be crusader or whatever else. Ofc, i dont speak for the devs, so who knows, but i dont believe for a second this is happening until i see it.


The Unfortunate Pumpkin wrote:
I'm of the school of thought that you should find ways to incorporate characters backstory into a campaign no matter how crazy it seems, as long as it's done well. this way players always feel like their character has story significance, I mean they are the heroes after all. I had the same issue with traits being forgotten after being picked, because players only wanted to take the good ones and didn't care too much for the flavor of them so they just wrote their backstory completely ignoring the traits they took. This lead to me not really using traits too often.

Well, it is not already possible to easilly integrate stories of the players in the world, even more if they dont know it all to well before they create them, often players simply dont think to ask this kind of information, but the traits point them to it.

Examples from the last game were a native trait, that gave the player a best friend who was also an INN keeper in the main used city, a world explorer which led the player to be well know in certain circles that were very relevant to the game , a favored of god X, which literally made stuff react to a player who didnt even follow the god, but had the trait, differently... so on and on.

This made the players feel a direct impact in the traits they got, instead of some generic +2 to whatever for reasons nobody will remember and so on.

This is what im hoping this system will point to. Even more in APs and other such stories. You start invested, you start set to that world, to that story.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
about what I expected. I like that they have the potential to be really closely tied into an AP, although I agree with folks that it's going to be pretty rough until enough AP's and splats come out to allow a full range of character concepts.

Honestly worthy it for me.

Issue i had with some home games and traits is that they were just forgotten after you pick them, no in world value outside the mechanical side.

Im not blaming any GM for this either, they just didnt stop to create their on traits since the system was often side lined. Im hoping by this being in core, more people will think about making their own gist for their stories, so when you pick one, you can better integrate with the story about to be told.

The few campaigns i played, outside APs which have their own, that had a GM prepare their traits ahead of time were trully awesome from the get go, since you often started with all players already integrated with the story and its NPCs, with motivations...

Had moments were traits had real story significance and a real inworld impact, like completely changing how certain events went because that one guy was there and that one guy had the trait for the situation we got ourselves in...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, on the overall part is find this great, anything that binds the PC more and more into world in a positive to me. So i hope other feats and so on will even further set a PC that not only tells a story, but that has the story build up what he is.


Neo2151 wrote:

These things fill difference places in the world thematically, even though they are similar mechanically.

Clerics/Paladins (as well as Fighters/Barbarians) fill the same places in the world thematically, as well as being similar mechanically.

Well, i can only say that is when you are GMing honestly, cause when im, they certanly do not fill the same theme.

Actually, i never played with a GM which a paladin and a cleric were about the same, but i guess different folk different strokes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins transcend whatever god they serve, they did so in PF1, now they do so in PF2.

If a cleric concern is to follow a god, a paladin concern is to follow a god AND a set of ideals.

The cleric class has anathema, which means it has a concern to keep in line with their god, whatever god that might be,

The paladin class on the other hand present 2 levels here. It has the anathema like the cleric, which means it has a concern to their god, it also has a code, which shows a concern to the paladin class ideals themselves.

Simply put, you can have paladins of 5 different LG gods, they all will have one level of concern for their gods ideals, but they all will also have a mutual concern for what any paladin would defend, which goes beyond their gods following.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The original thread is here. Control + F is your friend. Technology is not your enemy.

Sure you say that now! Wait until they end up creating the skynet :P.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
The reason paladin gets priority is literally that it is already core, people expect it to be there as soon as it releases. This is an icon, i dont believe paizo would, or should, launch the core without a single current core class, this simply includes the paladin.
Somewhat tangentially: I know why they did what they did, but if it were up to me, we'd be getting the cavalier as the "extra class" instead of alchemist. And they'd be the Legendary Armor class. It's too important a niche to be part of the (lawful good only) paladin, in my opinion. ^_^

Well, i dont know how it works, but i know others can also get it, the devs made a post about it.

So it is mostly a, you get it easier, than a, only you can get this toy.

Personally im in favor of the alchemist because of the new alchemy system they seem to be making from what i understood.

Alchemy has always been kinda... under utilized, it will be nice to see what it can do now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
except no ibe has offered a similar clas without alao stating it must not be a champion (hwalsh with his 'must be completly different, statistically inferior and delayed by multiple years' statements for example) I say turn about has to be fair play: how hapoy woukd you be with getti g the paladin as is in 5 years time after a clearly better class had been in core?

1) I dont agree that the other guy, CG or NG or whatever, must be worse. As far as im concerned it could even be similar, BUT, i do think this is a lost opportunity, not to make it worse, but to make it a Champion of CG, like paladin is of LG, instead of a paladin copy.

2) Unfortunately, i will have to agree that, if need be, then yes, it must be delayed until it can be released. The reason paladin gets priority is literally that it is already core, people expect it to be there as soon as it releases. This is an icon, i dont believe paizo would, or should, launch the core without a single current core class, this simply includes the paladin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:


Overall it is a more team based PC, quite interesting in concept that it works on far more than just evil, you smite those that hit your party, you get teamwork feats...

But you are also far less tanky. Losing lay on hands and your usual CHA to saves for example along other stuff.

Some folks seem to think that this LoH and Cha to saves is the be-all and end-all of things.

...some of us would like a neat story and character that best Lawful Good just isn't providing with some meaningful mechanics and flavor.

without being attacked for wanting this sort of thing.

Im far, far from considering such a thing. I was just pointing out to you how it works.

It is better on dealing damage, since it can smite stuff that isnt evil (granted they must actually hit someone first), get teamwork feats...

But it is less tanky, no LoH means you cant self heal anymore, no Cha to saves means you will fail them much more often...

You wanted to know more of the archetype, im telling you more about it, that is all.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Grey Guards are also paladins tho. They're my favorite paladins.

Hellknights function on a chassis so similar to the paladin, I don;t understand why having a choice of order at first level, similar to a cleric, with the paladin being an option is so abhorrent to you. You literally want to exclude us from this part of the game, unapologetically. You also really don't seem to be discussing the compromises either, might I suggest you step away from the keyboard for a while and really understand that other people are also allowed to have opinions, and it's okay for those opinions to be different.

I honestly dont think a vast majority in this thread think the other side doesnt have the right to hold their own opinion.

But, like you said yourself, people may disagree and that is that.

Compromises as i said before are off the table exactly because they well... cant be on it.

People want the paladin to change <> People who oppose paladin changing

There could be similar classes like you said, but this isnt what is on the table, what is on the table is changing the paladin and some, me included, will simply never agree to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


That's a fair point, but I think ignorance explicitly is what this god is going for because his obedience involves burying a text you've never read. This is the Empyreal Lord of Being Dumb As S~!%.

Sounds like the IDEAL deity for redeemed goblins, doesn't it?

EDIT: Some folks were talking above about Vindictive Bastard. I'm now becoming REALLY intrigued by this concept. I want to know more!

Overall it is a more team based PC, quite interesting in concept that it works on far more than just evil, you smite those that hit your party, you get teamwork feats...

But you are also far less tanky. Losing lay on hands and your usual CHA to saves for example along other stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
graystone wrote:
The thing is, the vindictive bastard still HAS paladin powers. Spells, arua, smite. SO a paladin can do an evil act and still have powers afterwards which was the point. What tells the random person on the street that it's a paladin [normal] or a paladin [vindictive bastard]?
I don't believe this is accurate. As an ex-paladin, vindictive bastards don't have anything that an ex-paladin wouldn't have, with the exception of the abilities granted by the archetype itself. For example: no spells.

Actually it is funnier than that:

"While an ex-member of a class can recant her failings and atone for her fall from her original class (typically involving an atonement spell), her acceptance of her ex-class archetype means she must atone both for her initial fall and for further straying from the path. As a result, such a character must be the target of two atonement spells or a similar effect to regain her lost class features. Upon doing so, she immediately loses this archetype and regains her original class (and archetype, if she had one)."

You are literally worse off in ingame basis for picking this. You are a double ex paladin now :P.


Arachnofiend wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


A Valid LG Paladin Deity

At least, that would appear to be the case.

Tell me I'm wrong, please?

There is nothing within the code to prohibit the gathering of information.

Yeah, I don't see anything in the Paladin code or Lawful Good in general that prevents you from being sneaky. A lot of shadow magic is evil so you could potentially run into problems there, but there's enough shadow magic that isn't evil that I don't think it's THAT much of a problem.

I went looking for Empyreal Lords with questionable values and found Ghenshau. Why does this guy exist. How is ignorance a virtue

One thing to consider is that all shadow magic could be evil, this wouldnt matter for the paladin i believe, since the paladin doesnt get spells from their god anyway in PF1, maybe they do in PF2?, so in PF1 since they are meant to actually work even without a god, they wouldnt get in trouble for the shadow magic their god is doing.


Hmm wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
It's well-documented in studies that, in general, beliefs held emotionally will almost never be swayed by argument or evidence. For topics like this, I rarely hold any hope that the other side will be swayed by anything I say. The point is to influence people who are on the fence, who could very well be developers.

It’s true that we get committed to our opinions once we’ve invested in them. I believe that butting against people’s hard earned beliefs head-on will rarely change their minds. Nor will repeating the same stance over and over.

So I try not to do that. Instead, I like to ask questions, or reflect upon my personal experiences, or look for common ground. I do state my opinions, but I also like to listen to those who express the opposite view and see what I can learn from them.

While I’m disappointed about the decision not to include other alignments for the CRB’s holy warriors, I can also understand the views of those who want to make certain that Paladins remain people of their vows. I simply disagree with the idea that chaotic heroes cannot have codes that are unbreakable, and lie at the heart of everything they do. Maybe we have a different understanding of what alignment means; or maybe we see different possibilities arising from the same seeds.

I will say that while I want holy warriors for chaotic gods, I don’t want them to be codeless. One area where HWalsh and I have views that intersect is that we both value the codes — we both want to have our characters have to make tough choices, and to have values that are sacred.

Will either of us convince anyone at this point? Maybe not. But maybe it’s not convincing others that is really important here. Maybe the true joy is sharing the things that we hold sacred, and asking the big questions.

Hmm

The funny part is that i dont even disagree with most of that.

Can CG keep a vow? Yes.

Is a CG guy as capable of good as a LG or NG guy? Yes.

So on.

But the paladin, to me, is the LG guy who does THOSE things. He is the LG icon and so he should remain. Can there be a similar, i hope they arent, but lets say if it could there be one, CG guy who has a general concept similar to the paladin?

Sure, but that, to me again, should never be the paladin.

As far as im concerned that should be its own thing, which could have a code, be good... Which again think would be a lost opportunity to making the CG class its own thing.


knightnday wrote:
Perhaps. But then, people will be unhappy when they cannot play whatever they've been playing for the last however many years. Some of the classes do not require quite the glad handing that paladins and alignment battles do and could be introduced into the Core book.

Possible, but ultimately, what paizo did was KEEP the paladin, not change it.

People here might be annoyed by it, but again, this is how the paladin has worked in pathfinder alone 10 years and before that 3.5.

So it remains to be seen when released, how much the general public that already dealt with the paladin working this way to this point, will react to it... well doing exactly the same thing now in a new edition.


knightnday wrote:

The game existed before paladins. The game can exist without them for a few months or even year if it is that special so they can get it right. After all, isn't that what Jason Bulmahn suggested in his post upthread?

A lot of the classes and archetypes that we won't see for a while are equally important to the game and the genre. If they can wait, certainly the paladin could as well.

Hum... now i doubt you will convince many that any individual class is as important as the core ones, just saying.

Paizo does have a track of class popularity, core ones are all quite up there from what i understood.

Again, this is what i understood from their posts, do not take it for devs words.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

*Turns august*

*Huge outcry* "How could they make the great sword only do this much damage! It makes no sense!

You joke, but imagine what'll happen when greatsword damage is widely known to be 1d12 instead of 2d6, and all the other 2d- weapons are discovered to be converted to single dice.

The funny part to think about it goes beyond the damage, into the game philosophy for PF2.

They clearly tunned the numbers down, BUT, they also want people to clearly just roll more dices.

So now what will win out, dimishing the damage of the weapon or trying to make each roll as many dice as possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, if i could pick, yes i would prefer PF1 to continue, but if you stop to think about it:

1) PF1 remains its on thing, you can still play it, you dont need to go to PF2 if you dont want to. Quite sure those who dont like the changes will for example.

2) At which point do you assume they will stop making the books? Cause it has to end. Should they only ever stop making PF1 books if they go backrupt and then no more books are printed?

I mean D&D is on its "fifth" version for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:

Your point is articulate and thoughtful, but I offer this counter:

I am sort of bored and the news of the alignment was upsetting. Therefore, I took to the internet to make things worse by any means possible.

I am interested to see what the survey or whatever will reveal about the general opinion on the issue. I think Mark said his fear is that it will be split like the forums are.

My newest dilemma is that most Pro Lawful Paladinners have been modest and contrite about the 'victory', so now I will feel bad if I get what I want regardless. But I see this only as further evidence of their Evil, that even in 'victory' they will not allow me contentment. It only serves to fuel my impotent rage.

Edit: Also, about a possible survey or whatever, I really hope there's a "What are you talking about? Who cares!?! Make them whatever alignment and just fix the stuff with the class we mentioned!" option.

And it gets the vast majority of votes, proving fully that I wasted my time. I need that reassurance in the dark times. :)

hahaha who knows, but yeah, im sure by now, there will be some reference about alignment on the paladin.

I honestly believe then, the major part of the answer will be "whatever", cause i imagine the middle team that will be fine eitherway is the actually larger portion :P.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
]Which is possibly why they released the paladin relatively early, ahead of the wizard even. Letting us fight it out early, get it out of our systems, so that come August we're ready to address the playtest as it is, not how we wish (on this topic at least).

Well if you stop to think about it, goblins and alchemist came quite early, but then again, that might just have been them wanting to show the new core toys :P.

By august if this is right we will be seeing weapon tables and other stuff, i imagine, most wouldnt fight about.

*Turns august*

*Huge outcry* "How could they make the great sword only do this much damage! It makes no sense!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

An interesting view, but i wonder how many people "on the fence" even are for anyone to influence, cause i check this thread often and honestly by this point it is pretty much the same folk, with the same views, playing in a circle where one side says A, the others says B and it just keeps going and going.

I personally doubt even more the devs making the calls are on the fence about anything when creating such a project, but then again, cant and wont speak for the devs here.

Probably, but the circle serves its purpose of keeping the fact that its hotly contested front and center. If Pro-Other Alignment Paladinners just quieted down when it was announced "They're Lawful Good still." then there would absolutely be arguments along the lines "Well, they accepted it or moved on, not a big deal anymore. Lets have a pizza party for Lawful Good Paladinners! Hooray!"

If it were the other way around, if the Paladin had been announced as 'Any Good', then I really doubt that Walsh would have said "Argh! I am vanquished! Go ahead and do what you want with the Paladin then, I have been defeated." I expect he'd argue until he figured the chance to change it was totally lost, then go do the whatever else like he's said.

I have little hope in getting what I see as fair treatment for other alignments, but I'll still argue about it and suggest things. Otherwise, there's no chance at all, and Pro Lawful Paladinners win. Do you have any idea what it means if Pro Lawful Paladinners win? The world will be exactly the same, but I'll be slightly upset at having technically lost something on the internet!

I can't allow such a horrible timeline. I'm sorry.

Disclaimer: This my opinion, this doesnt reflect the devs at all.

But overall, quite honestly, we here can reach a consensus by a miracle, it will matter NOTHING, if when the class gets released tons of people give another feedback, that is it.

Based on what i saw the devs say, mind you again this isnt what they said word for word, the feedback they are more interested in anyway is the one during the playtest by whatever means they will create for said feedback to be given.

The book is already actually out for printing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
The thing is, the vindictive bastard still HAS paladin powers. Spells, arua, smite. SO a paladin can do an evil act and still have powers afterwards which was the point. What tells the random person on the street that it's a paladin [normal] or a paladin [vindictive bastard]?

Actually nope, his powers dont work like a paladin, like really, they dont, his smite is different, no lay on hands..., the entire archetype can only ever be picked if you are an ex-paladin so you need to drop from effectively being a true paladin at that point.

We can play with words here and talk about since "Ex-Paladins" arent their own class and is inside the paladin descrption, they are still paladins anyway, but that is just ignoring what the word "Ex" before the word "Paladin" means.


knightnday wrote:
Perhaps the point isn't to change your mind or convince you, but rather the largely quiet audience and the devs who are listening as well.

Meh well, not like we cant keep playing in circles till the next blog post hit, hey maybe even further than that.

Who knows, maybe mark will drop more class features at some point. That would be something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
And how would you KNOW they have powers or not? Other classes have smite, lay on hands, auras, mounts, spells, ect... That and a vindictive bastard can 100% say they are a paladin, smite some 'evil', protect with his Aura of Courage, cast paladin only spells... Heck, they could even still be LG or CE or anything in between.

Yeap... a vindictive bastard can say they are a paladin, as much as any other fallen paladin can.

By that point you can have a paladin CE with no powers, who also arent a vindictive bastard and they will also say they are a paladin :P, true, but that aint gonna get you far haha.


Athaleon wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
It's not like there's not precedent for what we want. I think having different oaths which start new class feat chains within the same class build up is the perfect solution.

This here exemplifies why this thread wont move from place as well as why this concept, and honestly no new concept, was added to the paladin already.

There is no such a thing as a perfect solution, cause the entire issue rests on a subjective matter. What one feels and another person feel might simply not match. Some clearly feel this wont ruin the paladin, others do, me included btw. This bar wont ever move unless for a miracle suddenly a lot of folk stop feeling like they curently do.

I mean, lets be real guys, do you think the folk at paizo didnt think of this solution, and probably many others, themselves? What followed is probably what followed here, people simply wont ever agree with the feeling the class passes and how this changes it. The bar again, didnt move.

It's well-documented in studies that, in general, beliefs held emotionally will almost never be swayed by argument or evidence. For topics like this, I rarely hold any hope that the other side will be swayed by anything I say. The point is to influence people who are on the fence, who could very well be developers.

An interesting view, but i wonder how many people "on the fence" even are for anyone to influence, cause i check this thread often and honestly by this point it is pretty much the same folk, with the same views, playing in a circle where one side says A, the others says B and it just keeps going and going.

I personally doubt even more the devs making the calls are on the fence about anything when creating such a project, but then again, cant and wont speak for the devs here.


master_marshmallow wrote:
It's not like there's not precedent for what we want. I think having different oaths which start new class feat chains within the same class build up is the perfect solution.

This here exemplifies why this thread wont move from place as well as why this concept, and honestly no new concept, was added to the paladin already.

There is no such a thing as a perfect solution, cause the entire issue rests on a subjective matter. What one feels and another person feel might simply not match. Some clearly feel this wont ruin the paladin, others do, me included btw. This bar wont ever move unless for a miracle suddenly a lot of folk stop feeling like they curently do.

I mean, lets be real guys, do you think the folk at paizo didnt think of this solution, and probably many others, themselves? What followed is probably what followed here, people simply wont ever agree with the feeling the class passes and how this changes it. The bar again, didnt move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
In turn it could have some untimate form that it channels arcane magic in its body and start to shoot beams or something. Who knows.
I for one look forward to unlocking my wizard's final form and becoming the disco ball of doom I've always dreamed.

Now that would be something to see.

Can even cast some spells for sound effects.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


Being able to sprout wings is already a Barbarian thing through Dragon Totem. I imagine several of the martial classes will get some sort of flying solution because flight is one of the really big sticking points in the C/M disparity (though it won't and shouldn't be outright Flight for everyone, the Fighter's solution could be "you're Legendary in Acrobatics, jump into the air and suplex the m$!!#@+++$*&").
But would they be able to stay in the air indefinitely like the paladin apparently will be able to?

Hard to guess.

It is easier to believe different classes will have different key feats that do awesome things, than that they all have a check list to fill with the same exact powers.

Even a wizard might not have a feat that grants unlimited flight + light + special visions.

In turn it could have some untimate form that it channels arcane magic in its body and start to shoot beams or something. Who knows.


HWalsh wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).
Holy form seems quite great. Hope more classes can unlock their own ultimate versions in the looks departament too haha.
I always wanted a Paladin who could transform into an Angel, you can do it in PF1 with a spell for a few minutes, you can pull it off in Mythic for 24 hours, but to get it as a feat... Squee.

I mean, cant you already do that with an aasimar in PF1?

Pick the halo trait, then build up for the wings feat. Sure it isnt optimal... but you can :P.

You will have the wings, the halo and the dark vision.

PS: Sorry i was mistaken, you lose the darksion when you get halo, well you still look like one :P.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).

Holy form seems quite great. Hope more classes can unlock their own ultimate versions in the looks departament too haha.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Well, i imagine PF2 will be easier than ever to mod, cause apparently more things than ever are feats and options, instead of built in stuff.

That's been my read. Also that new classes will be pretty easy to spin out. If only (at best) half the class's abilities are tied to everyone in the class, and the rest is a sack of mechanics that might not even be exclusive to your class, alt-classes might be spun up pretty fast.

Just pick a few options that everyone in the class gets, then a dozen or so class feats, another dozen or so cherry picked options from an already existing class, and done.

I said this elsewhere, but I'm likely to spend the first month of the playtest idly mixing and matching class options to see how many classes I can Frankenstein together out of the existing pool. I was going to start with Shifters and Kineticists, but now summoner intrigues me.

...I wonder if Gate is going to become a 10th level spell?

maybe if this becomes popular, a book about putting classes together could come out with options for that. Lots of options seem open going foward.

Dunno how they moved spells around, personally i hope they are all still there, at most just moved around if need be. But i dont think any blog post will help on this, only the full list will answer such a broad thing.


Benjamin Medrano wrote:
In the first video interview that Logan and Erik did, I remember them saying they wanted to get the foundation of the game solid before doing some of the more complex concepts, which likely would need playtests of their own. I remember three classes were specifically mentioned, but the two I recall are Kineticist and Summoner, so I'm hopeful that it'll be easier to mod PF2.

Well, those two certanly fit the modular concept pretty well, guess they want to rock the boat with them this time around, making them ultra awesome since they fit so well.

Well, i imagine PF2 will be easier than ever to mod, cause apparently more things than ever are feats and options, instead of built in stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Yeah, the bonus to the companion part really got me going even more for the class. Cant wait to see what toys they are giving us to play with.

Gotta make that steed shiny.

That is an interesting tidbit, and one that didn't get much follow-up.

I wonder if we'll be able to make guesses about the eventual summoner and hunter classes when we see the feats the mount gets.

Makes me wonder if we will get a hunter class at all.

Maybe the whole thing is now in the druid where they pick feats to directly fight beside their AC? Maybe an archetype?

Personally i would prefer ofc it being a single class so it gets more options tailored for it alone, but who knows, maybe a goal was to cover the half and half classes from the get go.

I wonder how will they build the summoner around this time true, guess for a class that was already about picking the pet in a modular fashion this new system will fit like a glove.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey Star wrote:
I'm excited about an old concept of CG goblin paladin I want to play since 3.5. He will be epic with a flaming sword granted by the new rune mechanic.

Makes me wonder if now that goblins are core, goblin dogs will become a standard mount.

1 to 50 of 1,056 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>