An eidolon can telepathically communicate with you at all times, even when it isn't manifested. Can it perceive the world around you as the summoner, or is it purely a mental connection?
Of the four types of eidolon presented in the playtest, the Angel is considered an actual angel, and the Dragon is an echo from the Astral Plane. I would think that they would exist in Nirvana / Astral Plane when they're not manifested. Based on the 1E Spritualist, the Phantom comes from the Ethereal plane and exists there when it isn't manifested. The Beast seems to have come from "nature", which doesn't give me much idea where they would exist aside from the first world, or maybe as some disembodied form on the material plane.
Has there been any treatment to this in the past, with, for example where Sarkorian God-Caller Eidolons exist when they're not with their summoner? I thought there was a series of stories that included a god-caller with a brilliant coloured bear eidolon, but I can't find it anymore.
And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:
And if they weren't raw materials, and you couldn't craft with them, there would be zero need to use the term "raw materials". You would merely state an item's dissembled parts are worth half it's price. However, they are specifically called out as raw materials and then are given no specific rules to differentiate them from other raw materials.
Why does the final sentence exist? Why is it giving the reader specific permission to do something that the reader is already allowed to do in general?
No, it does not say that. It says "The item’s disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can’t be reassembled unless you successfully reverse‑engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way."
Not "an item" or "any item", but the specific item you previously disassembled for the purpose of reverse-engineering its formula.
Again, the rule states the disassembled parts are raw materials. It does not state that the disassembled parts are worth half the items GP.
They are raw materials, therefor the rules for raw materials apply for them unless as specific rule calls out that they don't. Please point to the rule that states raw materials gained from disassembling parts works differently than other raw materials.
If the rules simply stated the disassembled parts are worth half the value of the item, you would be right. They don't.
And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:
Quote:
Reassembling the item from the formula works just like Crafting it from scratch; you use the disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials.
If the reader has a formula and raw materials worth half the price of the item, just tell the reader to use standard crafting rules instead of this sentence that says similar but much more specific.
It does seem like the authors intended that these disassembled parts can either be reassembled by either reverse-engineering it or through a formula....OR, as a consolation prize, you can sell them, obstensibly so that someone can else can use them to make that same item (although once sold the PC generally doesn't care about what happens to them).
It's telling that the only place turning items into raw materials is mentioned is in the Reverse Engineering section and nowhere else.
Add more hero points. You still lose them all to stop yourself from dying, so the Charisma character is just encouraged to use them more frequently and on rolls that aren't life-or-death.
I think that there's a fundamental issue that people are glossing over here. Just because you're at a disadvantage in social situations doesn't mean that you shouldn't participate.
Maybe you made a bad impression to the local shopkeep and he's irritated at you. That sucks. Doesn't mean that he's not going to make a deal with you.
Attempting to gather information around town and not able to convince people to share what they know? That sucks but you can still go around town and listen in on conversations or just enjoy yourself and roleplay the attempt.
I'm not talking about characters that are stumbling over their words to the point that conversation is impossible here.
Just because someone can try to participate using the one stat (and related skills) they're allowed to participate with and fail doesn't mean that people have fun doing so.
When only one person needs to have the ability to do... essentially all of your examples, there is a great deal of inherent pressure to let the one character do everything in order to get the best results.
"Players will optimize the fun out of anything" and all that. This optimization is incredibly easy to come across.
Gloom, I think the counterpoint some people are trying to make is that in many cases, because of how integral roleplaying is to the experience, punishing the roleplaying of the low-Charisma character ends up punishing the player in a way that other stats don't. Stat penalties should punish the character; they shouldn't make the game less fun for the player.
In what way do you think a punishment for the character isn't less fun for the player?
Having a low intelligence and few lore skills means that your character is unlikely to participate in research or lore checks.
Having a low constitution means you're going to be knocked out of a fight sooner with lower health, and you'll be more susceptible to fatigue, poison, and disease.
Having a low strength means you're going to be doing less melee and ranged damage, and you're going to be less athletic. You'll also not be able to lift or carry as much.
Having a low dexterity means you're more likely to be clumsy and less likely to evade something.
Having a low wisdom means you're more likely to be fooled and you're more susceptible to mind affecting magics.
All of those seem like in some way they're going to cause the game to be less fun for the player. That's why you're given a choice as to how you want to build your character.
If social scenarios are important to you as a player then you may want to have a higher charisma and invest in social skills. If you don't and you invest your potential in other areas then you'll be more likely to excel in those areas instead of social ones.
In general, five stats are used in combat and exploration activities. Variations in those five stats change how a character approaches those activities, but everyone still participates.
One stat governs social activities. Variations in that one stat changes how much a character gets to participate in the activity, period.
I just hope the price scaling formula is more forgiving. When was the last time anyone paid for a 5th level pearl of power or page of spell knowledge?
Magic item DCs need to scale properly and affordably too. So many (especially mid-high level) cool items are wasted in PF1 because the DCs are calculated at the minimum.
I'm also sad because it seems I can no longer add class levels to monsters because they are not designed like PC races and thus I cannot make an orc, an ogre, a troll, a serpentfolk, a dragon, or any other monstrous races as a PC(not that I have actually played them in a game, but still...).
This is more something that GMs do, anyway. Is it easy to add PC class levels to monsters in PF2?
Either: make natural attacks into iteratives, or make a creature only allowed to have one natural attack that is primary.
Instead of creatures gaining natural armor as HD increases, give them a mix of natural and deflection, so that touch ACs scale. Lower the number of spells that require both a touch attack and a save.
Reflex, Fortitude, Will saves stay more in line with each other so the discrepancy isn't "auto-fail" vs "auto-pass" at higher levels.
Funnily enough, this was all done in PF2 (the results of not the method)!
Considering Iobaria has zero human presence east of the forest line, I could see that the area immediately east of it could have minimal human presence as well.
I believe that the Dzveda Marches extend quite a bit east of Deeprun Crevasse.
Let's see. We can assume that Radimir's been working with Rasputin for a while. Anastasia dies two years after Rasputin does, so there's not a timing issue there. Rasputin has 15 days to learn that Anastasia is killed, find her body instead of using her hair (a large task in its own right!), and restore it to a state where Radimir can cast raise dead (given that the prevailing theory is that her body was burnt with Alexei's). The body restoration could be done with something like restore corpse + dress corpse, both via limited wish, although that reduces the number of days Rasputin has to learn of and find Anastasia's body.
We have another issue: Two years earlier, Rasputin used miracle to create a simulacrum of himself to replace his dead body at the river (although using simulacrum in this way is taking some narrative license). Simulacrum is out of reach of limited wish even assuming Rasputin is working with Radimir at this point, so he will have to have a different way to create his fake body. Creating a corpse of Rasputin is surprisingly difficult: the only spell I could find is a DC 15 sculpt corpse, only available via limited wish, polymorph any object which isn't available to psychic casters and out of reach of limited wish, and potentially fabricate available to Anna, although I doubt she knows enough about human anatomy to create a body that can hold up to an autopsy. Rasputin will have to do this again to create a copy of Anastasia's body so that it can be found in 2007.
Reign of Winter is pretty easy to run. Books 3, 4,5 and 6 are all disconnected from each other, so there're no relationships or intrigue etc. to keep track of. The are no subsystems. However, I don't think books 3 and 4 are satisfying to run without (major) modifications.
Personally I really like the first part book 4. The second part could be really interesting if you run it as an intrigue instead of combat.
Could you expand on how you would run Book 4 part two as intrigue instead of combat, either in spoilers or PM? I am managing to do the majority of book 3 as intrigue, but am having trouble visualizing how that would work in book 4.
Book 3 as intrigue? How did you do that ?
From memory it was mostly a massive triple dungeon that unobservant players could easily get confused by...
book 3 RoW:
By setting the majority of the denizens to unfriendly/neutral instead of hostile. There are a bunch of rooms relating to the progression from maiden to crone (eg the stone rooms, the trap puzzle rooms), so I reflavored the dungeon as a place where women can go on pilgrimage, with the warden and a few of the denizens acting as guides. However, Caigreal's rebellion is currently in play when the PCs get there, so she's let Vvesevolod in with his minions and blamed it on Jadrenka, and she's convinced most of the occupants (via bribes, blackmail, seduction etc) to be unhelpful toward Jadrenka. Jadrenka still can't ask outsiders for help explicitly, so Caigreal's actions have put her in a major bind. With some room adjustment, and a much larger guard on the door to the Eon Pit, the PCs now will probably need to convince the denizens to help them to get through the guard and to Vsevolod, all while Caigreal's coven is working against them (Long duration coven spells are great: 24hr mind blank, 9hr veil, nightmare and more). Some room modifications include enlarging the room with the destroyed crone golem to a 120 radius and placing 5 frost giants and a frost giant skald 6 inside with obstacles, moving the crypt to the Crone, Vsevolod's staging area to the Mother and turning it into a large, vandalized library, the common room to the Maiden, adding secret doors between the Maiden and Mother stones to the Crone golem room and some other changes to links. I can share the new dungeon's line map if you're interested.
The fact that your allies provide soft cover, which prevents AoOs.
I've actually seen it posted in a FAQ that your allies do not provide cover from AoOs.
Only when passing through their square. If you put your ally's square between you and the enemy with reach, then you will prevent AoOs from that enemy when you move.
Necromancy is probably my least favourite in Pathfinder, simply because they took all the healing magic away from this school. How does it make sense that Cure Light Wounds is Conjuration but Inflict Light Wounds is Necromancy? When you get to higher level spells like RAISE DEAD are REALLY stretching the definition of "conjuration".
I can only speak from my personal viewpoint, but I actually support the change from Necromancy to Conjuration (healing). My rationale is that you are 'conjuring' (summoning) positive energy directly from its source to heal a person, while Necromancy must tear that same energy (if slightly processed) from a person and send it away. The same with Raise Dead and Resurrection. You are conjuring the soul and infusing it back into the body through the power of positive energy. Necromancy rips the soul (or something ... else) from the Planes and 'stitches' the soul back into the body with energy that does not belong there.
Again, just my personal viewpoint. I only arrived at it through much thought on the subject and trying to create a non-contradictory idea of how the universe in Pathfinder functions.
The idea of "conjuring energy" is an evocation thing.
Ezren, Kyra and Lem all look bow-legged to me, and Ezren is the only one that is easily explainable via an awkward stance (because you can actually see his bent knees and upper legs). Their feet are placed wider than their shoulders, and their lower legs are too vertical.
I'll echo the observations on lighter creases and shading (low contrast). It's especially apparent on Lem's sleeves.
I like Lem, Lini and Harsk's new faces and proportions, but the thinness of the humans and Merisiel is jarring except for Sajan.
The fact that your allies provide soft cover, which prevents AoOs.
Many GMs and players forget the -4 penalty to attacks through soft cover as well, particularly in the case of archers, who are like "Yay! I have Precise Shot now and my penalty for shooting into melee went away" (when they should have been at -8 half the time, not -4).
As a technicality, the target gets a boost to its AC, the archer doesn't get a penalty to its attack.
It could be as simple as, human culture allows someone to gain the rights and responsibilities of an adult when they turn 20, while elven culture dictates that these rights and responsibilities don't come until the person turns 30...which is 100 in human years.
I now want to run an adventure where the PCs are hired to bring home a lost elven child.
Who turns out to be a happily married, no-nonsense businesswoman in her 40s with a couple of half-elven kids with no interest in being dragged to an elven kingdom to be adopted and treated as a child for the next 50 years. :)
Or a runaway "teen" who's a hardened adventurer several levels higher than the PCs.
Even in her 40s, she is still emotionaly a teen. So "non-nonsense" seems rather unrealistic to me for an elf in such a tender age.
If that's how they actually are, I suppose. It's not clear to me.
The playtest rules quote is "Elves typically reach physical adulthood around the age of 20 (though they’re considered by other elves to be fully emotionally mature at close to the end of their first century)" which isn't clear. Are the other elves correct that they're not "fully emotionally mature" or are those just cultural reasons for treating "young" elves that way?
Perhaps elves don't view human 20 year olds as emotionally mature either.
But that divorces it from being raised among humans. An elf that grew up among elves and then went out adventuring and made close friends and watched them age and die would become just as Forlorn. Or one that lived in a human town for a few human generations even without adventuring.
I agree. If Elves mature as quickly as humans, Forlorn makes no sense to me, since nothing will stop them adventuring in their 20's.
Forlorn is just the melancholy an elf gains by watching everyone she cares about grow old and die while she stays the same (over and over with new loved ones), nothing more.
It doesn't really have anything to do with adventuring. An elf that starts adventuring in her 20s wouldn't start becoming Forlorn until her adventuring companions have all finished living their lives. An elf who grew up among elves wouldn't call such a person Forlorn, they'd still consider her a child.
Dedicated arcane or divine casters are a bonus as our group will probably need me to be one, but suggestions are welcome.
Otherwise one trait, Pathfinder published material ok.
I would definitely recommend an Elf Conjurer or Sloth mage if your GM allows you to be a Thassilonian mage. Elf with Illustrious Urbanite just trades away Keen Senses for Spell Focus Conjuration, Illusion or Transmutation (trade of the century I'd say). I'd recommend a 19 INT at level 1, meaning DC 16 Greases, DC 17 Glitterdusts, and DC 20 Stinking Clouds (because of COURSE you took Greater Spell Focus between level 1 and 5). As a conjurer you also get a minor bump to the duration of summoning spells, so that's another option for you (although Occultist Arcanist is I believe a better summoner, I don't have any experience with them).
1.Great minds think alike! I'm probably going with just that selection. Although the Evangelist Cleric build suggested early on is a close second.
2.I guess I should have been clearer and more emphatic. I'm also thinking of future people searching threads like this one. Please oh please don't tell me how great or how awful a 15 point buy is. Don't tell me how characters are better or worse off with stat arrays EXCEPT how it directly involves picking a class that works well within the parameters set (a 15 buy when one is used to 20 plus as standard).
3. Thanks Evilserran. Kineticist is a class I've never played before so I'll have to look into that.
Who knew? The answer was 9th level spellcaster and other SAD classes all along!
The Endless Forest
I changed how the Endless Forest worked entirely. I made it partially first world because of the Reality Siphon, so what should have been a 300ft diameter small market turns into a 6-8 mile diameter forest once inside. Instead of the encounters/clearings being separated by impassible bramble walls, they are just separated by distance. The Hut, sensing the black rider (as played by the PCs), creates a path (since the initial forest was the Hut's defense mechanism, it can do such a thing) that exists only for the black rider to help him navigate to each of the Dawn Pipers to get rid of them (and also links the rest of the encounters together in one large loop).
From the outside and above, the market is completely covered in trees with no clearings. Once inside the copse of trees, climbing above the canopy reveals a forest that expands endlessly in all directions, although one can make out clearings like the wood fire burning from The Last Party, or the Reality Siphon itself.
Nazhena is also locked out of the Reality Siphon and is using her minions to find and kill the Dawn Pipers. They managed to kill the fire element piper(scenery element that the PCs can find) on her way in, but she's now camping out and waiting for her minions...who are unfortunately lost and/or fighting with the Green Mother's other minions who were sent to support the Dawn Pipers. There are several Mirror Men in her search parties, and eventually one of them comes across the PCs, and stealthily follows them, relating all of the PCs' accomplishments and status to Nazhena.
Destroying the Reality Siphon returns the Endless Forest back to a rapidly growing copse with the Hut in the centre, still without bramble walls. If the PCs haven't found Nazhena's camp and killed her there (there are tracks leading from the north side of the siphon to and from her camp during her initial investigation of the barrier), she will rush to the clearing, meeting up with any of her remaining minions to try and head the PCs off.
I'll be honest most 'cool effects' are underwhelming, because they are rarely always useful abilities, or they are so ineffectual as to be a waste of time.
I want my magic to make me better at whatever it is all (I'll accept 'nearly all') the time.
I guess I like the bigger numbers too much. They are effective and fun. And I want them on my magic items.
In PF1, cool effects are underwhelming because they almost always have DCs that are too low to be useful, or are too expensive to have compared to items with passive bonuses to numbers.
My hope with PF2 was that the cool effects meaningfully affected the game, and didn't need to be compared to the passive bonuses provided by other items (eg. PF1's cloak of resistance vs ... any other cloak). I don't think it's happened. For example, the saves bonus is now tied to an armor potency rune, which still competes with property runes, if only in GP cost.
If monsters are somehow aware that "whenever a group has someone waving a holy symbol around, the dead ones are liable to get back up" the logical thing for those monsters to do is not focus fire on "would-be corpses" but to focus on the person who uncorpses those.
But we generally view "focus fire on the squishy caster" to be dirty pool by the GM, so I don't know how "focus fire on the downed ones" isn't exactly.
If there are already downed enemies, it's more efficient to kill them than to try to down the healer before the healer undoes your efforts. A dead character stays dead and is easy to target, while the healer's defenses are still functional and is much harder to bring down.
This tactic doesn't make as much sense if the healer doesn't actually have enough power to bring a character back to full functional strength with their actions, nor if the monster is in danger of dying if it doesn't force defensive actions on the part of its opponents. Right now, it looks like NPCs have enough offensive and defensive strength that they can weather the PCs attacks just fine.
The current state of the rules aside, I am very hard pressed to think of a TTRPG where someone that gets knocked to the equivalent of 0 HP and isn't a round (or maybe two) from death if the enemy decides to finish them off. D&D has pretty much always been that way. PF1 was that way. Even a lot of the narrative-focused games I've played have been that way.
One would expect a character who focuses on trying to kill a downed opponent would be putting itself in a situation where it is going to be killed itself. This is apparently not the case, and the book is instead just suggesting that the GM tone down the lethality of their NPCs from their full potential.
Explicit rules on determining whether something is alive or dead would help.
It seems PF2 makes it incredibly easy for a PC to get back into the fight after being knocked into dying and the dying state is a safety buffer between alive and dead that can't be bypassed. This creates a valid tactic in letting someone gain the dying state, then heal him to get that buffer up again. This means that the only way for NPCs to actually win is to 1) knock everyone to dying in one round so PCs can't react, 2) outlast the PCs' healing resources, or 3) keep attacking downed PCs for a round so that they fall from dying to dead.
Once the NPCs discover that the PCs can, indeed, get back up after calling unconscious, they are presented with the options of repeatedly attacking the same PC as she gets up over and over, or spending 3 more actions to make sure she stays dead, less if NPCs are allowed to realize that they can critically hit.
Collette, can I ask you if you are new to PF with this Playtest? Or do you have had this TPK-problem also with PF1 and DnD3.5?
Because also in earlier versions
- downed PCs can be easily killed
- adventures get impossible if dead characters don't get replaced
- a creatures conditions (like dying) are not always clearly visible to observers
PCs in PF1 are less likely to go down in the first place, the remaining PCs are actually dangerous enough that ignoring them to go after the downed PC is harmful, and reviving a dying PC to go back into the fight makes it likely that the PC will go straight from living to dead the next time they get hit.
Not to mention that I just don't get this us (GMs) vs them (PCs) attitude that someone mentioned earlier. Tacking dead PC sheets to the wall? Bragging about TPKs? I wonder if they have mounted lollipops taking from babies and stuffed fish they shot in a barrel, too?
GM: Oh man, how awesome am I?!? I just totally wrecked my 4-year-old niece in an arm-wrestling contest! You should have seen her tears as she ran off sobbing! I doubt she'll be able to use that arm for weeks!
You really think that is what is going on here? A GM that is happy about killing PCs? The topic alone suggests otherwise.
I'd like to note that while monsters that focus on killing downed PCs will definitely increase individual player kills, they will in many circumstances reduce total party kills.
You make a good point; for that combat. I only say that because I don't know many adventures that end in one combat. After characters have been killed each subsequent fight is much harder. So those individual player kills very quickly lead to total party kills.
From what I understand, after each TPK, Colette resets the PCs and they continue on.
I agree that this needs to be emphasized. The PCs' ability to win cannot be tied up in their ability to get back up after being knocked unconscious, otherwise it will lead to whack-a-mole. In PF1, continuing to attack a downed PC leads to a a dead PC, but also a dead NPC, which doesn't help the NPCs' survival. Colette is making the case that this actually helps the NPCs survive. This may be because the NPCs have high enough numbers that they can weather a few attacks making sure the enemy stays down.
Colette, how are your NPCs determining whether someone is dead compared to just unconscious? This isn't something that one can tell at a glance. What happens if the NPCs assume that a downed PC is out of the fight until shown otherwise? That is, give the PCs one free fight re-entry before the NPCs wise up and make sure they stay dead?
Leaving what's fun for the PCs aside for a moment, why are NPCs are surviving when they use the "finish off" tactic and are dying when they don't use this tactic? Where are the mechanics that actually show that continuing to attack a downed opponent is a bad idea instead of a suggestion that doing so breaks the encounter?
In addition, Colette's reported extreme whack-a-mole, which would suggest that the PCs' opponents would notice that leaving the PCs unconscious is not enough.
And when the variance between master and amateur is around +/-5, which is well within a single dice roll, half the time the person who succeeds at the task isn’t the person who should be the best.
That's why you have the assurance feat. Which at legendary proficiency in a skill gives you a +30 as your roll. Yes, 10 more than you could ever possibly roll. The whole reason the assurance feat exists is to avoid the problem you're referring to. If you really want to be "the best" at something, you should invest in the assurance feat for it. Failing to do so, I see it is as haven't really invested.
Though perhaps the assurance ability should be tied to picking up expert proficiency in the skill, instead of picking it up as a separate feat.
Maybe I am misinterpretting what you're saying, Assurance doesn't give you a +30 to your roll. It sets your roll to 30. This is the same result as a character rolling a 20 and adding +10 to it (for example, a trained character at level 6 with a +4 skill mod).
And this is where I want more gates, Untrained you can swim in calm water. Trained you can swim in choppy water, up to Legendary you can swim in a hurricane. As an example.
Bingo. I want Legendary to open truly Herculean stuff, like swimming for days, to the bottom of a sea, etc.
Do high level abilities feel like they're working at the same scale as what the +level bonuses are? Does a level 15 fighter outclass a goblin because he's particularly Herculean, or is it just because his natural AC and Attack are so high that the goblin can't touch him?
If not, this seems like it's falling into the same trap that fighters in P1E had. Their numbers were high, but their options and abilities didn't really change all that much from what they were doing at level 5.
No, she isn't. She was responding to my argument with Aldarc who wants the half-races to be changed because he doesn't like the way these races are portrayed in specifically the Golarion setting. Which is a completely different argument from saying that the half-X feat is a tax, which by the way is ridiculous considering that the half-elf feat is one of the best feats you can take as a human. Dim light vision and 5 feet extra movement. You call that a "tax"?
Yes. Being forced to choose a feat that a player doesn't care about in order to gain feats that the player does care about is a common definition of feat tax. It doesn't matter how good the feat is.
I feel this is a particularly bad case because, while the other ancestries get to express themselves somewhat at 1st level (with the options presumably growing as P2E gains content), half-elves and half-orcs do not. Instead of being a gnome who has a particularly good sense of smell or is obsessive over a specific piece of lore, they are a human who ... is half elf. Growing up with an elven or half-elven parent defines them.
Bloodline spells are also worrying. Since the sorcerer only learns the base level version, the granted spell needs to be viable at higher levels without heightening, since the sorcerer can't choose to swap it out. This seems to be as much of an issue when comparing bloodlines as the rejected auto-heightening bloodline spells.
Spontaneous Heightening makes me worried for the other spontaneous spellcasters. Either the other spontaneous casters have to spend their extremely limited spells known on multiple versions of the same spells if they want to power them up, or the class feature is actually a feature of spontaneous spellcasting.
If I know what book a rule is in, I will use PRD to quickly pull it up (assuming the PRD has it). AoN doesn't contain rules of play or monster rules, and d20pfsrd combines rules from various book sources.
If I know the exact feature name (and it's not Golarion-specific), I'll use d20pfsrd.
If I'm browsing options, I will use Archives of Nethys.
If I want to quickly compare options with very specific requirements (eg. monsters with CR < 6 that are outsiders with a poison ability and fire resistance [there are 5!], or all feats that reference attacks of opportunity), I will use the spreadsheets that d20pfsrd is based on.
-The "liberator" is the champion of CG. Abilities like freedom of movement, breaking compulsions in others and eventually being immune to all forms of constrictions himself should be some of his powers. He falls when he denies someone his or her freedom for selfish reasons.
The LG variant would need to gain actual lawful abilities.
So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.
Doesn't the fact that Erastil and Irori have paladins not mean that Paizo's paladins already don't fit the stereotypical knight in shining armor that is being idealized here?
The mechanics for the good-aligned paladin (the default shown by Paizo) is focused on protecting others and punishing evil-doers. I believe all good deities can get behind that (as well as good champions of neutral deities), and I believe this is a more directed and martial role than the cleric's. Let the deities' edicts and anathemas direct the paladin's actions outside of the main focus of protecting and punishing. I think edicts and anathemas are way more flavorful than a one-size-fits-one-alignment blanket code.
I didn't mean to be demeaning, although in hindsight the way I expressed my example was too much of an exaggeration. But that is kind of what these discussions boil down to. There are many other ways to play the character you described. Problem is, making paladins of any alignment kills the flavor of the paladin. And you're obviously trying to compromise, it's just that the option you presented doesn't give anything to the LG-only side.
And honestly, I think I've been very open to compromise. I'm getting more and more excited about the four corners option. I'd consider making the Paladin a prestige class, and including a different divine champion in the CRB. Really anything that let's me keep this one class as my Round Table knight. Opening it up to any alignment kills that, just like saying a druid doesn't have to be nature themed kills the druid. Yes, I can still play a nature themed druid. But that's no longer what druids are. There would no longer be a nature themed class.
Here is an analogy of how I see this issue, using druids. The paladin class is like a druid class that can only shapeshift into mammals, and only has mammal-related powers. We want the druid class to be allowed to associate at least with other animals as well, but hopefully also plants and elementals.
In P1E, chaotic cavaliers belong to orders with edicts telling them how they should behave. Chaotic characters follow the obediences of chaotic gods; the exalted prestige class takes this to the extreme.
In P2E, chaotic clerics must abide by the edicts and anathemas of their gods, or they will lose their powers.
The idea that chaotic characters can follow a code or oath is not new.
I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.
What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?
If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)
This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.
If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)
I don't hate the class. I've been playing the class since the beginning. I have no problem with its existance and have modified it myself over the years when the various companies were unwilling to.
I'd advocated for a modified class and spent time trying to persuade. My question is still what makes the paladin more special, more unique, and more singular than any other class.
They are ALL steeped in tradition and history. One can like a class so much it hurts, but that doesn't make it more better than any other, any more than liking one author or one band makes it somehow better than another.
The thing, no one asks for wizards who don't gain their powers by study, or clerics who don't cast spells, or bard who don't sing or perform, or barbarian who aren't barbarians.
That's the exact same thing as asking for the Paladin to "change" so much that it becomes another thing ^^
We aren't asking the paladin to become something other than a heavy armor user who heals, smites and protects others. People have asked for barbarians who can be lawful, because it increases the number of concepts available. Bards did lose their alignment restrictions, nor do they need to sing or play an instrument in order to use all their class abilities.
I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.
What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?
If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)
This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.
If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)
We're only "destroying" it by being inclusive, by combining your ideal and ours.
To change the fundamental aspect of a class is to destroy it, and worse, to put a doppelganger in its place.
It's insult upon injury!
New concepts may better be served by new classes. By the way, the Cleric is a warrior-priest already, and the new edition can have many options for it to turn more warrior-like.
No need to destroy pre-existing classes :)
We just disagree on what the fundamental aspect of a paladin is.
