| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re alignment: They've already entrenched alignment in 2E. The least they can do is provide equally good options for the other alignments. If Paladin is going to be Core and not in the ACG, then alternatives to the Paladin should ALSO be Core and not in the ACG, so people who aren't comfortable with the class or prefer an alternate playstyle aren't told they don't matter to Paizo.
Production: Yes, it would be more work. Probably more in the area of 3x rather than 4x because numerous smite, litany, etc feats would apply to various combinations of the four classes... But yes, more work. And probably pushing the publication date back, too.
That's not a problem.
I'd rather they get it right the first time. I'd rather have support in Core for flavorful champions of every stripe. My players shouldn't have to wait a couple years for a supplement that may or may not have a decent alternative - and given Paizo's history of atrocious alternatives like the Grey Paladin, odds are they wouldn't be decent at all if not in Core. It'd just be people who want an alternative being spit on, all over again.
I'm totally willing to wait an extra 3 or 6 months and go through more playtest iterations if it means getting it right. I'm totally willing to pay $10 more for a thicker book that gets it right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The benefit of this is that you maximize the number of alignments available (8, sorry true neutral), include all deities, and only need the space for 4 sets of mechanics. I'm still on the fence as how meaningful the law/chaos split is, but that might just be because I haven't seen a decent take on it.
Like Fuzzypaws said, the playtest paladin only has one lawful component, and that's the lowest priority tenet. Remove that, and you've got the full "any good" package. Rely on anathemas for the lawful behaviour in the Good axis.
But isn't the point to compromise with the LG-only crowd? It's just that this really isn't a compromise, like at all. If you wanted to maximize the number of alignments available, why not just take alignment out of the conversation entirely?
There is a good reason to hold off on developing CG paladins: They would be a new thing. Restoring the things we had in PF1 has to take priority over developing totally new material.
But I definitely do look forward to the day that they can give proper attention to the only alignment corner for which we do not yet have a paladin or anti-paladin.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a good reason to hold off on developing CG paladins: They would be a new thing. Restoring the things we had in PF1 has to take priority over developing totally new material.
I'd actually argue that this is incorrect on a profound level. We definitely want all the old material ported over quickly, it's true, but if there's no new material to go with it, that likely results in some rather boring and formulaic books. Some new material as well to spice things up seems like a good plan.
Production: Yes, it would be more work. Probably more in the area of 3x rather than 4x because numerous smite, litany, etc feats would apply to various combinations of the four classes... But yes, more work. And probably pushing the publication date back, too.That's not a problem.
I'm with you on getting it right. The multiplier applies from this point forward, though. That is huge. :/
I do enjoy your thoughtfulness and ideas.
Just...for various reasons, cleric makes more sense to me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess in that case my problem is still that Paladins lose the flavor, because it's almost the same as paladins of any alignment. They're no longer paladins. It'd be like if the Monk section included: "Not all monks train hard for their abilities. Some just sit on the couch and watch martial arts movies, slowly gaining the benefits of monk training over time". I don't know if it's that way for other people, but that's what I hear when people advocate for paladins of any alignment. The four corners option fixes that for me. I'd even consider a "fifth corner", Neutral, although I wouldn't be excited about it.
Okay, just to clarify, however opposed to alignment restrictions for the Paladin that I am, I'm more opposed to alignment restrictions for the Monk. Whether the Monk had alignment restrictions or not was literally the deciding factor of whether I was going to support 5E or not.
That said, not wanting Monks to have to be lawful has NOTHING to do with wanting to be able to play a Monk who got as exceptionally trained and talented by sitting on a couch. Yes, I intend my Monks to put in hard work and earn their abilities. No, that has nothing to do with being lawful. Those two concepts are not in contradiction with each other.
Batman gets thrown around a lot in these sorts of discussions. He can be successfully assigned to all 9 alignments because of how long the character's been around and how many writers have been involved. Here's an aspect that's more unchanging: he represents the pinnacle of human achievement. No matter whether he's written to be lawful, neutral, or outright chaotic, he is a character that pushes himself to the maximum of what a human can achieve. Olympic levels of physical ability, a mental focus consistently rated as equivalent to the greatest scientific and investigative minds humanity has ever had.
Batman is sometimes chaotic. He is never written as someone who got where he is by sitting on a couch.
For that matter, chaotic characters are perfectly capable of devoting themselves to mastery of an art or a profession. It would literally be impossible for a CG, CN, or CE character to have 20 levels in one class otherwise. That a chaotic character isn't forced to multiclass at least once in his career is more than enough proof that chaos is completely immaterial to being devoted to a profession.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The CG Soulborn had an immunity to paralysis instead of fear. Taking that idea and running with it seems like a good start to a CG Champion.
Replace a few fear-based feats with paralysis, give a boost to speed with lay on hands instead of AC, and maybe something special to make getting behind your enemies' lines a devastating tactic. You can get the start of a holy champion that feels and plays differently, but shares much of what makes a paladin stand out.
The difficulty with chaotic champions in my mind is replacing the code with ideals or something. Lawful paladins follow the rules. It seems more difficult to craft a set of ideals that is meaningful, but not overly restrictive of a chaotic character.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But isn't the point to compromise with the LG-only crowd? It's just that this really isn't a compromise, like at all. If you wanted to maximize the number of alignments available, why not just take alignment out of the conversation entirely?The benefit of this is that you maximize the number of alignments available (8, sorry true neutral), include all deities, and only need the space for 4 sets of mechanics. I'm still on the fence as how meaningful the law/chaos split is, but that might just be because I haven't seen a decent take on it.
Like Fuzzypaws said, the playtest paladin only has one lawful component, and that's the lowest priority tenet. Remove that, and you've got the full "any good" package. Rely on anathemas for the lawful behaviour in the Good axis.
I don't understand what you mean. In this scenario, there are still alignment restrictions. The Good axis has different abilities from the Lawful axis. It's just that the "Best Good" alignment changes from Lawful Good to ... Good.
We're trying to find ways to be inclusive, while the lawful good people are being exclusionary.
I guess in that case my problem is still that Paladins lose the flavor, because it's almost the same as paladins of any alignment. They're no longer paladins. It'd be like if the Monk section included: "Not all monks train hard for their abilities. Some just sit on the couch and watch martial arts movies, slowly gaining the benefits of monk training over time". I don't know if it's that way for other people, but that's what I hear when people advocate for paladins of any alignment. The four corners option fixes that for me. I'd even consider a "fifth corner", Neutral, although I wouldn't be excited about it.Okay, just to clarify, however opposed to alignment restrictions for the Paladin that I am, I'm more opposed to alignment restrictions for the Monk. Whether the Monk had alignment restrictions or not was literally the deciding factor of whether I was going to support 5E or not.
That said, not wanting Monks to have to be lawful has NOTHING to do with wanting to be able to play a Monk who got as exceptionally trained and talented by sitting on a couch. Yes, I intend my Monks to put in hard work and earn their abilities. No, that has nothing to do with being lawful. Those two concepts are not in contradiction with each other.
Batman gets thrown around a lot in these sorts of discussions. He can be successfully assigned to all 9 alignments because of how long the character's been around and how many writers have been involved. Here's an aspect that's more unchanging: he represents the pinnacle of human achievement. No matter whether he's written to be lawful, neutral, or outright chaotic, he is a character that pushes himself to the maximum of what a human can achieve. Olympic levels of physical ability, a mental focus consistently rated as equivalent to the greatest scientific and investigative minds humanity has ever had.
Batman is sometimes chaotic. He is never written as someone who got where he is by sitting on a couch.
For that matter, chaotic...
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with alignment restrictions. I actually really think the monk should have no restrictions. It's about the flavor. It seems like people want the sack of mechanics that they think is the paladin, but don't want the flavor of it. My monk example shows what I hear when people say paladins of any alignment. To me, it's no longer a paladin, just like a monk that doesn't train is no longer a monk (maybe a superhero or something?).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LGIn the beta alone, there is a way to be legendary with a heavy armor + shields that doesn't involve paladin in any way, and of course there's at least one class that is legendary with something else in the AC department.That's good at least, but what about everything else? Why can't all deities have sacred champions? What makes LG unique in being able to exemplify an ideal?
Because we're testing LG first since that's what everyone could agree on. As I said in the blog, not even the design team is unanimous on this question, so the best thing that people could do who have ideas for the paladin is participate in the playtest and participate in the survey we'll put out about the paladin.
I've seen a lot of sentiment here on the forums from people who wanted to see a different iteration of paladins in the playtest that they think we made this decision based on the people who posted in threads that they did want to see this iteration of paladins. I assure you, we didn't, so please don't blame your fellow forum members. The decision was made well before the playtest forum even existed.
That whatever we did in the playtest with the paladin, people who wanted a different iteration were going to be upset and need to vent here was kind of a given; that's why we needed two warnings in the blog thread before it even started. Whoever aren't getting what they currently want are going to be loudest, not just in RPGs, but in all sorts of other venues, and we want you guys to have space to vent, but the most productive way to make your opinion heard is through the survey, where we can gather data and discover a more accurate distribution of opinions than in the forums.
Regarding the upcoming survey (however distant it may be), will it be asking for the reasons why a particular poster is for or against whatever he's voting for or trying to vote down?
Because I do think some of the views expressed are ones that should, just from a standpoint of integrity, be thrown out (if for no other reason than that a Paladin class, being the goto for the concept of the forthright honorable guy, should come about however it does in an honorable fashion). It worries me that views to the effect of "I can play my Paladin my way and will never see this other player hundreds of miles away; nevertheless, he should have to have as difficult a time as possible playing his character if it's different from how I would" might be counted as equivalent as more unselfish views.
Which is, yes, a polarized viewpoint of my own. I should have more faith in others. To my mind, that means I should also be able to have more faith in others. And given the past decade, with what I can only describe as utterly selfish viewpoints negatively impacting my ability to enjoy this game being (I want to hope inadvertently) enabled by the past decade's worth of Paizo not doing right by the sorts of character concepts that by all rights should be just as legitimate (the Gray Paladin, the Martial Artist, the Warpriest, etc), I feel I have very legitimate doubts that my good faith is being reciprocated.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with alignment restrictions. I actually really think the monk should have no restrictions. It's about the flavor. It seems like people want the sack of mechanics that they think is the paladin, but don't want the flavor of it. My monk example shows what I hear when people say paladins of any alignment. To me, it's no longer a paladin, just like a monk that doesn't train is no longer a monk (maybe a superhero or something?).
Only prestige classes have flavors as specific as a paladin does. Why is the paladin, as presented, in the core rulebook alongside all of the other modular "generic" classes?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly every god SHOULDN'T have an option for a divine warrior champion. WTF use does Nethys have for one?
A better version is archetypes of classes that actually work with the deity. Norgorber: rogue/alchemist Calistria Ranger maybe bard. Shelyn Bard, Gorum Fighter, Rovagug Barbarian, nethys wizard, etc etc etc.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly every god SHOULDN'T have an option for a divine warrior champion. WTF use does Nethys have for one?
A better version is archetypes of classes that actually work with the deity. Norgorber: rogue/alchemist Calistria Ranger maybe bard. Shelyn Bard, Gorum Fighter, Rovagug Barbarian, nethys wizard, etc etc etc.
Shouldn't the paladin also be an archetype, then?
Following from your archetype suggestion, shouldn't the paladin also be an archetype?Frankly every god SHOULDN'T have an option for a divine warrior champion. WTF use does Nethys have for one?
A better version is archetypes of classes that actually work with the deity. Norgorber: rogue/alchemist Calistria Ranger maybe bard. Shelyn Bard, Gorum Fighter, Rovagug Barbarian, nethys wizard, etc etc etc.
Nah, it should be its own thing, it works well for the golarion gods who currently have paladins. An armor focused martial doesn't fit for gods like norgorber or nethys or calistria or even caiden. It literally makes more sense for them to empower people of a class they resonate with rather than have a generic chassis.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, it should be its own thing, it works well for the golarion gods who currently have paladins. An armor focused martial doesn't fit for gods like norgorber or nethys or calistria or even caiden. It literally makes more sense for them to empower people of a class they resonate with rather than have a generic chassis.Following from your archetype suggestion, shouldn't the paladin also be an archetype?Frankly every god SHOULDN'T have an option for a divine warrior champion. WTF use does Nethys have for one?
A better version is archetypes of classes that actually work with the deity. Norgorber: rogue/alchemist Calistria Ranger maybe bard. Shelyn Bard, Gorum Fighter, Rovagug Barbarian, nethys wizard, etc etc etc.
So Erastil, Abadar, and Iomedae would not get god-specific archetypes?
So Erastil, Abadar, and Iomedae would not get god-specific archetypes?Nah, it should be its own thing, it works well for the golarion gods who currently have paladins. An armor focused martial doesn't fit for gods like norgorber or nethys or calistria or even caiden. It literally makes more sense for them to empower people of a class they resonate with rather than have a generic chassis.Following from your archetype suggestion, shouldn't the paladin also be an archetype?Frankly every god SHOULDN'T have an option for a divine warrior champion. WTF use does Nethys have for one?
A better version is archetypes of classes that actually work with the deity. Norgorber: rogue/alchemist Calistria Ranger maybe bard. Shelyn Bard, Gorum Fighter, Rovagug Barbarian, nethys wizard, etc etc etc.
Nope.
Perhaps a better example would be:
"I want to be a Druid. But a druid that really doesn't care about the whole nature thing"
"OK... why do you want to be a druid then?"
"Well, I like the druid spell list, and I want to be a full caster with an animal companion"
...
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with alignment restrictions. I actually really think the monk should have no restrictions. It's about the flavor. It seems like people want the sack of mechanics that they think is the paladin, but don't want the flavor of it. My monk example shows what I hear when people say paladins of any alignment. To me, it's no longer a paladin, just like a monk that doesn't train is no longer a monk (maybe a superhero or something?).Only prestige classes have flavors as specific as a paladin does. Why is the paladin, as presented, in the core rulebook alongside all of the other modular "generic" classes?
Because the paladin flavor is more iconic than almost any other class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope.So Erastil, Abadar, and Iomedae would not get god-specific archetypes?Nah, it should be its own thing, it works well for the golarion gods who currently have paladins. An armor focused martial doesn't fit for gods like norgorber or nethys or calistria or even caiden. It literally makes more sense for them to empower people of a class they resonate with rather than have a generic chassis.Following from your archetype suggestion, shouldn't the paladin also be an archetype?Frankly every god SHOULDN'T have an option for a divine warrior champion. WTF use does Nethys have for one?
A better version is archetypes of classes that actually work with the deity. Norgorber: rogue/alchemist Calistria Ranger maybe bard. Shelyn Bard, Gorum Fighter, Rovagug Barbarian, nethys wizard, etc etc etc.
Interesting take. Shouldn't Erastil be getting a rural-community focused archetype out of, for example, the ranger, though? Shouldn't Shelyn be getting an artistry focused one out of bard?
A rework of the devoted muse and hinterlander tbh
edit: or alternately their archetypes can come off paladin, as they're the deities who have them already.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with alignment restrictions. I actually really think the monk should have no restrictions. It's about the flavor. It seems like people want the sack of mechanics that they think is the paladin, but don't want the flavor of it. My monk example shows what I hear when people say paladins of any alignment. To me, it's no longer a paladin, just like a monk that doesn't train is no longer a monk (maybe a superhero or something?).I guess in that case my problem is still that Paladins lose the flavor, because it's almost the same as paladins of any alignment. They're no longer paladins. It'd be like if the Monk section included: "Not all monks train hard for their abilities. Some just sit on the couch and watch martial arts movies, slowly gaining the benefits of monk training over time". I don't know if it's that way for other people, but that's what I hear when people advocate for paladins of any alignment. The four corners option fixes that for me. I'd even consider a "fifth corner", Neutral, although I wouldn't be excited about it.Okay, just to clarify, however opposed to alignment restrictions for the Paladin that I am, I'm more opposed to alignment restrictions for the Monk. Whether the Monk had alignment restrictions or not was literally the deciding factor of whether I was going to support 5E or not.
That said, not wanting Monks to have to be lawful has NOTHING to do with wanting to be able to play a Monk who got as exceptionally trained and talented by sitting on a couch. Yes, I intend my Monks to put in hard work and earn their abilities. No, that has nothing to do with being lawful. Those two concepts are not in contradiction with each other.
Batman gets thrown around a lot in these sorts of discussions. He can be successfully assigned to all 9 alignments because of how long the character's been around and how many writers have been involved. Here's an aspect that's more unchanging: he represents the pinnacle of human achievement. No matter whether he's written to be lawful, neutral, or outright chaotic, he is a character that pushes himself to the maximum of what a human can achieve. Olympic levels of physical ability, a mental focus consistently rated as equivalent to the greatest scientific and investigative minds humanity has ever had.
Batman is sometimes chaotic. He is never written as someone who got where he is by sitting on a couch.
For...
Very well. I'm glad you can make the distinction between the flavor of the Monk and the misapplication of the lawful alignment requirement as a sledgehammer that tries to enforce that flavor. There are those that can't. And that misapplication of behavioral restrictions is exactly what I hear whenever someone talks about why the Paladin is supposed to be LG-only with a code of conduct.
For example, the Paladin (the character) is supposed to be doing what he's doing because he genuinely believes in it. He has a code of conduct, but he doesn't need it. He'd behave as a paragon of virtue anyway. The player, however, may never see this. All he might see is the Sword of Damocles constantly hanging over his head. There's a reason why I hold 5E's Oath of Treachery Paladin and P1E's Vindictive Bastard as the best examples of being a Paladin, and it's not about being able to be treacherous or vindictive, respectively. It's about those archetypes coming the closest to letting the player have his Paladin behave like a Paladin for the same reasons as his Paladin character (because he genuinely believes in it, no stick required).
Does that mean that way is also opened for "all it is is Core Rulebook Collection of Class Features #7 #8" (since the Alchemist is getting added)? Yep. So what? Why is that something that needs to be policed? More to the point, how could it be policed? If players aren't going to engage in that aspect of the game, why is it something that has to be imposed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why cant clerics be champions too?I think folks just need the chance to vent for a while. Cleanse the system, I guess.
Also, without clear signaling from Paizo, folks aren't going to look at or consider the cleric. >.>
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't consider the cleric because wisdom is a boring stat. Other than seeing things better it doesn't interact with the world in any meaningful way like Intelligence and Charisma do; I personally like all of my characters to be highly charismatic, even the ones that don't get any particular benefit out of it (Steadfast Personality helps so much with justifying this) because sitting there twiddling my thumbs outside of combat is boring as hell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoa.
Hold on there.
You don't get to say, "Paizo should discount anyone who wants Paladins to be lawful good only because they're being mean to those who want to play non-LG Paladins."
That's not cool.
Our desire for them to remain LG only is only as valid as your desire for them to open for other alignments.
Your desire for them to remain LG only may be valid. But are you honestly and in good faith saying that the desire to be mean to those who want to play non-LG Paladins is also valid? Because frankly, I find that to be a contradiction in terms.
Secondly, I will absolutely cop to it being an attempt to marginalize the other side and that being a bad thing to do if you will agree that it's bad in both directions. And yes, I absolutely feel that that has been the sad sordid story of the past decade.
And lastly, I did not, in fact, tell or ask Paizo to discount anything. What I said was that I think the upcoming survey should have its participants on all sides (see, that's what reciprocity looks like) have reasons behind their position, whatever their position is. I then also gave my personal take on why. They can do whatever they want with their survey and weight whatever input they ask for however they decide to weight it. But I can only ever give my honest take.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really curious about chaotic paladin concepts, because I don't have any right now. I can imagine any-Lawful paladin concepts and that helps me think and reason about class options, but I don't have a Chaotic counterpart in mind to help me reason about how the Chaotic version of the class would look.I maintain that Captain America in MCU is CG. He pays lip service to following orders, but from the word go he constantly bucked against authority and made it clear he was only following them if he agreed with them. His ultimate moral compass was himself.
That sounds a lot like Paladin to me.
Respecting legitimate authority is the lowest priority on their list, so in most situations Captain America would ignore orders, a Paladin would be *required* to ignore orders by his Code.
Right. I agree. That’s why I brought him as a requested example of how a specifically chaotic good Paladin would look.
Edit: it’s not even just a matter of diregarding orders. He foments rebellions and mass-mutinies. More than once! There’s an example in each of his movies!
And I’m not even talking about “yeah I’m not going to let you shoot people that MIGHT commit a crime.” Im talking about rules like “You must be this tall to join the military. You are putting your unit at risk to make an exception for you.”
Edit to the edit: that last one bugs me outsized to the offense, I’ll confess, since I’m asthmatic and could not pass a physical to join the coast guard (despite lettering in three different sports). But still, it’s a clear example of him being flat unwilling to follow the rules when he doesn’t like them. And it is an example where the rules were *right*. They were saving his life and those of his units. But he did not give a damn about the rules or how he might otherwise contribute to the war effort. He had one thing he wanted to do, and he ignored the rules until he finally found a way to break them.
*again, this is MCU Cap. I like him, but when people say he’s lawful I wonder what movie they’re watching.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a better example would be:
"I want to be a Druid. But a druid that really doesn't care about the whole nature thing"
"OK... why do you want to be a druid then?"
"Well, I like the druid spell list, and I want to be a full caster with an animal companion"
...
People keep trotting out this kind of demeaning argument, insinuating or outright saying that people arguing for the change don't want to roleplay and just want to power game. It's insulting, it's acrimonious, and it cheapens these discussions. Especially when a lot of the people arguing for the change, like myself, are GMs who barely if ever get to actually play.
What people actually want is to be able to play the kind of character they envision without being told, "No, sorry, someone clutched their pearls at the thought of someone enjoying the game in a different way than they prefer, so you don't get that option." People want to envision and play a sacred warrior beholden to other gods or philosophies, with their own unique quirks. People want to expand the flavor of the broader archetype and see where it can go, both mechanically and in lore. People want to play a paladin-type character in good faith without the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads that fights are going to happen at their table, or their game experience is going to be ruined because they disagreed with the GM or the author of the book.
|
|
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't consider the cleric because wisdom is a boring stat. Other than seeing things better it doesn't interact with the world in any meaningful way like Intelligence and Charisma do; I personally like all of my characters to be highly charismatic, even the ones that don't get any particular benefit out of it (Steadfast Personality helps so much with justifying this) because sitting there twiddling my thumbs outside of combat is boring as hell.Why cant clerics be champions too?I think folks just need the chance to vent for a while. Cleanse the system, I guess.
Also, without clear signaling from Paizo, folks aren't going to look at or consider the cleric. >.>
Thankfully, the cleric class preview highlighted charisma-based options for play and PF2 attributes support multiple attributes much more easily than PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen charisma seems to mostly be the purview of caster/healbot clerics, which isn't really what I want. I'd be pretty shocked if the charisma options are strong enough where favoring the stat over wisdom for a battle cleric is a viable build, and I'd be even more shocked if the stat distribution is such where you can make a reasonable investment in all of Strength, Wisdom, and Charisma.
|
|
From what I've seen charisma seems to mostly be the purview of caster/healbot clerics, which isn't really what I want. I'd be pretty shocked if the charisma options are strong enough where favoring the stat over wisdom for a battle cleric is a viable build, and I'd be even more shocked if the stat distribution is such where you can make a reasonable investment in all of Strength, Wisdom, and Charisma.
Actually, all Wisdom seems to do for a Cleric is determine Save DCs and number of uses for Domain Powers (it no longer gives bonus spells or anything like that), and the latter can be increased with Feats. Meanwhile, Cha grants free healing (which can be self healing) and lots of it.
A buff focused battle Cleric has almost no need at all for any Wisdom beyond the 12 you'll wind up with almost automatically, and can make very good use of high Cha to go with their high Str.
A caster Cleric needs Wisdom. A battle Cleric? Not so much.
Are we sure that you don't need X wisdom to cast X level spell anymore? If so, you may be right. I've been considering a "Something of Shelyn" for my playtest character because I want to try one of the weapons that sucked in PF1 (and also because I like Shelyn), though I was between a Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin previously. Might have to consider adding Cleric to that list though it almost feels like a betrayal of my basic tenets to start with a full caster, lol.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for the record, you can totally play an urban druid that focuses on the variety of life found in a city, or a blight druid that venerates disease and pestilence (Nurgle loves you!). There's even undeath-focused druids that hail from a forest where undead creatures spawn naturally (it's in Nidal IIRC).
|
|
Are we sure that you don't need X wisdom to cast X level spell anymore? If so, you may be right.
There've been some statements that imply as much IMO, but I could've misinterpreted.
I've been considering a "Something of Shelyn" for my playtest character because I want to try one of the weapons that sucked in PF1 (and also because I like Shelyn), though I was between a Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin previously. Might have to consider adding Cleric to that list though it almost feels like a betrayal of my basic tenets to start with a full caster, lol.
I'd definitely keep it in mind as an option. Even if you need the 'base Wis' for spells, starting with Wis 14 and increasing it as one of the 4 stats you increase every time you need to (except 20th) will get you all you ever need, and that's a middling investment (compatible with Str 16, Cha 16 at 1st, for example).
That can't be it. P2E Clerics only have a base attack 1-2 points lower than P2E Fighters.Why cant clerics be champions too?Because a full base attack bonus class with 9 spell levels would be extremely hard to balance.If it turns out Clerics are just as good at martial combat as regular martial classes, this game is going to have serious balance issues.
And if not, then Clerics won't be a good choice for this concept.
I mean, it depends. If the martial classes have just as much utility as 10th level casting then full casters being good at hitting stuff as long as they cast a buff spell first is fine.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I too prefer having Holy Warriors for many ethos, I understand why some players feel that this uniqueness should be LG only
And these people do not want to have a CG "Paladin" forced down their throat, whether as another PC or a NPC
I guess to appeal to as many people as possible, it is better to make the core Paladin LG only, and add equivalent Holy Warriors for other alignments in a second book
I prefer LG Paladins, but I'm willing to make a concession opposite yours (which was a very kind suggestion, by the way): put the other Any Alignment Holy Warriors (Warpriests) in first. I'll wait for a Paladin to be done the way I'd like, and people who want any alignment Holy Warriors shouldn't have to wait.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a better example would be:
"I want to be a Druid. But a druid that really doesn't care about the whole nature thing"
"OK... why do you want to be a druid then?"
"Well, I like the druid spell list, and I want to be a full caster with an animal companion"
...People keep trotting out this kind of demeaning argument, insinuating or outright saying that people arguing for the change don't want to roleplay and just want to power game. It's insulting, it's acrimonious, and it cheapens these discussions. Especially when a lot of the people arguing for the change, like myself, are GMs who barely if ever get to actually play.
What people actually want is to be able to play the kind of character they envision without being told, "No, sorry, someone clutched their pearls at the thought of someone enjoying the game in a different way than they prefer, so you don't get that option." People want to envision and play a sacred warrior beholden to other gods or philosophies, with their own unique quirks. People want to expand the flavor of the broader archetype and see where it can go, both mechanically and in lore. People want to play a paladin-type character in good faith without the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads that fights are going to happen at their table, or their game experience is going to be ruined because they disagreed with the GM or the author of the book.
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.
I prefer LG Paladins, but I'm willing to make a concession opposite yours (which was a very kind suggestion, by the way): put the other Any Alignment Holy Warriors (Warpriests) in first. I'll wait for a Paladin to be done the way I'd like, and people who want any alignment Holy Warriors shouldn't have to wait.Though I too prefer having Holy Warriors for many ethos, I understand why some players feel that this uniqueness should be LG only
And these people do not want to have a CG "Paladin" forced down their throat, whether as another PC or a NPC
I guess to appeal to as many people as possible, it is better to make the core Paladin LG only, and add equivalent Holy Warriors for other alignments in a second book
This is my position too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my position too.I prefer LG Paladins, but I'm willing to make a concession opposite yours (which was a very kind suggestion, by the way): put the other Any Alignment Holy Warriors (Warpriests) in first. I'll wait for a Paladin to be done the way I'd like, and people who want any alignment Holy Warriors shouldn't have to wait.Though I too prefer having Holy Warriors for many ethos, I understand why some players feel that this uniqueness should be LG only
And these people do not want to have a CG "Paladin" forced down their throat, whether as another PC or a NPC
I guess to appeal to as many people as possible, it is better to make the core Paladin LG only, and add equivalent Holy Warriors for other alignments in a second book
I could live with this, although I think there are other options.
I could live with this, although I think there are other options.This is my position too.I prefer LG Paladins, but I'm willing to make a concession opposite yours (which was a very kind suggestion, by the way): put the other Any Alignment Holy Warriors (Warpriests) in first. I'll wait for a Paladin to be done the way I'd like, and people who want any alignment Holy Warriors shouldn't have to wait.Though I too prefer having Holy Warriors for many ethos, I understand why some players feel that this uniqueness should be LG only
And these people do not want to have a CG "Paladin" forced down their throat, whether as another PC or a NPC
I guess to appeal to as many people as possible, it is better to make the core Paladin LG only, and add equivalent Holy Warriors for other alignments in a second book
Such as? Genuinely curious, not facetious in any way. I'm sure you've already stated them, but if you'd like to do so again here, so it's all cohesive, I'd definitely appreciate it.
Such as? Genuinely curious, not facetious in any way. I'm sure you've already stated them, but if you'd like to do so again here, so it's all cohesive, I'd definitely appreciate it.I could live with this, although I think there are other options.This is my position too.I prefer LG Paladins, but I'm willing to make a concession opposite yours (which was a very kind suggestion, by the way): put the other Any Alignment Holy Warriors (Warpriests) in first. I'll wait for a Paladin to be done the way I'd like, and people who want any alignment Holy Warriors shouldn't have to wait.Though I too prefer having Holy Warriors for many ethos, I understand why some players feel that this uniqueness should be LG only
And these people do not want to have a CG "Paladin" forced down their throat, whether as another PC or a NPC
I guess to appeal to as many people as possible, it is better to make the core Paladin LG only, and add equivalent Holy Warriors for other alignments in a second book
My favorite is the four corners option, where there is an Examplar class with four subclasses (Paladin, Liberator, Blackguard, and Tyrant). I could also live with a Neutral one, although I think that really only works for Pharasma.
Another is to go with your suggestion, but add Paladin as a prestige class so it's available from the beginning. I don't love this idea, but I also kind of like that it makes the Paladin something your character works to attain. I also haven't seen anyone else bring this up or comment on it, so I have no idea how well it'd go over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Such as? Genuinely curious, not facetious in any way. I'm sure you've already stated them, but if you'd like to do so again here, so it's all cohesive, I'd definitely appreciate it.I could live with this, although I think there are other options.This is my position too.I prefer LG Paladins, but I'm willing to make a concession opposite yours (which was a very kind suggestion, by the way): put the other Any Alignment Holy Warriors (Warpriests) in first. I'll wait for a Paladin to be done the way I'd like, and people who want any alignment Holy Warriors shouldn't have to wait.Though I too prefer having Holy Warriors for many ethos, I understand why some players feel that this uniqueness should be LG only
And these people do not want to have a CG "Paladin" forced down their throat, whether as another PC or a NPC
I guess to appeal to as many people as possible, it is better to make the core Paladin LG only, and add equivalent Holy Warriors for other alignments in a second book
My favorite is the four corners option, where there is an Examplar class with four subclasses (Paladin, Liberator, Blackguard, and Tyrant). I could also live with a Neutral one, although I think that really only works for Pharasma.
Another is to go with your suggestion, but add Paladin as a prestige class so it's available from the beginning. I don't love this idea, but I also kind of like that it makes the Paladin something your character works to attain. I also haven't seen anyone else bring this up or comment on it, so I have no idea how well it'd go over.
The biggest problem I have with the four corners is then there's no NG Paladin, which I think is at almost as fitting for a Paladin as LG, if not equally so.
Paladin as a Prestige Class is kinda sick. Makes attaining and maintaining it even cooler, I think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really think we need to waste space designing 9 kinds of paladins, plus multiple tenets.
5e solve it with some orders, that can admit several Alignments each. You could be a Devotion paladin being LG, NG, or even LN,if you save the innocents because order says so, but you are not particularly empathic toward them. LG, NG, CG and N can be Ancient.
I think it is much more efficient. In fact, just moving the priorities of the tenet, you could adjust the Paladin code in PF2 playtest to be LN for example. Just put "follow authority" above "don't harm innocent", and done
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A big "problem" with opening up Paladin to other alignments is that there isn't even consensus there. Should it be the four corners? The Axis-adins? Paladin any good, Antipaladin any evil? Four corners plus neutral? Anything BUT neutral?
One popular side wants Holy Warriors of any stripe, to fit with a deity of any each and any alignment. They don't seem to need them to be called Paladins.
Another popular and seemingly opposed (but how opposed, really?) side wants Paladins to be only LG, but doesn't seem to have any real problem with powerful, martial yet holy warriors of any Alignment, as long as they aren't Paladins.
There isn't an inherent/intrinsic clash here, is there? Because I consider myself to belong to both camps. If what I wrote is true, then that's probably where we should be looking for a solution, right?
I don't really think we need to waste space designing 9 kinds of paladins, plus multiple tenets.
5e solve it with some orders, that can admit several Alignments each. You could be a Devotion paladin being LG, NG, or even LN,if you save the innocents because order says so, but you are not particularly empathic toward them. LG, NG, CG and N can be Ancient.
I think it is much more efficient. In fact, just moving the priorities of the tenet, you could adjust the Paladin code in PF2 playtest to be LN for example. Just put "follow authority" above "don't harm innocent", and done
I agree with your first sentence, but the rest is still not really an attempt at compromise.