Weren't Occult Rituals in PF1 useable by anyone? We always ran them that way.
I mean, Occult Adventures says-
While anyone can attempt to cast occult rituals, the process is fraught with peril.
So the "Caster" of your ritual (i.e. the person making the skill checks) can be a rogue or a fighter or a monk. So nothing about "Rogues can cast rituals" is new.
So Mark(or any other dev), is counter spelling a wizard only thing now? Can you upgrade it to counter schools/opposite effects also?
I did read a dev comment in a different thread referring to how a sorcerer who specializes in Dispel Magic can be a counterspelling machine, so it's not just a wizard thing.
Bad guys have the McGuffin, PCs need the McGuffin. Bad guys are unwilling to negotiate for it, confident in their strength. How does the Chaodin handle this situation. If we just break in to the bad guy hangout, and kill everyone and then pick up the McGuffin while we're looting the place (as PCs do) does the Chaodin fall?
XBow Enthusiast wrote:
Personally I disagree, remember that the Chaodin should not be "just another CG person" but should a paragon of chaos and goodness in the way that the Paladin is a paragon of law and goodness.
So just like the Paladin is required to respect and obey authority as long as doing so isn't violating a higher tenet, even when that authority is harmful or bad, I would want the Chaodin to be required to undermine and resist authority, so long as doing so isn't violating a higher tenet, even when that authority is benevolent or good.
Remember, following a Paladin code is supposed to be restrictive and inconvenient, and "respect other people's autonomy" is hardly going to get in the way at all.
I feel like the reason Antipaladins have a code is not that "Codes are part and parcel to chaotic evil" but because Antipaladins are deliberately a inversion of a lawful good thing, so the Antipaladin following the exact opposite set of rules is a deliberate mockery of the Paladin.
After all, there's very little more "chaotic evil" than taking something good and corrupting it to try to show the good thing was never to be valued to begin with.
I really feel that the "Champion of Chaotic Good" wouldn't be at all like the Paladin, as someone who is the walking embodiment of "Good-aligned chaos" should be more like "someone who has awesome powers which they cannot control" than "someone who has to follow a code,, else they lose their powers."
A Paladin is hampered by the weakness of law: inflexibility - that they have to follow the rules even when it's probably not a good idea. A champion of chaos should be hampered by the weakness of Chaos - that chaos is difficult to channel in a particular direction.
I would want a Chaotic Champion to be something like 13th Age's "Chaos Mage" (but more martially inclined) where you get to roll on tables to see what your stuff does.
Immunity is briefly mentioned but not elaborated on. I hope its replaced by resistance instead. A mage with paragon control over fire should still be able to fireball that elemental, even if its at a reduced rate.
I feel like we can represent a wizard's mastery of fire by being able to make the fire elemental dance like a puppet, not by being able to harm a thing made of fire through the application of even more fire.
Could we future proof this with something like "Prerequisite: An appropriate background, such as foo, bar, baz"?
I do not like the idea of being able to start with more than an 18 in something. However, this is just a personal aesthetic preference.
Probably my favorite thing about the PF2 Character creation (where you have 4 steps that each add +2 to 3, 2, 1, and 4 abilities) means that being fulfill a character concept of a Swole Wizard or a Scholarly Paladin or a Charming Fighter has much lower opportunity cost than it did in PF1.
I'm going to miss traits, some of the traits from PF1 were really evocative of a backstory, particularly via juxtaposition with another trait, in a way that a singular option isn't. Like it's one thing to have been a penniless urchin, and it's another thing to be a penniless orphan who traveled with the Witchmarket and learned how to talk to doorknobs.
So I hope there's an additional dimension added to backgrounds eventually.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Let's suppose you have a CN thieving rogue in the group. A CG paladin will hope his acts inspire the thief, so he changes. A LG paladin will tell the thief "look, stealing is bad. That's something you should not do anymore".
I feel like we in carving out space for a CG-adin, we should be careful not to deny space to the traditional Paladin. I have played a lot of LG Paladins over the years, and their reaction to the above situation has always been much closer to how you describe the CG approach than how you describe the LG one.
I feel like a lot of the "respect other people's autonomy" is fine, but it doesn't really capture how, like how a Paladin is the most Lawful of Lawful Good, the CG-adin should be the most Chaotic of Chaotic Good.
I'd prefer the CG-adin was impelled to be an out and out revolutionary. A CG-adin code should not be less inconvenient than the Paladin code; it should be a genuine RP challenge to play one of these things in a place like Cheliax.
I feel like for a Paladin, since you're an exemplar of Lawfulness, tenet 4 is basically "you always follow the rules, unless you have a darn good reason not to".
So for a CG-adin it would have to be equally strong, but in a chaotic direction, something roughly equivalent to "you must oppose or undermine unjust authority, or power used to perpetrate injustice, unless it violates a higher tenet."
I don't think "be inspiring" is chaotic enough.
I personally have the hardest time with chaotic alignments, since it's hard to play them in a way that is meaningfully distinct from their neutral counterpart. Like if you want to go along with the story, you're still going to respect authority and follow rules when it is expedient to do so, so I have to keep reminding myself to do that less.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Pantheon worship is under supported imho.
I mean, the line in the blog that I find most objectionable is "Paladins are divine champions of a deity" which suggests to me that the Playtest Paladin is not someone who can be devoted to 2 deities, or 7 deities, or 0 deities, but must be devoted to 1 deity.
I would like to see this changed.
Arguably, Commoners and stuff are likely very polytheistic, as can be fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. I also believe that one of the splatbooks added rules for worshiping a pantheon for clerics.
I feel that the Paladin who venerates a whole bunch of gods and goddesses of goodness and law should be explicitly supported by the class though. It makes more sense to me for a Paladin to honor a bunch of gods but to realize that they are called for heroism rather than servility and that they should look to the lessons of Gods as role models more than the rites and observances.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Not having to devote your Paladin to a specific deity also allows you to play a Paladin who venerates, say Shelyn, Irori, Sarenrae, Abadar, and Iomedae seeing the lessons of each as important and valuable.
For whatever reason Golarion is really short on people who pray to multiple gods, depending on circumstances; which is really what we should expect the norm to be in a polytheistic society. I get how Clerics have to be devoted to a single deity, but Paladins should be free to venerate like "Torag's entire family".
Milo v3 wrote:
It's also abit weird if you're the paladin of a LG deity who channels negative energy but they apparently give you tonnes of healing powers if your a paladin of them.
I feel like this is textual evidence that even if a Paladin is devoted to a deity, a Paladin's powers do not come from that deity.
I feel like LN druids make a lot of sense though, as the person who watches nature and sees everything filling its proper role- apple trees produce apples and never potatoes, the wolf eats the rabbit and never the other way around. An LN Druid sees the natural order as literally an order and sees the faults of civilization as stemming from people not knowing where they belong or what to do.
I wouldn't want to get rid of this kind of druid.
So I have trouble envisioning what the hypothetical CG-adin would even be. Putting aside "the champion of a deity which happens to be CG" since that's the Warpriest's provenance not the Paladin's, I think I might have an idea.
So the LG Paladin is someone who always does good, but in a Lawful way. Whereas the LE Tyrant is someone who establishes order over everything, but does so in as evil a way as possible. A normal CE Antipaladin is someone who always does evil, in the most chaotic way possible.
So similar to how the Paladin and Antipaladin are inverses, I feel like the CG-adin should be the inversion of the Tyrant, someone who always pursues Chaos- but not willing to stoop to evil means to tear down whatever their target is.
Just, please don't call it a Paladin.
My personal preference would be for the Champion of Chaos class to be a spellcaster, not a warrior, but that's neither here nor there.
I honestly have trouble telling the difference between NG and CG in practice, unless I look at someone's character sheet. Since both are in the sort of place where they break the rules when it suits them, in order to create the greatest good. I'm not really sure these are actually different alignments, really.
Well if you have decided to tie the Paladin's abilities to their alignment, then you have already missed the mark as far as I'm concerned. A Paladin is not a champion of an alignment. They are a champion of their Deity. Their abilities should be directly tied to the Deity they worship, and not to their alignment.
I disagree with literally every part of this. For me, the "champion of a deity" class is the Warpriest, whereas the Paladin is someone who is empowered by their righteousness and discipline, someone who does not need to worship anything at all (indeed I have played a number of atheist paladins).
I guess the issue is that some people see the Paladin as a Champion of a Deity (which should obviously be opened up to all deities) where as others see it as an Exemplar of an Alignment (which obviously should not be simply extended to all alignments, because all alignments are different.) (Some) Non-LG alignments should have their exemplars, but we shouldn't simply call them "Paladins."
In PF1, fighters (who were then the masters of armor) could do archery fairly well in full plate via armor training and mithril armor. So it may be possible that, with appropriate investment, Paladins in PF2 can do something similar.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Well, I for one, would prefer to distance Paladins from being "Champion of a Deity" (which is a thing that other classes can and should do) and instead plant them as "Champions of Righteous Order".
Make the Warpriest good and then it can be the "Divine Champion" class.
I'm genuinely curious what the Paladin gets which a martially inclined cleric cannot. It feels like a Gorumite cleric who picks up a greatsword, puts on plate mail, and pumps str, con, and cha (for more channels) and chooses to invest their feats in things that help them hurt people real bad would be an effective "divine champion of Gorum."
I guess this doesn't work as well for deities who have weaker favored weapons, but I don't know if Nethys or Pharasma really need heavily armed and armored champions- Inquisitors, being subtle and skillful always seemed a better fit anyway.
So here's one reason I don't like the idea of "a Paladin is a Champion of a Deity". I want every deity to have their champions, but I can't conceive of a champion of Besmara or Nethys or Gorum as something that should be called "Paladin."
From where I sit, a Paladin is essentially someone who is so righteous they have magic powers, a hero who is defined by their deep and total commitment not only for doing the right thing but for doing the right thing in the right way. So I feel like "Paladin" and "Lawful Good" are inextricable.
But I nonetheless want champions for Ng, Nivi Rhombodazzle, and Groetus, I just don't want those things to be called Paladins. I would prefer the deity requirement was a property of Warpriests, rather than Paladins.
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
And Yeah, Paladins shouldn't gain Legendary Armor INSTEAD OF The Fighter. If it was the case where Fighter gained Legendary Weapons AND Armor, I'd be fine with it, but this just feels weird.
As I understand it, anyone can be legendary at anything if they invest in it with feats. It's just that for many proficiencies, your primary advancement is through your class. So the fighter gets legendary weapons, just through fighter levels, but if they want legendary armor you will need to spend some kind of feats to get there.
Well, from whence do oracles, druids, and shamans get their powers? All of them are divine spellcasters, per PF1, but none of them specifically refer to a deity. All I want is the option to play a Paladin who is more like that, not that "all paladins are like that."
I'm more than willing to wait for whatever book the oracle is in, if that's what it takes.
It is my sincere hope that PF2 will allow for Paladins that are less "Champions of a Deity" but are more "Champions of Fundamental Truths" more in line with the Oracle or Shaman rather than the Cleric.
Since I want to be able to play a Paladin who does not know where their powers come from, so they are more committed to ideals than obeisance.
This class is gonna need a looooooooooooong playtest after the last fiasco. Don't expect it soon compared to everything else that is actually decent.
I feel, though, that since we're rewriting the rules for "natural attacks" and "polymorph effects" for the new edition, we might as well have in mind that there will eventually be a class focusing on these specific things.
*shrug* We might be able to take 5' steps, reactions and free actions between in the new so I'm not sure we can say anything is different in the new.
Isn't a "5-foot step" just replaced with the "step" action in PF2? So instead of "5' step and attack" it's "an action to step, an action to strike, and then you have one action left."
One of the best things about the action economy in PF2 is that we have gotten rid of the difference between "an attack action" and "an action being used to attack".
Free actions are fairly intuitive, representing things like "you can walk and talk at the same time" and the system is phrased as "3 actions and a reaction" so the last one is right there in the name.