Paladin Class Preview

Monday, May 7, 2018

All it takes is a cursory browse of the Paizo forums to see that paladins are not just the most contentious class in Pathfinder, they are the most contentious conversation topic. Weeks before we previewed the class, multiple threads with thousands of posts arose in advance, filled with passionate fans with many different opinions and plenty of good ideas. Turns out, the Paizo office isn't too different.

The Quest for the Holy Grail

Early last year, I went on a sacred quest through the office and surveyed all the different opinions out there about paladins. Turns out, almost everyone had slightly different thoughts. But there was one element in common: whether they wanted paladins of all alignments, paladins of the four extreme alignments, lawful good paladins and chaotic evil antipaladins, lawful evil tyrant antipaladins, or even just lawful good paladins alone, everyone was interested in robust support for the idea that paladins should be champions of their deity and alignment. That is to say, whatever alignments paladins have, they should have an array of abilities deeply tied into that alignment.

Since that was the aspect of the paladin that everyone agreed upon, that's what we wanted to make sure we got right in the playtest. But given the limited space for the playtest, we chose to focus on getting that aspect fine-tuned for one alignment, and so in this book we're presenting only lawful good paladins. That doesn't mean antipaladins and tyrants are gone (there's even an antipaladin foe in one of the adventures!) or that the door is closed to other sorts of paladins down the road. We'll have a playtest survey on the matter, we're open to more opinions, and even among the four designers we have different ideas. But we want to focus the playtest on getting lawful good paladins right, first and foremost. If or when we do make more paladins and antipaladins, having constructed a solid foundation for how an alignment-driven champion functions will be a crucial step to making all of them engaging and different in play.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

The Code

Tell me if you've heard this one before: My paladin was brought to a court where she was forced to testify under oath to tell the whole truth, by a legitimate authority, about the whereabouts of certain innocent witnesses, but she knows that if she answers the questions, a villain is going to use that information to track down and harm the innocents. It's the "Inquiring Murderer" quandary from moral philosophy set in a way that manages to pin you between not just two but three different restrictions in the old paladin code. Sure, I can beg and plead with the judge that the information, if released, would harm innocents, but ultimately if the judge persists, I'm in trouble. These sorts of situations are some of the most common paladin threads on the forums, and they're never easy.

With the playtest presenting the opportunity, I wanted to analyze the paladin's code down to basic principles and keep all the important roleplaying aspects that make paladins the trustworthy champions of law and good we've come to expect while drastically reducing, and hopefully eliminating, the no-win situations. Here's what it looks like at the moment.

Code of Conduct

Paladins are divine champions of a deity. You must be lawful good and worship a deity that allows lawful good clerics. Actions fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. A few examples of acts that would be considered anathema appear in each deity's entry. You and your GM will determine whether other acts count as anathema.

In addition, you must follow the paladin's code below. Deities often add additional strictures for their own paladins (for instance, Shelyn's paladins never attack first except to protect an innocent, and they choose and perfect an art).

If you stray from lawful good, perform acts anathema to your deity, or violate your code of conduct, you lose your Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature (which we talk more about below) until you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual, but you keep any other paladin abilities that don't require those class features.

The Paladin's Code

The following is the fundamental code all paladins follow. The tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren't in a no-win situation; instead, follow the most important tenet. For instance, if an evil king asked you if innocent lawbreakers were hiding in your church so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet forbidding you to lie is less important than the tenet prohibiting the harm of an innocent. An attempt to subvert the paladin code by engineering a situation allowing you to use a higher tenet to ignore a lower tenet (telling someone that you won't respect lawful authorities so that the tenet of not lying supersedes the tenet of respecting lawful authorities, for example) is a violation of the paladin code.

  • You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
  • You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
  • You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
  • You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

So let's break down what's the same and what's different. We still have all the basic tenets of the paladin from Pathfinder First Edition, with one exception: we've removed poison from the tenet of acting with honor. While there are certainly dishonorable ways to use poison, poisoning a weapon and using it in an honorable combat that allows enhanced weaponry doesn't seem much different than lighting the weapon on fire. However, by ordering the tenets and allowing the paladin to prioritize the most important tenets in the event of a conflict, we've cut down on the no-win situations. And of course, this opens a design space to play around with the tenets themselves, something we've done by incorporating one of the most popular non-core aspects for paladins...

Oaths

Oaths allow you to play around with the tenets of your code while also gaining mechanical advantages. For instance, the Fiendsbane Oath allows you to dish out near-constant retribution against fiends and eventually block their dimensional travel with an Anchoring Aura. Unlike in Pathfinder First Edition, oaths are feats, and you don't need an archetype to gain one.

Paladin Features

As many of you guessed when Jason mentioned it, paladin was the mystery class that gains the highest heavy armor proficiency, eventually reaching legendary proficiency in armor and master proficiency in weapons, as opposed to fighters, who gain the reverse. At 1st level, you also gain the Retributive Strike reaction, allowing you to counterattack and enfeeble any foe that hits one of your allies (Shelyn save those who strike your storm druid ally). You also get lay on hands, a single-action healing spell that not only heals the target but also raises their AC for a round to help prevent future damage. Combine that effect used on yourself with a raised shield, and you can make it pretty hard for a foe to hit you, and it helps recovering allies avoid another beating.

Lay on hands is the first of a paladin's champion powers, which include a whole bunch of elective options via feats. One of my favorites, gained automatically at 19th level, is hero's defiance, which makes a paladin incredibly difficult to take down. It lets you keep standing when you fall to 0 HP, gives you a big boost of Hit Points, and doesn't even use up your reaction! Leading up to that, you gain a bunch of fun smite-related boosts, including the righteous ally class feature that you saw mentioned in the code. This is a 3rd-level ability that lets you house a holy spirit in a weapon or a steed, much like before, but also in a shield, like the fan-favorite sacred shield archetype!

Paladin Feats

In addition to the oath feats I mentioned when talking about the code, paladins have feats customized to work with the various righteous ally options, like Second Ally, a level 8 feat that lets you gain a second righteous ally. There are also a variety of auras that you can gain to improve yourself and your allies, from the humble 4th-level Aura of Courage, which reduces the frightened condition for you when you gain it and at the end of your turn for you and your allies, to the mighty 14th-level Aura of Righteousness, which gives you and your allies resistance to evil damage. Feats that improve or alter your lay on hands include mercy feats, which allow you to remove harmful conditions and afflictions with lay on hands, up to and including death itself with Ultimate Mercy. And we can't forget potent additional reactions like Divine Grace, granting you a saving throw boost at 2nd level, and Attack of Opportunity at 6th level.

To close out, I'll tell you about one more popular non-core paladin ability we brought in, a special type of power called...

Litanies

Following their mold from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat, litanies are single-action Verbal Casting spells that last 1 round and create various effects. For instance, litany of righteousness makes an enemy weak to your allies' attacks, and litany against sloth slows down an enemy, costing it reactions and potentially actions as well. One of the coolest story features of the litanies against sins is that they now explicitly work better against creatures strongly aligned with their sin, so a dretch (a.k.a. a sloth demon) or a sloth sinspawn treats its saving throw outcome for litany against sloth as one degree worse!

Just as a reminder to everyone, please be respectful to each other. Many of us have strong opinions about the paladin, and that's OK, even if we each have different feelings.

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Paladins Pathfinder Playtest Seelah Wayne Reynolds
901 to 950 of 1,735 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I can't believe there would have been MORE contention in the first 16 hours if this was a warpriest preview - including an example of how to use that class to build a traditional Paladin - than we have now with the restricted paladin preview.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

Hi. I apologize for not digging through the entire thread. I swear a page or two was added since I started.

Edit: I tried to make this level headed and constructive, but I do feel strongly about paladins and flexible, inclusive game design. Combined with the emotionless nature of text-based communications, I apologize if I offended anyone.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

You had the option of making a divine class whose deity was a secondary concern and disconnected from the flavor or one where the deity was the primary defining aspect of the flavor. You chose the former. You may prefer to present it as you did, but I have no doubt that you could have made the paladin accessible to more alignments and therefore more deities while still preserving the lawful good implementation, if you want to play it.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

This is a playtest and you could change up the incarnation we play with from time to time. Otherwise, we will have a one-sided basis for the vote that was suggested.

People sitting on the fence may be more likely to take a stance on which incarnation is more fun if they can see and play with a polished draft. Alternatively, making both available and seeing how often each version is picked may be a good supplement for a survey.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

We knew this would not be popular with some. We knew the opposite would not be popular with others. Once this game is released, I would implore you to give it a closer look. We pushed for a paladin that best expresses its ideal form. If we can get that nailed down, the roadmap to champions of all flavors becomes a lot more clear.

I disagree. Without approaching that from the onset, it makes approaching it as a retrofit more difficult and more likely to result in awkward patches or new classes to handle an assortment of narrow variations on the paladin.

A flexible base class is a better solution even if the core book only presents a few options and the remainder are released in a supplement.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Until then.. be kind to each other folks. We are all hear to tell stories and go on thrilling adventures. Nobody wants to fight their companions along the way.

That is a good sentiment, but you gave us the version of the paladin that is arguably even more of a party enemy than prior incarnations.

The straight-jacketed implementation of a lawful good only code combined with deity anathemas results in a class that must only travel with like-minded companions or be the source of party strife. How are you planning on evaluating the anti-social aspects of your class strictures?

This implementation that is a class who is mechanically a team player, but the strictures make it disruptive unless he subjugates his party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just realized I'm abit unsure on the flavour concept of the new paladin. Question, what is the flavour difference between a LG cleric in PF 2e and a PF 2e Paladin?


Its a little annoying that all of a sudden warpriest is gonna be viewed as ok for divine champion but only if it also comes with the removal of the paladin class. Given that ive argued that warpriest does the divine champion theme just fine in the past and the very concept was pooh poohed.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to be that guy, but wouldn't a more generic "KNIGHT" class not only give you the framework to have multiple codes be elective, free of alignment, and give you a way to incorporate Hellknights and Blackguards into the core rules on the same chassis?

I think the way Cavaliers did codes, edicts, and orders were much more well done.

In fact, I'd rather see a better version of the cavalier with Divine Grace and Lay on Hands incorporated that made more sense to be the "armor" class.

I'm okay with paladins having baggage, but not if a major gameplay niche is cut off to anyone who doesn't want that baggage.

Still I criticize the blog for focusing too much on this topic, and not giving us enough crunch with respect to how the class actually plays. Smite was mentioned, but is it "Smite Evil" or a more generic ability, like the vindictive bastard or cavalier?
Does divine grace cost spell points?
Does lay on Hands?
Do they get a pool separately for them like the cleric gets to channel?

I remain disappoint.


Honestly, i would justify much more simply why a paladin should be LG and that is simply because being LG means something on itself.

Being LG, isnt being CG/TN/NG/NE... and it really shouldnt be. Being LG is literally a integral part of every single paladin.

I do get that some people dont like alignments, but i personally wouldnt even bother sitting down to play a PF game that doesnt have them, thus i consider them quite relevant at all times and apparently so does paizo, hey clerics still kept their, so did the paladins, maybe even the other classes did the same.

What the book should have is a far, far better explanation on paizo side about each and every single alignment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its a little annoying that all of a sudden warpriest is gonna be viewed as ok for divine champion but only if it also comes with the removal of the paladin class. Given that ive argued that warpriest does the divine champion theme just fine in the past and the very concept was pooh poohed.

The warpriest doesn't work because it's a charisma 7 class. Even the freaking "this is a Paladin" archetype for the Warpriest still doesn't use charisma to cast spells.


A Ninja Errant wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Which is where, in my opinion, Paizo actually made their mistake with Pathfinder.

They created Golarion, which is a mishmash of everything (which totally doesn't work if we stop to think about it even a little bit) instead of doing a number of different setting books with their own classes to represent worlds of a different type.

That is something TSR did, and did well.

Not every class fits in every genre.

Example:
Krynn didn't have Paladins. They had Knights of Solomnia, which were a different class altogether with completely different traits.

Not every world had Psionics initially, they were part of the Dark Sun campaign setting.

Spelljammer... Spelljammer was weird...

I wouldn't exactly call that a mistake, more of a necessity. As I understand it, and granted I wasn't old enough to pay attention at the time, so this is hearsay, that's a big part of what killed TSR. They released so many unrelated settings that they massively split their player base, to where they were releasing products for I don't know, 8 or 10 different settings, but the majority of their customers were only buying from one or two of those. Paizo has learned from the mistakes of their predecessors and limited themselves to one main setting, while still making it open enough for everybody to find something in the setting they like. Is it realistic? No, not really, and in all honesty I'm not a huge fan of Golarion. But it does serve the purpose fairly well.

I think that without going into the ridiculous level of fracturing of 2E TSR, Paizo could support two fantasy settings with different flavors, and their scifi setting on top of it. The other fantasy setting would naturally need to be more focused than Golarion, with more of a defined tone and feel.

The key is that aside from a few setting-specific books like "Faiths of the Inner Sea," all the stuff for the fantasy setting would be handled by one book line. All of the options presented therein would apply to both settings. When mechanical options have a flavor component, they would have an aside or sidebar saying "In Golarion:" and "In [OtherSetting]:" to call out the differences.

And to be honest, since the PF2 rules - with notable exceptions like This Blog Post - look better than the Starfinder rules, they could even give guidelines to using things in Starfinder in the same books. If they bring back some of the options from Ultimate Intrigue, well, most of that works just fine in scifi. That also serves the functional economic purpose of inducing groups who only play Starfinder to still open their wallets for Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Also, with regards to Gorum and Antipaladins, I haven't seen any support for antipaladins of specific deities - I even went and looked just to be sure.

Uh...Inner Sea Gods has Antipaladin Codes for both Gorum and Calistria. They are in fact a very explicit thing.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be non-CE options for a Champion of Gorum (there should), but Antipaladins of Gorum explicitly exist.

There is no antipaladin code for Gorum in Inner Sea Gods. I just checked.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if Golarion was a more centrally focused campaign setting it still wouldn't be Medieval. The primary adventuring zones of Cheliax, Taldor, and Varisia are all early Renaissance.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its a little annoying that all of a sudden warpriest is gonna be viewed as ok for divine champion but only if it also comes with the removal of the paladin class. Given that ive argued that warpriest does the divine champion theme just fine in the past and the very concept was pooh poohed.
The warpriest doesn't work because it's a charisma 7 class. Even the freaking "this is a Paladin" archetype for the Warpriest still doesn't use charisma to cast spells.

It appears that pf2e is moving quite a way from the need/desire/ability to do the dump stat stuff, making this point much less relevant.


CraziFuzzy wrote:


So, like many others, you agree what a warpriest class makes sense.
But - if you were to design a warpriest for pf2e, based on the general mechanics already presented in the previews to this date - how would you design it?

Hey, man. I am usually up for a conversation! I am worried here though, that this, "like many others" presumes that because I like the idea of warpriest that...I must agree with other things, I guess? I like the idea of it because it's respectful of others.

As a secondary, I like it because we'll be able to explore some great options.

CraziFuzzy wrote:


Personally, I would lean it heavily on the spell point mechanics, gaining improvements over the cleric's spell point fueled domain powers, and giving some added proficiency boosts to deity specific items (armor for Gorumites, starknives for Desnans, crafting for Shelynites, etc), and limited or even no actual 'spell slots'. These abilities would be powered by a commitment to their deity's ideals, but through direct action more so than prayer/worship.

When you step back and look at that description of abilities, it sounds a very much like the Paladin they just previewed, without the specific 'base class' code and alignment. It just seems like a completely natural evolution of the mechanics, and one that would see a lot more playtime (meaning more value per published page) than the restricted paladin as presented.

Okay. Those are some good ideas. I'd do it differently, though. I mean, I'd take more ideas from the PF1e cleric domains, for example. The abilities would be more flavored towards domains, because domains are such useful building blocks for reflecting a deity. A deity is composed of x, y, and z domain, for example.

Another deity is z, x, and d.

I quite like the idea of channeling and aura blasts, which is more of a cleric than a paladin feature, for a warpriest.

Those are the start of ideas, so please don't take them for an end point. Maybe take them as: hey, we and others like the warpriest idea, so let's make a warpriest thread and discuss how we'd build one? We have the 1e version to start with, we have cleric, and we have what we've seen here. We've the domains post to go on.

There is some meat. :D

While I respect your opinion, and I do, just because I like one idea doesn't mean that it follows that I agree with another. That said, hey, we could still roll some dice, and that would be pretty cool if we could.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a word guys. That's it, it doesn't have a greater intrinsic meaning to the concept of the cosmic force of law.

Paladin is also the name of a Daredevil VILLAIN.

But for real, if Heal is meant to be the universal healing mechanic, then is lay on Hands somehow completely different, making that streamlining process null?

Does smite cost spell points?

How does this class actually work?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Keeping it LG only makes perfect sense [u]for the playtest[/u].

We're doing a playtest here. They want to limit the parameters to get appropriate feedback and also make sure they hit their page-count for the printed versions. Those two goals go hand-in-hand.

First off, we're playtesting the power and usefulness of a paladin as a set of mechanics within the RPG. We're not testing whether or not it makes sense from a meta-gaming viewpoint to be restricted to a single alignment. We're only concerned with if a character that adheres to a strong code can use these mechanics to be useful to a party.

That brings us to the second point of hitting page-count for the hardcover. Adding in additional rules for a variety of different paladin alignments takes time to write, time to edit, time to layout, takes up pages in the book, and even more time to sort through feedback. To find out if the generic mechanics of a paladin work we don't need an anti-paladin. We don't need a tyrant or liberator or just divine/profane champion. All we need is the old-fashioned paladin that everyone is familiar with in order to run it through its paces.

When it comes to the actual core rulebook in 2019, they might allow different alignments, but it doesn't really make that much sense to worry about that for just the [u]playtest[/u].


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

The Paladin, as any other class, has changed with time. However, they still are the Paladin. Just as the Wizard still is the Wizard, and the Fighter, and...

"Opening" up the Paladin to other alignments is not "changing" the class, is destroying it by changing their fundamental nature.
A fighter still fights. A wizard still casts arcane spells. Therefore, paladins should still be paladins, even if their abilities change over time.

And this article proposes a terrific approach to the paladin! Paladin fans have much to celebrate!
If you don't like the class, play another ;)

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

Funny. I thought you said the appeal of playing the Paladin was their unshakeable virtue and righteousness and belief in the Right Thing that was specifically not about any kind of fame?


19 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

To expand on it, because I know someone is going to say: "But a neutral good can be..."

Not really.

The hero type the Paladin represents is a bit naive.

They are the kind of hero who actually believes that the law is just and good. They are the type of hero that believes in the law and the people. They are the kind of person who will work with the law, not try to circumvent it. They are... Not just a person.

The Paladin represents the romanticized ideal of the Knight in Shining Armor.

If Saerenrae can't be a "naive paladin" without changing her personality, the paladin class is wrong.

Her ethos, morality, and alignment, is everything a classic paladin should be.
She is NG.

This is my biggest thing. I may hate the Cult of the Dawnflower and the slavery, but Sarenrae is my favorite deity in any setting. If she couldn't play a class that is the absolute epitome of what Good represents, then that class is not the epitome.

The "Sarenrae Litmus Test" there is basically the best in-setting argument for me. Sarenrae basically defines the Good alignment, so the Paladin class as is, is not as Good as Good can be. Just someone with a superiority complex.

And regarding the specialness of Paladins, and just playing Clerics instead:

Paladins shouldn't be special and Lawful Good shouldn't be special. "I get to have what you have, and more." is not a Lawful Good idea in the first place. Its why I reject "Just play Cleric!" arguments. That's not the point. Its that things are fair, and everyone gets an even shot.

I love Lawful Good as much, if not more, than anyone else on this forum. I love Codes, and restrictions, and discipline. And Paladins. And when I think of what my Paladins would have to say on this matter, it is always "The will to stand for what is right is not something special that only a few souls share, it is a choice. And any soul can make that choice."

Paladins being 'Special' 'Elite Champions' or 'The Most Virtuous Souls' is so Un-Paladin in its thinking that it boggles my mind how anyone that loves the Paladin can get behind it!

gustavo iglesias wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

Oh, I understand it. It's the classic Lawful behaviour. Pretty iconic for LG paladins in fact.

CG people want everybody play whatever paladin they want to play. LG people want everybody play paladins the "right way", or don't play it at all.

BLARGH!

Its why I hate the argument so much, it makes Paladins and Lawful Good look bad! Lawful Good is about fairness, not exclusivity. Justice, not superiority. Its such a wonderful alignment, but everyone else who plays it regularly seems to think its some impossible path that must lead to fantastic power.

Everybody else, Lawful Good characters can be thoughtful, humorous, loving, accepting, quirky people. I promise! My Samurai that follows some four different Codes? He paints portraits for Shelynites who want to learn about the love story between Shizuru and Tsukiyo, he is enamored with the grace and beauty of the Geisha and cross dresses to perform their arts as they were intended. He finds small ways to encourage others to shirk (minor) duties when he thinks they're overworking themselves trying to live up to impossible standards.

Lawful Good is so much more fun than just "I follow a Code, give me power!"

WARGLE BLARGLE!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its a little annoying that all of a sudden warpriest is gonna be viewed as ok for divine champion but only if it also comes with the removal of the paladin class. Given that ive argued that warpriest does the divine champion theme just fine in the past and the very concept was pooh poohed.
The warpriest doesn't work because it's a charisma 7 class. Even the freaking "this is a Paladin" archetype for the Warpriest still doesn't use charisma to cast spells.
It appears that pf2e is moving quite a way from the need/desire/ability to do the dump stat stuff, making this point much less relevant.

A charisma 10 class, then. Either way the warpriest is just a Big Dumb Fighter that has no reason to invest in anything other than his damage stat and wisdom. It does not fill the same niche that a CG Paladin would, either mechanically or thematically.

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi everyone, I've removed some follow-ups to the other posts I had removed, some of which came in while I was removing the old ones since this is a such a fast-moving thread! Also, if you'd like to discuss moderation, please e-mail community@paizo.com rather than include the discussion in the midst of a thread.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its a little annoying that all of a sudden warpriest is gonna be viewed as ok for divine champion but only if it also comes with the removal of the paladin class. Given that ive argued that warpriest does the divine champion theme just fine in the past and the very concept was pooh poohed.
The warpriest doesn't work because it's a charisma 7 class. Even the freaking "this is a Paladin" archetype for the Warpriest still doesn't use charisma to cast spells.
It appears that pf2e is moving quite a way from the need/desire/ability to do the dump stat stuff, making this point much less relevant.
A charisma 10 class, then. Either way the warpriest is just a Big Dumb Fighter that has no reason to invest in anything other than his damage stat and wisdom. It does not fill the same niche that a CG Paladin would, either mechanically or thematically.

I don't think the design of the pf1 champion of the faith not fitting your idea of a paladin should be a reason to avoid making a pf2e warpriest variant for the paladin role. I mean, as it stands now, it doesn't look like the pf2e paladin even HAS spells, so the casting stat used is hardly an important consideration.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Me want generic knight class for armour niche.

Psst, pass it on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Hi everyone, I've removed some follow-ups to the other posts I had removed, some of which came in while I was removing the old ones since this is a such a fast-moving thread! Also, if you'd like to discuss moderation, please e-mail community@paizo.com rather than include the discussion in the midst of a thread.

But what if you don't quite want to discuss moderation--

--you more want to know, what is the best way to deliver bubblies to the Paizo offices?

I think Blue Apron delivers. >.>

EDIT: Yes.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

We knew this would not be popular with some. We knew the opposite would not be popular with others. Once this game is released, I would implore you to give it a closer look. We pushed for a paladin that best expresses its ideal form. If we can get that nailed down, the roadmap to champions of all flavors becomes a lot more clear.

These comments read, to me, like a statement that Paladins will remain LG-only in the PF2 Core (i.e., beyond the playtest). That's disappointing, as I would really prefer alternative alignment options to be addressed in the core of the class.

Adding other options "through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes" strikes me as unpromising—or rather, as a semi-promise that those alternatives will not be as well-built or as robustly supported as the traditional LG Paladin.

I enjoy the LG Paladin. The preview blog has me excited to try one out in the Playtest. But Pathfinder is a game characterized by an overabundance of character options, and I would really like to have good options here beyond LG-only. I'd like to see non-LG divine martial champions built into the PF2 core.

So I hope the Paladin is expanded as a result of the playtest. But Jason's comments here don't make me very optimistic that that possibility is really on the table.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

There are several bakeries that deliver. I can get you the name of the one that I used to send treats to the tech team.

Hmm


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How will Hellknights work? Are they an alternate class of the paladin?

They seem to have the same mechanical chassis (guy who specializes in armor, smites foes, and follows the edicts of a code) which to me seems that having a generic chassis for the class serves the Golarion infusion better than traditionalist thinking.

I honestly wouldn't care about the LG restriction if it didn't even have a code, just be LG only and use Anathema. The added baggage of that code just adds arbitrary complexity imo.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

The Paladin, as any other class, has changed with time. However, they still are the Paladin. Just as the Wizard still is the Wizard, and the Fighter, and...

"Opening" up the Paladin to other alignments is not "changing" the class, is destroying it by changing their fundamental nature.
A fighter still fights. A wizard still casts arcane spells. Therefore, paladins should still be paladins, even if their abilities change over time.

And this article proposes a terrific approach to the paladin! Paladin fans have much to celebrate!
If you don't like the class, play another ;)

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

It doesn't work that way.

First, why should a class with such a tiny place in the world deserve a spot in the core rulebook?

Second, the exclusivity and the trappings it comes with is a flaw of the class and the source of party discord.

Third, being able to paladin of Milani has no impact on your ability to play a paladin of Iomedae. The difference is that you have a set view on how a paladin should be played and are against players having the option to deviate from that. You are not preserving paladins of Iomedae, you are tearing down the options for others.

Look at it like the gods are colleges and paladins are football teams. Football teams represent the college and their rivalries much in the way paladins represent their deity's causes and oppose their rivals.

Having the option to have a paladin of Iomedae temporarily team up with a paladin of Asmodeus or opposing a paladin of Irori would add complexity and flavor to class, not detract from it.

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

We knew this would not be popular with some. We knew the opposite would not be popular with others. Once this game is released, I would implore you to give it a closer look. We pushed for a paladin that best expresses its ideal form. If we can get that nailed down, the roadmap to champions of all flavors becomes a lot more clear.

These comments read, to me, like a statement that Paladins will remain LG-only in the PF2 Core (i.e., beyond the playtest). That's disappointing, as I would really prefer alternative alignment options to be addressed in the core of the class.

Adding other options "through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes" strikes me as unpromising—or rather, as a semi-promise that those alternatives will not be as well-built or as robustly supported as the traditional LG Paladin.

I enjoy the LG Paladin. The preview blog does have me excited to try one out in the Playtest. But Pathfinder is a game characterized by an overabundance of character options, and I would really like to have good options here beyond LG-only. I'd like to see non-LG divine martial champions built into the PF2 core. I hope the Paladin is expanded as a result of the playtest, but Jason's comments here don't make me very optimistic that that possibility is really on the table.

That is Jason's position, and as he's said, he's one of the key decision-makers on the playtest's direction for paladins (I don't know how much people are reading into who writes what blog, but I do want to be clear that while I did all the things with "I" statements in the blog, like go on a quest through the Paizo office for opinions and revamp the code, Jason did a huge part of the paladin design as well, particularly the basic structure of the Retributive Strike, lay on hands, and Righteous Ally). But we're going to ask for survey feedback from you guys during the playtest, and if another option is predominant, you can bet that we're going to use that when deciding how to handle it in the final game. Honestly I'm thinking/worried that it's going to be really close to even, in which case we wind up in a situation of displeasing lots of people. I'd imagine even then, there could be a decent way to navigate that situation if we use our creativity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Me want generic knight class for armour niche.

Psst, pass it on.

If you want to advocate for that, I and others would be your ally.

From what's been said in these pages, we need cleric, we need paladin. ...we could also use cavalier, warpriest. I think we'll get all those.

I mean, one of the worst things for us all to get upset about is that we will get those options. We just might have to wait a little longer and in the meantime, we'll be learning an entirely new system.

It's going to be so busy with the new spells that I don't even.

The APG classes like inquisitor and alchemist blew the socks off of Core options. Paizo tended to get better as we all did. 3pps, too.

So, allies. You'll have them.

My concern is that we just gotta respect one another. I don't appreciate the "elitism" comments because I happen to like LG paladins, probably any more than others like having assumptions made about them, either. Or names called.

But, warpriest is a good idea. So is cavalier.

Why not both?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Smite Makes Right wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

The Paladin, as any other class, has changed with time. However, they still are the Paladin. Just as the Wizard still is the Wizard, and the Fighter, and...

"Opening" up the Paladin to other alignments is not "changing" the class, is destroying it by changing their fundamental nature.
A fighter still fights. A wizard still casts arcane spells. Therefore, paladins should still be paladins, even if their abilities change over time.

And this article proposes a terrific approach to the paladin! Paladin fans have much to celebrate!
If you don't like the class, play another ;)

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

It doesn't work that way.

First, why should a class with such a tiny place in the world deserve a spot in the core rulebook?

Second, the exclusivity and the trappings it comes with is a flaw of the class and the source of party discord.

Third, being able to paladin of Milani has no impact on your ability to play a paladin of Iomedae. The difference is that you have a set view on how a paladin should be played and are against players having the option to deviate from that. You are not preserving paladins of Iomedae, you are tearing down the options for others.

Look at it like the gods are colleges and paladins are football teams. Football teams represent the college and their rivalries much in the way paladins represent their deity's causes and oppose their rivals.

Having the option to have a paladin of Iomedae temporarily team up with a paladin of Asmodeus or opposing a paladin of Irori would add complexity and flavor to class, not detract from it.

I'm sorry... For *you* if you were me, that would be good enough. I'm not you though and that *isn't* good enough.

I'm telling you... I *feel* like, if the Paladin isn't LG as a setting rule, that the Paladin is lesser. It damages my enjoyment of the class to the point that *I will no longer enjoy the class* because part of it, to me, will feel gone.

You're focused on what you can personally do, and that is all you care about. I'm not I don't draw my enjoyment of the class from what I can personally do with it.

If you can play a CG FULL Paladin of Milani, then it doesn't matter that I can play a LG Paladin of Iomedae because the class isn't the same anymore. Something is different and it doesn't feel like a Paladin anymore. It is just a generic holy warrior at that point and that has little to no draw for me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember when we were promised an alignment free templar class in the APG? Good times.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

We knew this would not be popular with some. We knew the opposite would not be popular with others. Once this game is released, I would implore you to give it a closer look. We pushed for a paladin that best expresses its ideal form. If we can get that nailed down, the roadmap to champions of all flavors becomes a lot more clear.

These comments read, to me, like a statement that Paladins will remain LG-only in the PF2 Core (i.e., beyond the playtest). That's disappointing, as I would really prefer alternative alignment options to be addressed in the core of the class.

Adding other options "through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes" strikes me as unpromising—or rather, as a semi-promise that those alternatives will not be as well-built or as robustly supported as the traditional LG Paladin.

I enjoy the LG Paladin. The preview blog does have me excited to try one out in the Playtest. But Pathfinder is a game characterized by an overabundance of character options, and I would really like to have good options here beyond LG-only. I'd like to see non-LG divine martial champions built into the PF2 core. I hope the Paladin is expanded as a result of the playtest, but Jason's comments here don't make me very optimistic that that possibility is really on the table.

That is Jason's position, and as he's said, he's one of the key decision-makers on the playtest's direction for paladins (I...

Hey, you. I suspect, but I'm not certain, that a number of these concerns might be alleviated by:

A. Paizo committing to a Warpriest as one of the first classes to be released after Core.
B. Same, but knight or heavily armored cavalier.

Please let the community vote on A or B? What do you think?

Anyway, thanks again for doing this.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oddly enough, the folks that have been the most vociferous about LG paladin only or hill to die on have felt the least humble, and I would expect my Lawful Good paladin folk to have a significant dose of Humility and Wisdom.

Can we get that put into CORE, please?

'Just because they are representatives of the most holy forces in the multiverse, this should be a humbling and tempering experience, and one not to be lorded over their fellow PCs because they 'aren't good enough to cut it' ?

EDIT:

I suspect if that is added to the class, it will defuse a good third of the frustration with the alignment being in such a niche location.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
Serum wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

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 :)

Paladins are not and never have been warrior priests, thats the point, they are the divinely imbued fists of god, they aren't, nor should they be, full casters who go to the gym, they are fighters picked by a god to chasrise their enemies, and to say only LG gods can manage this is to declare all other deities stupid and weak.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:

There are several bakeries that deliver. I can get you the name of the one that I used to send treats to the tech team.

Hmm

Haha, yes please.

I used to help mod communities, some time ago. It isn't easy. The gifts would be primarily for folks like Sara Marie.

The other devs are great, but I really respect what she and others go through in the trenches.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Valdrad wrote:
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 find this abit odd considering they didn't even need a Deity to worship in PF 1e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Valdrad wrote:
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."


Mark Seifter wrote:
That is Jason's position, and as he's said, he's one of the key decision-makers on the playtest's direction for paladins (I don't know how much people are reading into who writes what blog, but I do want to be clear that while I did all the things with "I" statements in the blog, like go on a quest through the Paizo office for opinions and revamp the code, Jason did a huge part of the paladin design as well, particularly the basic structure of the Retributive Strike, lay on hands, and Righteous Ally). But we're going to ask for survey feedback from you guys during the playtest, and if another option is predominant, you can bet that we're going to use that when deciding how to handle it in the final game. Honestly I'm thinking/worried that it's going to be really close to even, in which case we wind up in a situation of displeasing lots of people. I'd imagine even then, there could be a decent way to navigate that situation if we use our creativity.

haha always a concern to have the hug pulled just at the last second :P.

But it is a play test and there is such a huge feedback for a change i guess it does make sense to go around making changes.

Ultimately if need be, i will deal with it to make sure my paladins always remain LG, the wonders of GMing, not as ideal as having the whole setting always represent them that way, but can also be done if it must.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
I still hold that nothing in the core book should be exclusive. That is one tradition that I'm glad we're moving away from.

After the disappointment from this preview, I'm not convinced that we are. Starfinder seemed to finally be a step in the right directions, ditching alignment tags on spells and allowing alignment to be truly optional. Neither of those things appear to be a priority for the playtest, and that stings on both counts.

I'm more than a little concerned that the other previously alignment locked classes are going to need to follow "tradition" as well. And as for future options, I'm sorry to say, unlocking the paladin class is one of the few areas that Paizo doesn't have a good track record with design options. The language in the blog doesn't help provide any indications on changes in that regard either.

Sorry, but I think this one was a notable mis-step. All due respect to the Paizo staff, particularly the moderators, because this thread has been nightmarish to follow. I'd only politely suggest that maybe language from Paizo staff could get a second look to avoid placating verbal head-pats. That hasn't seemed to be a total success here, as it has in other interactions.

Grand Lodge

It seems that paladins will still have the highest saving throw of all classes with great DPR...I'm just hoping that paladins' saving throw will not be 2 times more than a fighter.And I notice Divine Grace,the benefits this class feat provides equals 2 feats. So does this mean any class feat will equal 2 normal feats? Or is this certain class‘s privilege?Please don't be the latter one...We have seen how powerful the Rage Powers can be and how lame the Rogue Talents can be in the first edition.It will be a great tragedy to see this happens again in the new edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:

HWalsh, I'm glad to see someone who gets this issue so right for me. The paladin archetype actually has a long history with me, and is part of my formation as an adult. With that said:

HWalsh wrote:

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to play those characters in a comic book RPG... Why? They are part of the genre. No matter how idiotic I find most of them I wouldn't ever suggest a company not put that kind of character into a comic book rpg because it is part of the genre.

Pretty much it.

I can ban stuff at my table all the time. I more often than not ban Shamans at my table. Not because I hate them, but because it's very hard to put an entire Spirit World in my cosmology, so it usually gets the short end of the stick. This doesn't mean I want them to be expunged from the game. They should be there for people who like it. Just as the Paladin. Just as the Holy Liberator or whatever we call CG special warriors. Just as the Gunslinger...

It's all about options, right? So, don't take that option, that class, away from us. If someone hates them so much, just ban at their table. I have a hard time believing that a feat for armor supremacy is much to pay, and the Cleric already fills the role of a religious warrior . We don't need two classes for the same thing!

If anything, let's ask for the Cleric to have pretty warrior-like options to choose from ^^

why do people keep insisting clerics are religious warriors? They aren't, they are full casters they cast spells, they aren't the chosen and blessed warriors of a faith, they don't feel like it, they don't play like it, full caster who fights isn't tye concept, divinely empowered warrior is. To say all other gods apart from the LG ones are incapable of blessing their champions is to declare them, inferior, weak and not real gods.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

Okay, how is any of what we're asking for "stripping the Paladin of this core piece of identity"? We're asking for the thematic space of "divinely empowered warrior" to be fulfilled from Core on, for servants of other deities besides the LG ones. This is not something that threatens the Paladin. Paizo already has exactly this: the Warpriest. It fulfills precisely and exactly the thematic space we were asking it to since the ACG playtest years ago.

Now, what it didn't do was fulfill the mechanical space we asked it to (which in P1E was 4/9 spellcasting and full BAB), which is why it wasn't an acceptable substitute for the Paladin, but that's something that can be fixed now by as little as acknowledging that using the Paladin chassis for more than just its initial concept doesn't harm that concept and solves so much more.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I'm sorry... For *you* if you were me, that would be good enough. I'm not you though and that *isn't* good enough.

I'm telling you... I *feel* like, if the Paladin isn't LG as a setting rule, that the Paladin is lesser. It damages my enjoyment of the class to the point that *I will no longer enjoy the class* because part of it, to me, will feel gone.

You're focused on what you can personally do, and that is all you care about. I'm not I don't draw my enjoyment of the class from what I can personally do with it.

If you can play a CG FULL Paladin of Milani, then it doesn't matter that I can play a LG Paladin of Iomedae because the class isn't the same anymore. Something is different and it doesn't feel like a Paladin anymore. It is just a generic holy warrior at that point and that has little to no draw for me.

This is where things fall apart, I believe. There cannot be any compromise or middle ground with "if you change this in most any way, it loses all meaning and I'll leave forever."

I mean .. how do you have a discussion with that? You've already said there cannot be a middle ground and in effect told everyone else to pound sand and get over it.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

In another thread, you were calling me out for asking Paizo to ask for reasons for our positions regarding the Paladin in the upcoming survey and for my personal view that they should give less weight to reasons coming from a place of selfishness. You said I shouldn't be asking that anyone be discounted.

Okay.

HWalsh, you shouldn't be asking that players be discounted. And yes, when what you emphasize and hold above all else is the Paladin's exclusivity, discounting people is exactly what you're after. The very concept of the Paladin's specialness being reliant on its exclusivity is a fundamentally disrespectful stance (and that's before we get into how this is in the name of, of all things, what's supposed to be the quintessential good guy). You're telling people that they should be and need to be marginalized. You have to understand that.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

HWalsh, I'm glad to see someone who gets this issue so right for me. The paladin archetype actually has a long history with me, and is part of my formation as an adult. With that said:

HWalsh wrote:

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to play those characters in a comic book RPG... Why? They are part of the genre. No matter how idiotic I find most of them I wouldn't ever suggest a company not put that kind of character into a comic book rpg because it is part of the genre.

Pretty much it.

I can ban stuff at my table all the time. I more often than not ban Shamans at my table. Not because I hate them, but because it's very hard to put an entire Spirit World in my cosmology, so it usually gets the short end of the stick. This doesn't mean I want them to be expunged from the game. They should be there for people who like it. Just as the Paladin. Just as the Holy Liberator or whatever we call CG special warriors. Just as the Gunslinger...

It's all about options, right? So, don't take that option, that class, away from us. If someone hates them so much, just ban at their table. I have a hard time believing that a feat for armor supremacy is much to pay, and the Cleric already fills the role of a religious warrior . We don't need two classes for the same thing!

If anything, let's ask for the Cleric to have pretty warrior-like options to choose from ^^

why do people keep insisting clerics are religious warriors? They aren't, they are full casters they cast spells, they aren't the chosen and blessed warriors of a faith, they don't feel like it, they don't play like it, full caster who fights isn't tye concept, divinely empowered warrior is. To say all other gods apart from the LG ones are incapable of blessing their champions is to declare them, inferior, weak and not real gods.

Hey, there.

Some folks feel they are, just as others feel the paladin is a certain way or thing. This isn't good or bad, it just kinda is. You bring up some good points, but I can't discount others' either, you know?

We do need warpriest as a separate class if we're going to continue to respect both views--and take the opportunity to develop something truly unique. Otherwise, we're close to saying views like yours, and others', don't matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jack Yang 737 wrote:
It seems that paladins will still have the highest saving throw of all classes with great DPR...I'm just hoping that paladins' saving throw will not be 2 times more than a fighter.And I notice Divine Grace,the benefits this class feat provides equals 2 feats. So does this mean any class feat will equal 2 normal feats? Or is this certain class‘s privilege?Please don't be the latter one...We have seen how powerful the Rage Powers can be and how lame the Rogue Talents can be in the first edition.It will be a great tragedy to see this happens again in the new edition.

Divine Grace alone is worth that alignment baggage.

Look at the number of paladin dips on LG builds in PF1.

If we're shoehorned into this sole alignment, give us unabridged Divine Grace.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jack Yang 737 wrote:
It seems that paladins will still have the highest saving throw of all classes with great DPR...I'm just hoping that paladins' saving throw will not be 2 times more than a fighter.And I notice Divine Grace,the benefits this class feat provides equals 2 feats. So does this mean any class feat will equal 2 normal feats? Or is this certain class‘s privilege?Please don't be the latter one...We have seen how powerful the Rage Powers can be and how lame the Rogue Talents can be in the first edition.It will be a great tragedy to see this happens again in the new edition.

Divine Grace has been nerfed heavily in 2E. This blog barely talks about any of the mechanical aspects of the class and the ones it does talk about are weaker than they were in 1E, I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas.

For the record, Divine Grace needed to be nerfed because the 1E version would have been heinously broken in 2E math, but that doesn't change the fact that nothing in this blog indicates the Paladin will be particularly stronger than its peers.


MuddyVolcano wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Me want generic knight class for armour niche.

Psst, pass it on.

snip

But, warpriest is a good idea. So is cavalier.

Why not both?

because the powers that be decided on the garbage that is the alchemist.

and if I cant play an Edward elric type, then I don't wanta play an alchemist


master_marshmallow wrote:
Jack Yang 737 wrote:
It seems that paladins will still have the highest saving throw of all classes with great DPR...I'm just hoping that paladins' saving throw will not be 2 times more than a fighter.And I notice Divine Grace,the benefits this class feat provides equals 2 feats. So does this mean any class feat will equal 2 normal feats? Or is this certain class‘s privilege?Please don't be the latter one...We have seen how powerful the Rage Powers can be and how lame the Rogue Talents can be in the first edition.It will be a great tragedy to see this happens again in the new edition.

Divine Grace alone is worth that alignment baggage.

Look at the number of paladin dips on LG builds in PF1.

If we're shoehorned into this sole alignment, give us unabridged Divine Grace.

You know that PF1 Divine Grace on a 2E Paladin has a good chance of making them nearly immune to anything with a saving throw at later levels, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

This is where things fall apart, I believe. There cannot be any compromise or middle ground with "if you change this in most any way, it loses all meaning and I'll leave forever."

I mean .. how do you have a discussion with that? You've already said there cannot be a middle ground and in effect told everyone else to pound sand and get over it.

Well, first, lets be honest.

Saying, "If you change this in most any way..."

Isn't legitimate. They changed the code, I am fine with the changes they made. They changed the abilities, especially Divine Grace, and I am fine with that. So to say, "If you change this in most any way" because that isn't true.

Now, that having been said... There are things that can be done. I don't think that they can, or should, be done in the CRB though. I think the Paladin should remain special, completely special, and singularly unique in its way.

However, there are other options.

A splat book, for example, with a special holy warrior (non-Paladin) with its own mechanics, for each Deity.

This is a win-win... It gives you a holy warrior, and it gives you ones of various alignments, and it doesn't infringe on the Paladin.

We have seen Paizo do this already... They did it in the BEST of the Prestige Class books... I am referring to Paths of the Righteous which had such great special Prestige Classes as the Ashavic Dancer and my personal favorite the Devoted Muse.

I think, instead of opening the Paladin, going that route in a splat book would be the best win-win. You get your special unique Holy Warrior, and the Paladin gets to be what it is, and everyone can go home happy.

901 to 950 of 1,735 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards