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
1,151 to 1,200 of 1,735 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Among the removed posts was a tangent about the word 'fluff'. Because the initial posts quote removed posts all of them had to be removed. For those of you interested in what that was about you can read the link that was posted here. If you'd like to discuss it further please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
What I find weird with you arguments is that the comments of the devs (most notably Mark) make me believe that they are actually future proofing them to make it easier to create the alternatives later.

I was going on the last post of Jason's where he says:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Many of the abilities, the features depend on a lot more than those simple tags. In some cases, entire structural components no longer work and would need to be entirely replaced.

IMO, this is saying the class is SO set in it's abilities that it's too burdensome to even try at all for different alignments. That doesn't sound like future proofing or modular to make the class have abilities so ingrained with LG that it sounds like you have to build a whole new class for different alignments.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A Paladin wouldn't carry any more authority than a Cleric of the same deity (or hell, in the type of society where Paladins would be venerated as such a Lawful Good Investigator would be just as praised unless you're talking specifically of a theocracy which... has its own problems). Meanwhile a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel could even be considered untrustworthy in communities that follow more temperate gods like Shelyn.
Did you really read what I wrote? It sounds by like what you just said, that you did not.

Your post amounted to:

1) "Real" societies value Paladins

2) The only way you can criticize Lawful Good is by misinterpreting it and talking about something that isn't "actually" Lawful Good

Both of which are ridiculous assertions.

You are making a lot of assumptions and certainly twisting my words there you know.

1) I never said "real" societies. I said a Paladin of the Primary Deity of a City or Country would likely be considered having authority in that city or country. That isn't ridiculous and it isn't even close to what you say I said.

2) That isn't really what I said either. The assertion that Lawful Good isn't the most good is just a way to justify why you think Paladins should be able to be NG or CG or whatever. But Paladins have never been about being the "most good". The lawful aspect is about following a strict code as well. And yeah, sometimes the code might make it hard to to the "most good" thing. But following codes was never supposed to be easy.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:
What I find weird with you arguments is that the comments of the devs (most notably Mark) make me believe that they are actually future proofing them to make it easier to create the alternatives later.

I was going on the last post of Jason's where he says:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Many of the abilities, the features depend on a lot more than those simple tags. In some cases, entire structural components no longer work and would need to be entirely replaced.
IMO, this is saying the class is SO set in it's abilities that it's too burdensome to even try at all for different alignments. That doesn't sound like future proofing or modular to make the class have abilities so ingrained with LG that it sounds like you have to build a whole new class for different alignments.

Whereas I read it, as exactly what Jason said in a previous post, is that they didn't have the time nor the space to do this in the Playtest, but that they haven't ruled it out for the Core book in August of 2019.

I also am assuming that their mindset is that Champions of other Alignments or non-LG Deities will essentially be a completely different suite of abilities, so that they can make it truly differentiated from one another. In other words, I believe that Jason has implied very strongly, that they have no intention of just making cosmetic changes to the Paladin so you can choose a different alignment and worship evil or chaotic deities.

But that they want to get the chassis right now, so that when they do make their significant modifications for other champion type classes, that they will have a robust chassis to do so.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A Paladin wouldn't carry any more authority than a Cleric of the same deity (or hell, in the type of society where Paladins would be venerated as such a Lawful Good Investigator would be just as praised unless you're talking specifically of a theocracy which... has its own problems). Meanwhile a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel could even be considered untrustworthy in communities that follow more temperate gods like Shelyn.
Did you really read what I wrote? It sounds by like what you just said, that you did not.

Your post amounted to:

1) "Real" societies value Paladins

2) The only way you can criticize Lawful Good is by misinterpreting it and talking about something that isn't "actually" Lawful Good

Both of which are ridiculous assertions.

You are making a lot of assumptions and certainly twisting my words there you know.

1) I never said "real" societies. I said a Paladin of the Primary Deity of a City or Country would likely be considered having authority in that city or country. That isn't ridiculous and it isn't even close to what you say I said.

2) That isn't really what I said either. The assertion that Lawful Good isn't the most good is just a way to justify why you think Paladins should be able to be NG or CG or whatever. But Paladins have never been about being the "most good". The lawful aspect is about following a strict code as well. And yeah, sometimes the code might make it hard to to the "most good" thing. But following codes was never supposed to be easy.

Except it comes across as LG is best good because the only alignment that gets a super powered holy warrior smite machine, all the other deities...somehow cannot imbue that gift.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A Paladin wouldn't carry any more authority than a Cleric of the same deity (or hell, in the type of society where Paladins would be venerated as such a Lawful Good Investigator would be just as praised unless you're talking specifically of a theocracy which... has its own problems). Meanwhile a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel could even be considered untrustworthy in communities that follow more temperate gods like Shelyn.
Did you really read what I wrote? It sounds by like what you just said, that you did not.

Your post amounted to:

1) "Real" societies value Paladins

2) The only way you can criticize Lawful Good is by misinterpreting it and talking about something that isn't "actually" Lawful Good

Both of which are ridiculous assertions.

You are making a lot of assumptions and certainly twisting my words there you know.

1) I never said "real" societies. I said a Paladin of the Primary Deity of a City or Country would likely be considered having authority in that city or country. That isn't ridiculous and it isn't even close to what you say I said.

2) That isn't really what I said either. The assertion that Lawful Good isn't the most good is just a way to justify why you think Paladins should be able to be NG or CG or whatever. But Paladins have never been about being the "most good". The lawful aspect is about following a strict code as well. And yeah, sometimes the code might make it hard to to the "most good" thing. But following codes was never supposed to be easy.

You said civilized societies, which is an extremely loaded term that denigrates any other culture that doesn't fit the definition. Maybe it isn't what you meant, but it's what you said.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A Paladin wouldn't carry any more authority than a Cleric of the same deity (or hell, in the type of society where Paladins would be venerated as such a Lawful Good Investigator would be just as praised unless you're talking specifically of a theocracy which... has its own problems). Meanwhile a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel could even be considered untrustworthy in communities that follow more temperate gods like Shelyn.
Did you really read what I wrote? It sounds by like what you just said, that you did not.

Your post amounted to:

1) "Real" societies value Paladins

2) The only way you can criticize Lawful Good is by misinterpreting it and talking about something that isn't "actually" Lawful Good

Both of which are ridiculous assertions.

You are making a lot of assumptions and certainly twisting my words there you know.

1) I never said "real" societies. I said a Paladin of the Primary Deity of a City or Country would likely be considered having authority in that city or country. That isn't ridiculous and it isn't even close to what you say I said.

2) That isn't really what I said either. The assertion that Lawful Good isn't the most good is just a way to justify why you think Paladins should be able to be NG or CG or whatever. But Paladins have never been about being the "most good". The lawful aspect is about following a strict code as well. And yeah, sometimes the code might make it hard to to the "most good" thing. But following codes was never supposed to be easy.

Except it comes across as LG is best good because the only alignment that gets a super powered holy warrior smite machine, all the other deities...somehow cannot imbue that gift.

Not really. I love the idea of a "champion" of other alignments and codes. But I remember when The Forgotten Realms had their "champions". The various champions like Elminster, Cadderly, that Drow who fell in love with the Berserker who was a champion of both Lolth and a Good deity, etc. all had very distinct, discrete, and significantly different abilities based on them being a Champion of their deity. I loved that granularity. It gave me a template, as a GM, to create my own champions of other deities.

So why does a CG Champion have to have Smite Evil or Smite Law? Why couldn't they have an ability like liberating command instead of smite?

What does being a champion of evil or chaos or whatever actually mean? I think it would be quite boring, as Jason seemed to imply, to create 4 to 9 different types of "Champion" that were essentially the same just with different tags, don't you?

And they've indicated they didn't have time to do justice to 4 to 9 different Champion classes, so for now, for the playtest, they want to get 1 of them as best they can before they start working on the other ones. And why choose the LG over any of the others? Tradition.

Scarab Sages

Arachnofiend wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A Paladin wouldn't carry any more authority than a Cleric of the same deity (or hell, in the type of society where Paladins would be venerated as such a Lawful Good Investigator would be just as praised unless you're talking specifically of a theocracy which... has its own problems). Meanwhile a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel could even be considered untrustworthy in communities that follow more temperate gods like Shelyn.
Did you really read what I wrote? It sounds by like what you just said, that you did not.

Your post amounted to:

1) "Real" societies value Paladins

2) The only way you can criticize Lawful Good is by misinterpreting it and talking about something that isn't "actually" Lawful Good

Both of which are ridiculous assertions.

You are making a lot of assumptions and certainly twisting my words there you know.

1) I never said "real" societies. I said a Paladin of the Primary Deity of a City or Country would likely be considered having authority in that city or country. That isn't ridiculous and it isn't even close to what you say I said.

2) That isn't really what I said either. The assertion that Lawful Good isn't the most good is just a way to justify why you think Paladins should be able to be NG or CG or whatever. But Paladins have never been about being the "most good". The lawful aspect is about following a strict code as well. And yeah, sometimes the code might make it hard to to the "most good" thing. But following codes was never supposed to be easy.

You said civilized societies, which is an extremely loaded term that denigrates any other culture that doesn't fit the definition. Maybe it isn't what you meant, but it's what you said.

Well, what I meant by civilized was to differentiate that society from the lawless wilds. Certainly barbaric tribes often had a very robust honor and legal system. In some cases, one could argue they were more civilized than some of the conquering societies that considered them barbaric.

But my intent was to differentiate between a City and the Wilderness.

EDIT: These barbaric tribes could even have a Paladin in their society too, and likely that Paladin, being the champion of their tribal deity, would carry significant moral and legal authority in that tribe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Whereas I read it, as exactly what Jason said in a previous post, is that they didn't have the time nor the space to do this in the Playtest, but that they haven't ruled it out for the Core book in August of 2019.

That was about how hard it was to remove entrenched abilities: it had nothing to do about time. Time was why they focused on LG, not why it was so hard to remove it.

Tallow wrote:
I also am assuming that their mindset is that Champions of other Alignments or non-LG Deities will essentially be a completely different suite of abilities, so that they can make it truly differentiated from one another.

I would think that would be the perfect thing for modular abilities. What about a "different suite of abilities" requires a different class write up?

Tallow wrote:
In other words, I believe that Jason has implied very strongly, that they have no intention of just making cosmetic changes to the Paladin so you can choose a different alignment and worship evil or chaotic deities.

This just seems like making much more work for themselves: why bake in abilities that are incompatible to other alignment if you're open to other alignment? Even if you want radically different abilities, why not make them easily swappable?

Tallow wrote:
But that they want to get the chassis right now, so that when they do make their significant modifications for other champion type classes, that they will have a robust chassis to do so.

I want that too. I just don't see now having baked in LG elements is testing the chassis that would apply to other alignments. If you have to make "significant modifications" for other versions, they aren't getting tested at all: if the playtest can truly test the chassis then the changes for other alignments can't be too earthshaking for the results of the playtest to be meaningful: EI: if you have to swap out everything, it's not much of a chassis is it?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A Paladin wouldn't carry any more authority than a Cleric of the same deity (or hell, in the type of society where Paladins would be venerated as such a Lawful Good Investigator would be just as praised unless you're talking specifically of a theocracy which... has its own problems). Meanwhile a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel could even be considered untrustworthy in communities that follow more temperate gods like Shelyn.
Did you really read what I wrote? It sounds by like what you just said, that you did not.

Your post amounted to:

1) "Real" societies value Paladins

2) The only way you can criticize Lawful Good is by misinterpreting it and talking about something that isn't "actually" Lawful Good

Both of which are ridiculous assertions.

You are making a lot of assumptions and certainly twisting my words there you know.

1) I never said "real" societies. I said a Paladin of the Primary Deity of a City or Country would likely be considered having authority in that city or country. That isn't ridiculous and it isn't even close to what you say I said.

2) That isn't really what I said either. The assertion that Lawful Good isn't the most good is just a way to justify why you think Paladins should be able to be NG or CG or whatever. But Paladins have never been about being the "most good". The lawful aspect is about following a strict code as well. And yeah, sometimes the code might make it hard to to the "most good" thing. But following codes was never supposed to be easy.

Except it comes across as LG is best good because the only alignment that gets a super powered holy warrior smite machine, all the other deities...somehow cannot imbue that gift.
Not really. I love the idea of a "champion" of other alignments and codes. But I remember when The Forgotten Realms had their "champions". The various champions like Elminster, Cadderly, that Drow...

Simply because it is very easy to make smite matter and very hard to make a 'liberating command' matter. Smiting the heretic and enemy of the faith is also THE iconic of holy warriors, doesn't matter on system or setting, smiting the unclean (or w/e) is in that image.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Whereas I read it, as exactly what Jason said in a previous post, is that they didn't have the time nor the space to do this in the Playtest, but that they haven't ruled it out for the Core book in August of 2019.

That was about how hard it was to remove entrenched abilities: it had nothing to do about time. Time was why they focused on LG, not why it was so hard to remove it.

Tallow wrote:
I also am assuming that their mindset is that Champions of other Alignments or non-LG Deities will essentially be a completely different suite of abilities, so that they can make it truly differentiated from one another.

I would think that would be the perfect thing for modular abilities. What about a "different suite of abilities" requires a different class write up?

Tallow wrote:
In other words, I believe that Jason has implied very strongly, that they have no intention of just making cosmetic changes to the Paladin so you can choose a different alignment and worship evil or chaotic deities.

This just seems like making much more work for themselves: why bake in abilities that are incompatible to other alignment is you're open to other alignment? Even is you want radically different abilities, why not make them easily swappable?

Tallow wrote:
But that they want to get the chassis right now, so that when they do make their significant modifications for other champion type classes, that they will have a robust chassis to do so.
I want that too. I just don't see now having baked in LG elements is testing the chassis that would apply to other alignments. If you have to make "significant modifications" for other versions, they aren't getting tested at all: if the playtest can truly test the chassis then the changes for other alignments can't be too earthshaking for the results of the playtest to be meaningful: EI: if you have to swap out everything, it's not much of a chassis is it?

I get that you don't understand it. But that's the decision they made based on their prodigious experience in game design and development. I am choosing to trust that they know what they are doing on this, and that for the Playtest, we will have to just have a LG Paladin, and that later on, we will probably get the others.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

To be perfectly honest, I'm going to have a hard time taking the "we may sometime in the future maybe might consider alternative alignment paladins maybe" comments seriously until either A) we see exactly what they give us with that or B) someone on the development team comes out and says the Gray Paladin was a mistake they don't intend to repeat. I think Paizo does a lot of good in a lot of areas, but in this particular area they have earned zero good will.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I'm going to have a hard time taking the "we may sometime in the future maybe might consider alternative alignment paladins maybe" comments seriously until either A) we see exactly what they give us with that or B) someone on the development team comes out and says the Gray Paladin was a mistake they don't intend to repeat. I think Paizo does a lot of good in a lot of areas, but in this particular area they have earned zero good will.

That's fine. But be aware you are unlikely get get such a declaration until at least August of 2019 when they put out the Core Book (which might actually contain such Champions). So it might be more useful to put aside the distaste for the next 15 months or so, playtest the LG Paladin that's being published in the Playtest document, and see what happens. Of course giving your commentary on any surveys or during the open commentary period could be productive as you suggest ways to create these Champions based on the LG chassis from the Playtest.

But, I personally feel I would exhibit a sense of entitlement if I expected the developers or designers to essentially give me a personal verification of something when frankly they probably are spending so much time developing everything else in the Playtest book and the LG Paladin within, that they don't really know themselves when or what form those alternate champions will have. I have to be ok with that, because otherwise I'm spitting into the wind.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
we will probably get the others

Maybe? And in what form? and when?

For me, modular insures that they will come out quicker, the framework will stay the same and resources can be shared for the non-aligned stuff. The other way, we might get totally different classes without shared resources years from core. For me, the second way isn't at all satisfying.

Tallow wrote:
that's the decision they made based on their prodigious experience in game design and development

Well... They made the Gray Paladin too and I don't think ANYONE was pleases with that. :P I can both think they are good at their job and making what I think is a mistake [it just seems like they are making more work for themselves if they are thinking of other aligned paladins].

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
Tallow wrote:
we will probably get the others

Maybe? And in what form? and when?

For me, modular insures that they will come out quicker, the framework will stay the same and resources can be shared for the non-aligned stuff. The other way, we might get totally different classes without shared resources years from core. For me, the second way isn't at all satisfying.

Tallow wrote:
that's the decision they made based on their prodigious experience in game design and development
Well... They made the Gray Paladin too and I don't think ANYONE was pleases with that. :P I can both think they are good at their job and making what I think is a mistake [it just seems like they are making more work for themselves if they are thinking of other aligned paladins].

We don't know that the current LG Paladin won't be modular in format and that they just decided creating the other 4 to 8 modules were outside the scope they felt they had time for with the Playtest. As Jason or Mark (I forget) said, dividing their attention between 4 to 9 different ideas means that they might not make that initial chassis as good as it can be. They want to start with a narrow focus, make it the best it can be, and then later expand on it.

Another thing to consider is how useful the playtest will be. Even in modular format, that is essentially 4 to 8 more modular suites of abilities that have to be playtested. And if they are going to make each suite of modular abilities as robust as the LG Paladin, how useful will playtest data be on the Chassis in general if the playtest energy is divided between all those options?

Modular doesn't mean they can just pump out 4 to 9 different suites of abilities willy nilly and have them all be as awesome and robust as just 1, for now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad Paizo is putting attention towards unique Paladin class, and think if alt-Alignment "Champions" are to be done, they deserve the same equally unique treatment which can't fit into playtest/Core Rules since that is 3 more classes which even if 1/2 of them are not unique that is 1.5 more classes (probably with unique spell lists etc). I don't want to see the Core Rules watered down, either existing classes or remainder of rules material, to simply "check the boxes" of other alignments. I do think the concepts are worth developing in future, with same degree of uniqueness the LG-only Paladin has. (I think even P1E Anti-Paladin suffered from, being too much of simple archetype, rather than ground-up unique design, IMHO certainly LG/CE should be EXTREMELY different and not just in 'same but opposite' way, although 'adjacent corners' LG/CG or LG/LE could plausibly have more in common)

About the Deity thing, I would like more clarity on that... Namely, previously in P1E a Paladin did not directly recieve powers from Deity by default. Now, I LOVE the idee that if they choose to worship a Deity to recieve their powers, there will be differences in Code and likely unique Paladin powers to reflect each Deity. But I'm not convinced that allowing that requires to close the other door, a Paladin who doesn't receive powers from a Deity but simply from their devotion to "cosmic Lawful Goodness". Perhaps that angle could be fleshed out a bit more fluff-wise, positing that this isn't just anybody's devotion but a unique soul's special connection... perhaps a reincarnated soul being tested somehow? I would compare it to Angels/Archons etc who 'cast as Clerics' despite not necessarily deriving that from a Deity (they can serve Deities, and it would make sense to be able to derive powers from that Deity if they do, but they don't all do that and don't lose casting). The Deity-less angle (or simply not-Deity-derived, since worship in same way as Fighter shouldn't interfere with independent divine abilities) could potentially be cast as a path of becoming Angel-like Outsider, a champion soul redeeming itself etc. The Angelic/etc Paladin was popular Archetype in P1E AFAIK, so that seems reasonable to retain somehow. Of course, if you don't have deity you won't be able to get Deity specific powers. I don't think people who want 'independent' LG Paladin worry about that, because they weren't clamoring for Deity powers in the first place.

Relatedly: What of Ranger casting? Will they have Deity requirement, or be closer tied to Druidic Faith? Should they have Neutral alignment requirement and Druidic secret language if that is case? I could see casting being optional "path" so if you don't want it, there is other cool things, but if you do want it Neutral alignment (and Druid armor limit?) apply if you want to retain your casting and related abilities. The Druidic path could branch out in other ways beyond just casting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Not, I don't think they can't do it. I think that it wasn't a priority to 'get it right' as it was in a non-core book. That and the general thing they to do is replace every ability and make it worse or different in those attempts. A modular framework ensures the basics stay the same [something not seen in the previous attempts] while allowing the option to spread out into the alignment abilities with options.

So I'm not saying they are incapable of making variant aligned paladins, just that there is a good chance #1 they will not see the playtesting we're seeing here, #2 they will have less rigorous oversight and #3 will not get the support the base class will get.

OK, that I can understand. Alternative paladins weren't a priority in PF1, and they aren't enough of a priority in PF2 to make the playtest. That's fact. You have a right to dislike it and to want it changed.

So what you're trying to do is to influence Paizo's priorities so that the playtest resources (which are limited, by nature) are used to cover these non-traditional paladins. Hey, a lot of people have been trying to do similar things on this forum, asking for more / different classes and races in Core, proposing concepts, and so forth. It's a natural urge, and it contributes to the community.

On my side, I have nothing against the idea, except that it should not take precedence, in my opinion, over anything that's already in the playtest: A revision of all legacy classes + a new one, a revision of all legacy races + a new one, new mechanisms that try to make the game more scalable to higher levels, easier to learn for newcomers, better balanced between martials and casters, and I might have forgotten a couple of design goals here. The cut has to come at some point, and I understand why Jason decided the way he did.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Tallow wrote:
we will probably get the others

Maybe? And in what form? and when?

For me, modular insures that they will come out quicker, the framework will stay the same and resources can be shared for the non-aligned stuff. The other way, we might get totally different classes without shared resources years from core. For me, the second way isn't at all satisfying.

Tallow wrote:
that's the decision they made based on their prodigious experience in game design and development
Well... They made the Gray Paladin too and I don't think ANYONE was pleases with that. :P I can both think they are good at their job and making what I think is a mistake [it just seems like they are making more work for themselves if they are thinking of other aligned paladins].

They are making more work for themselves, and from what Mark said, they know it and believe it's the best way. IMHO, I would prefer a set of different very similar classes that each champion an alignment (could be only the extremes, could be all) than an "open" Paladin. I tried the 5e Paladin, and there was something missing. All the different Oaths still felt samey, and the alignment felt useless (and really, my Paladin ended up feeling more like an Investigator, surprisingly).

My first character ever (Elfteiroh, eh) was a CG ranger, and if one day they make a CG champion, I have the feeling I could remake that one in that class, but I would want that class to feel different from the LG Paladin, same with the LE and CE ones. Because a paragon of CG should feel different. Not only because LG is special, but because CG is also special. I still want alignment to mean something for the Paladin. And a generic chassis that change based on alignment could work, but it would be lot of work. in game design, you start with one part, and you add more after some playtest when the first ones are balanced. That seems like what they wanna do. They maybe already have some work done, pending favorable playtest. If the LG paladin needs fixing, these might need some changes too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wanted to thank Paizo for the hard work they've done with the Paladin.

I'm a fan of the alignment staying as a lawful good requirement and seriously good work on the adjustments with the code. If players want to annoy a GM with a paladin or GM wants to make a player suffer for being a paladin, it's gonna happen but at least prioritizing loosens the noose a bit.

Having said that and as much as i like paladins, image as a whole, i still believe it is a niche class and i think that if you're only going to give one "armor master" class in the core book, it shouldn't be a niche class. I think you would be better served replacing the alchemist with the cavalier.

Just my thoughts and thanks again.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
They made the Gray Paladin too and I don't think ANYONE was pleases with that. :P

There are some outspoken defenders of LG paladins that have said they were very happy with the Gray Paladin. It served as evidence that LG was the only alignment capable of true paladins and any deviation or other ideology was explicitly inferior. Unsurprisingly, people who favor other Good ideologies weren't pleased.


graystone wrote:
Tallow wrote:
we will probably get the others

Maybe? And in what form? and when?

For me, modular insures that they will come out quicker, the framework will stay the same and resources can be shared for the non-aligned stuff. The other way, we might get totally different classes without shared resources years from core. For me, the second way isn't at all satisfying.

Tallow wrote:
that's the decision they made based on their prodigious experience in game design and development
Well... They made the Gray Paladin too and I don't think ANYONE was pleases with that. :P I can both think they are good at their job and making what I think is a mistake [it just seems like they are making more work for themselves if they are thinking of other aligned paladins].

Eh. I wouldn't say that I was happy with grey paladins but I think they are certainly playable given that they let you smite stuff that isn't evil under the right circumstances. I had an idea for a grey paladin that used the adept champion feat along with grappling to wrestle down ne'er-do-wells that did not necessarily deserve death. The world has a lot of ne'er-do-wells and sometimes they don't deserve death and sometimes they do deserve a good wrasslin'.

Also, grey paladin's are certainly playable even if they are overall mechanically inferior to the baseline Paladin. I would perhaps argue that the looser paladin code gives enough of an RP bonus that their decreased mechanical efficacy works out okay.


Not accepting differences of priority just doesn't seem productive for anybody. Motorcyclists don't beg truck makers to build their favorite motorcycle. If Paizo gives their rationale or priorities, I try to work WITHIN that to give constructive criticism, not change Paizo's priorities, or if I am going to advocate for tweaked priorities I make my case and leave it at that, there just isn't need for argument spam like seen here. It's really obvious confident effective people don't behave like this, which is why this feels like children guilting their parents to giving exactly what they want or else threaten to announce they don't believe in Santa Claus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
We don't know that the current LG Paladin won't be modular in format

The part I quoted from Jason suggests not: IE the part where is would be too onerous to change the engrained LG parts to allow for other alignments.

Tallow wrote:
Modular doesn't mean they can just pump out 4 to 9 different suites of abilities willy nilly and have them all be as awesome and robust as just 1, for now.

The thing is, I'm not asking them to. What I'd like is for the class we playtest to be the same chassis we would see for the other alignments when they are made. SO I'm not arguing about LG is the only alignment we'll see in the playtest but that if/when we see paladins of other alignments, it isn't going to much look like what we playtested.

gwynfrid wrote:
So what you're trying to do is to influence Paizo's priorities so that the playtest resources (which are limited, by nature) are used to cover these non-traditional paladins.

No, I'm not. I'm taking them on their word that they are open to exploring paladins of other alignments so I'm questioning why then would them make the paladin so entrenched in LG that it would be difficult to change features. If it requires a full rewrite of the class to change alignments, then this playtest isn't going to inform much on those classes.

Pandora's wrote:
There are some outspoken defenders of LG paladins that have said they were very happy with the Gray Paladin.

I meant like it in the sense that they were excited to play one.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Eh. I wouldn't say that I was happy with grey paladins but I think they are certainly playable given that they let you smite stuff that isn't evil under the right circumstances.

Experts and commoners are playable too... In light of vindictive bastard, Gray Paladin just seems like a slap in the face IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Not accepting differences of priority just doesn't seem productive for anybody. Motorcyclists don't beg truck makers to build their favorite motorcycle. If Paizo gives their rationale or priorities, I try to work WITHIN that to give constructive criticism, not change Paizo's priorities, or if I am going to advocate for tweaked priorities I make my case and leave it at that, there just isn't need for argument spam like seen here. It's really obvious confident effective people don't behave like this, which is why this feels like children guilting their parents to giving exactly what they want or else threaten to announce they don't believe in Santa Claus.

This kind of rhetoric (bolded for convenience) is maybe not the best thing for the tone of this thread either. It comes off like you are shaming and belittling people when they are already in a position where they have to defend their desires and opinions.

However, I do agree that people would be well served to understand their particular desires for the game are not always going to be shared by everyone, including the designers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
So what you're trying to do is to influence Paizo's priorities so that the playtest resources (which are limited, by nature) are used to cover these non-traditional paladins.
No, I'm not. I'm taking them on their word that they are open to exploring paladins of other alignments so I'm questioning why then would them make the paladin so entrenched in LG that it would be difficult to change features. If it requires a full rewrite of the class to change alignments, then this playtest isn't going to inform much on those classes.

One possibility is that they need to give the Paladin Lawful abilities so that the CG Paladin has stuff to trade out. The 1E Paladin's only mechanical tie to being lawful was the ability to make her sword axiomatic and cast a couple [Lawful] spells; mechanically it was incredibly easy to tweak it to work for any good alignment. If they want the LG Paladin and the CG Paladin to feel different then they need to make the L matter more than it ever has so that the C can matter later on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Proposed Paladin Code wrote:
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.

Is this portion really required? You already have do not perform evil deeds (intentionally harming an innocent would be evil).

A sign that your tenant is flawed is that it need qualifiers to explain, and that section has a lot of qualifiers. It is also probably the biggest source of the 'would this make my paladin fall' debates.

A good tenant can be summed up with approximately 3 words.

Do no harm.
Always tell the truth.
Do not murder.
Eat no meat.
Never touch blood.
Greet the sun in song every morning. (as an example of a long one)


Always nice to see one can stay an entire day out of this thread and see it didnt move an inch from when they left it. Just the same back and foward.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Alright everybody,

It's late (for some of us) and the sniping and accusations are wearing a bit thin.

The paladin, as it is currently designed, is a class the leans heavily on its thematic concept, with abilities that exemplify that idea. I am genuinely interested exploring this concept for classes with a different focus. The problem is that it is not as simple as just swapping out the word "good" for the word "evil" or "neutral". Many of the abilities, the features depend on a lot more than those simple tags. In some cases, entire structural components no longer work and would need to be entirely replaced.

I tried this before.. in the APG, and I had to scrap it then because it was not leading to satisfactory results. To create a truly evil unholy warrior, he has to be more than just the opposite of good. Worse still was the slices that were neutral. Its hard to be opposed when you are in the middle of the spectrum. They require a different structure, different choices, and ultimately have different goals in the play space.

So.. where does that leave us?

We built the Paladin to be the best holy warrior we could make. This does not preclude us doing other champions, but they will likely need more than just a few swapped out feats. To do anything less would be a disservice to what could be a great part of the game. We dont want that, and despite all the differences in this thread, I dont think any of you do either.

I know that many of you want it now. You want it to be part of the core. I have to debate with people in the office every day about putting more content out, faster. My job, is to make sure we take the time to do things right. Especially here.. especially with a class like the Paladin.

Take it a little easy everybody.. I've seen enough flagged posts for one thread. Be good to each other.

Jason, i again thank you for standing up with this. It is a relevant matter for many of us. Know that you dont stand alone in believing in this view of the paladin.

It will be great to see what the paladin can do and how you made him even more flavourful than he already is in his very unique position.

Another class can always come to fill the wholes that are missing, but one might not be able to fix the paladin if the class is open to be what it was anymore.


graystone wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Eh. I wouldn't say that I was happy with grey paladins but I think they are certainly playable given that they let you smite stuff that isn't evil under the right circumstances.
Experts and commoners are playable too... In light of vindictive bastard, Gray Paladin just seems like a slap in the face IMO.

Sir or madame, you exaggerate. You know quite well that the grey Paladin will likely outperform experts and commoners and--I would say--even some other base classes. The ability to smite anyone so long as it is justifiable is really nifty even if it is at the cost.

That said, Vindictive Bastard seems pretty fun and good (and I was not aware of it). Why not just play that archetype and abandon the GP if you don't think it is mechanically sound enough? I don't get the slap in the face comment.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

We had someone play a Grey Paladin/Pain Taster in our Broken Chains run, actually. Hilariously, there were a whole slew of moments where it got away with stuff a regular Paladin would not have, and the archetype was likely a net gain for that specific module.

It's still a hamstrung archetype, though. They really should have had more atypical features to offset the reduced divinity - way more skills points, for one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I meant like it in the sense that they were excited to play one.

I understood completely. I'm just drawing attention to the fact some people have explicitly stated that the unattractive nature of the archetype is a feature. I personally am of the opinion that good design emphasizes meaningful options with parity rather than intentionally weak options that imply what playstyles should be preferred.

Edit: Note that I am not accusing Paizo of intentionally designing weak options that way. I am pointing out that some people have said that Paizo should design that way to disincentivize playstyles they don't prefer. I feel that isn't a productive direction for Pathfinder's design and I would be very disappointed if ever such an intent ever did find its way into Paizo's work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
One possibility is that they need to give the Paladin Lawful abilities so that the CG Paladin has stuff to trade out. The 1E Paladin's only mechanical tie to being lawful was the ability to make her sword axiomatic and cast a couple [Lawful] spells; mechanically it was incredibly easy to tweak it to work for any good alignment. If they want the LG Paladin and the CG Paladin to feel different then they need to make the L matter more than it ever has so that the C can matter later on.

Maybe? I think code would be the major factor along with some 'liberation' type abilities. If that's the case though, it could have been worded better: it sounds like this ability is hard to remove vs we haven't had enough time to make the other options.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Sir or madame, you exaggerate. You know quite well that the grey Paladin will likely outperform experts and commoners and--I would say--even some other base classes. The ability to smite anyone so long as it is justifiable is really nifty even if it is at the cost.

That's moving the goalpost: the standard was playable and I've played both a commoner and an expert. Is a gray paladin better? I guess? On smite, it STILL has to be an "opponent to the cause of good" AND it take 2 uses... Vindictive bastard just has to wait until is damages any ally and it can truly smite anyone: and it's one charge.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
That said, Vindictive Bastard seems pretty fun and good (and I was not aware of it). Why not just play that archetype and abandon the GP if you don't think it is mechanically sound enough? I don't get the slap in the face comment.

#1 while vindictive bastard isn't bad, it's not a 'holy warrior' so it fills a different niche for me. It's not what I want to play is I want a fighty guy that's chosen by a god and isn't LG.

#2 it's a slap in the face with HOW bad the grey paladin vs vindictive bastard AND vindictive bastard has NO code/alignment requirement. It's mind blowingly bad by comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So both parties are getting what they want.... Just the Other Alignments party needs to wait for our day to come, wonderful x.x


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:
So both parties are getting what they want.... Just the Other Alignments party needs to wait for our day to come, wonderful x.x

Paizo is very specifically not promising anything. All they've said is that they're considering the possibility of alternatives for other alignments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Sir or madame, you exaggerate. You know quite well that the grey Paladin will likely outperform experts and commoners and--I would say--even some other base classes. The ability to smite anyone so long as it is justifiable is really nifty even if it is at the cost.

That's moving the goalpost: the standard was playable and I've played both a commoner and an expert. Is a gray paladin better? I guess? On smite, it STILL has to be an "opponent to the cause of good" AND it take 2 uses... Vindictive bastard just has to wait until is damages any ally and it can truly smite anyone: and it's one charge.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
That said, Vindictive Bastard seems pretty fun and good (and I was not aware of it). Why not just play that archetype and abandon the GP if you don't think it is mechanically sound enough? I don't get the slap in the face comment.

#1 while vindictive bastard isn't bad, it's not a 'holy warrior' so it fills a different niche for me. It's not what I want to play is I want a fighty guy that's chosen by a god and isn't LG.

#2 it's a slap in the face with HOW bad the grey paladin vs vindictive bastard AND vindictive bastard has NO code/alignment requirement. It's mind blowingly bad by comparison.

I do not feel that I was moving the goalpost. I am merely stating that the Gray Paladin is a solid class (on a grading curve of PF martial characters) even if it is generally mechanically weaker than the standard Paladin. I would argue that the Gray Paladin should be mechanically weaker balance-wise given that Gray Paladins are also under less restrictive moral codes. Maybe they did go too far though? In that light, I would tend to see the Vindictive Bastard and its surprising mechanical prowess as Paizo's overcorrection to the underwhelming GP rather than proof that Paizo thinks your desire for LN or NG Paladins is beneath their concern.


6 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.

I'm really excited to make a CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean in Pathfinder 2. The concept appeals to me and I am going to play it. It may be against the rules, but Cayden Cailean has never been big on the rules anyway. I'm sorry if that will ruin your fun, but I imagine you will find a way to enjoy playing a Paladin anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh we're still on about alignment.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Do I really need to repeat myself? These are your opinions, ones not everyone agrees with.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
One of the most basic things they already said was taken into consideration when making the core book was literally that they intend this time to focus even the core line to be golarion infused.

And many disagreed with that position, leading Erik Mona to post an assurance that the additional Golorian flavor wouldn't be overbearing and that Pathfinder still intended to support other fantasy concepts.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
Pathfinder just isnt as generic as it used to be and that is perfectly fine.

Perfectly fine to you, yes. Not an objective truth.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
It is meant for people that want to play in this world, in this setting, this fantasy concept...

Very arguable, considering it is an update to a system that was explicitly generic fantasy. Apparently, even Erik Mona doesn't agree with this, likely because he realizes that it may be a bad business decision.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
Sometimes is better to be really good at one thing, than standard and average in 5.

And sometimes, it's good to be good at many things when you can pull it off. Some of us thought Pathfinder's previous edition pulled that off most of the time.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Oh we're still on about alignment.

To be fair, the blog post offered basically nothing else to talk about since it gives almost zero mechanical details.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Oh we're still on about alignment.
To be fair, the blog post offered basically nothing else to talk about since it gives almost zero mechanical details.

Given the length of the thread, please note I'm not being condescending when I say that I've been trying to point this out for a few pages. Totally cool if you didn't see them, they get drowned out easily.

I'm trying to get at the mechanics that got name dropped but not explained like we got in the other class blogs.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
graystone wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Sir or madame, you exaggerate. You know quite well that the grey Paladin will likely outperform experts and commoners and--I would say--even some other base classes. The ability to smite anyone so long as it is justifiable is really nifty even if it is at the cost.

That's moving the goalpost: the standard was playable and I've played both a commoner and an expert. Is a gray paladin better? I guess? On smite, it STILL has to be an "opponent to the cause of good" AND it take 2 uses... Vindictive bastard just has to wait until is damages any ally and it can truly smite anyone: and it's one charge.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
That said, Vindictive Bastard seems pretty fun and good (and I was not aware of it). Why not just play that archetype and abandon the GP if you don't think it is mechanically sound enough? I don't get the slap in the face comment.

#1 while vindictive bastard isn't bad, it's not a 'holy warrior' so it fills a different niche for me. It's not what I want to play is I want a fighty guy that's chosen by a god and isn't LG.

#2 it's a slap in the face with HOW bad the grey paladin vs vindictive bastard AND vindictive bastard has NO code/alignment requirement. It's mind blowingly bad by comparison.

I do not feel that I was moving the goalpost. I am merely stating that the Gray Paladin is a solid class (on a grading curve of PF martial characters) even if it is generally mechanically weaker than the standard Paladin. I would argue that the Gray Paladin should be mechanically weaker balance-wise given that Gray Paladins are also under less restrictive moral codes. Maybe they did go too far though? In that light, I would tend to see the Vindictive Bastard and its surprising mechanical prowess as Paizo's overcorrection to the underwhelming GP rather than proof that Paizo thinks your desire for LN or NG Paladins is beneath their concern.

The vindictive bastard is, as its name subtly implies, a vindictive bastard. And some gms, and pfs, are against reskinning.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am merely stating that the Gray Paladin is a solid class

I disagree.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
rather than proof that Paizo thinks your desire for LN or NG Paladins is beneath their concern.

I don't think I've ever said this. I'm sure they have noticed the the desire for non-lg paladins: My concern is that we got 2 archetype of wildly different effectiveness in the past and we're not getting a playtest of those type of options this time around. This puts into question what form the options will take assuming we even get them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Oh we're still on about alignment.
To be fair, the blog post offered basically nothing else to talk about since it gives almost zero mechanical details.

Given the length of the thread, please note I'm not being condescending when I say that I've been trying to point this out for a few pages. Totally cool if you didn't see them, they get drowned out easily.

I'm trying to get at the mechanics that got name dropped but not explained like we got in the other class blogs.

Maybe Friday will be the real Paladin blog, the one that actually goes into abilities.

Would have been nice to have it the first time though. The cleric managed to be a nice, long, in depth post that touched multiple topics. To fall this far short of that post's benchmark is disappointing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Oh we're still on about alignment.
To be fair, the blog post offered basically nothing else to talk about since it gives almost zero mechanical details.

Given the length of the thread, please note I'm not being condescending when I say that I've been trying to point this out for a few pages. Totally cool if you didn't see them, they get drowned out easily.

I'm trying to get at the mechanics that got name dropped but not explained like we got in the other class blogs.

Like this Righteous Ally they talked but didn't talk about.


Pandora's wrote:
And many disagreed with that position, leading Erik Mona to post an assurance that the additional Golorian flavor wouldn't be overbearing and that Pathfinder still intended to support other fantasy concepts.

And yet here we are, with that have been made and it moving foward. Reality remains, the core book is more golarion infused, it might not be to the last skill, but chances are the races and classes considering their new system will be.

Pandora's wrote:
Perfectly fine to you, yes. Not an objective truth.

It is fine. Some may like it, some may not. Nobody, not even the devs, will likely have it become the perfect view of what they wanted with each and every little change being tailored exactly like anyone wanted the most, but the system is changing, the world isnt ending, and you win some, you lose some. The new system gets launched at the end.

Pandora's wrote:
Very arguable, considering it is an update to a system that was explicitly generic fantasy. Apparently, even Erik Mona doesn't agree with this, likely because he realizes that it may be a bad business decision.

"Likely" which means you have no idea why he didnt, and even then, this doesnt change what was said.

They arent making it more generic, they are making it more golarion centric.

So yes, it is more focused on those that want to play on golarion than PF1.

Pandora's wrote:
And sometimes, it's good to be good at many things when you can pull it off. Some of us thought Pathfinder's previous edition pulled that off most of the time.

Sure, it is best to be the best at everything beloved by all, but that is one hard goal.

Far easier and more achivable when competing on a market full of other systems left and right which propose their on solution and gameplays, to aim at being the best at one thing and be good at whatever else you manage while doing so.


Corwin Icewolf wrote:
The vindictive bastard is, as its name subtly implies, a vindictive bastard. And some gms, and pfs, are against reskinning.

That is pretty fair. That nomenclature is unfortunate.

graystone wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am merely stating that the Gray Paladin is a solid class

I disagree.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
rather than proof that Paizo thinks your desire for LN or NG Paladins is beneath their concern.
I don't think I've ever said this. I'm sure they have noticed the the desire for non-lg paladins: My concern is that we got 2 archetype of wildly different effectiveness in the past and we're not getting a playtest of those type of options this time around. This puts into question what form the options will take assuming we even get them.

You said it was a "slap in the face." To my mind, I was softening your charges against paizo in implying it was merely "beneath their concern". That is admittedly bringing my own value judgements to the table, though.

Frankly, I think what you are seeing in the VB/GP differences is indicative of an issue all over PF1: Paizo has done an uneven job regulating the content of its contributing authors (see: the titan mauler barbarian). I have not put in any work in seeing who designed each of these archetypes, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yay, paladins.


MerlinCross wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Oh we're still on about alignment.
To be fair, the blog post offered basically nothing else to talk about since it gives almost zero mechanical details.

Given the length of the thread, please note I'm not being condescending when I say that I've been trying to point this out for a few pages. Totally cool if you didn't see them, they get drowned out easily.

I'm trying to get at the mechanics that got name dropped but not explained like we got in the other class blogs.

Like this Righteous Ally they talked but didn't talk about.

What does it actually do? Why should I be excited about it?

1,151 to 1,200 of 1,735 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards