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
1,351 to 1,400 of 1,735 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I used to be a game designer. So I really appreciate the candor. Can't do it anymore.

You're not gonna get reamed for doing this are ya Mark? EA woulda been cheesed off if I was ever this open about still in development stuff on forums.

We are encouraged to be open about our ideas and principles behind the design of the game, as long as we don't blab a bunch of secrets we intended to reveal later or give out-of-context info that gets everyone upset or riled up because they heard a tidbit that sounded upsetting on its own before we could blog it and give you guys good context. That's why I'm very picky and parsimonious about what topics I choose for genuinely new information but I'm much more open for bringing information we've already revealed back around to another venue, clarifying our ideas, and so on.


I wanna keep talking about this, but the meds have won. I'm nodding off. Night guys.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:

I hope this does not derail but I had a thought. For the people who wish to lighten/remove the alignment restrictions from the Paladin, does that mean you also wish to remove the alignment restrictions from Druids and Barbarians? Druids in PF1 have to be any neutral. Barbarians can be anything but lawful.There might be some archetypes that can change that, same as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin but it was never a built in core thing. I mean I sometimes wish the names were different. Paladin=sounds cool. Anti-Paladin...sounds kind of dorky. I mean Tyrant is a cool name for a LE pally. Hellknight would of been a cool name for an evil paladin thing but that is taken by something else.

I am in the camp that alignments should be lifted. But I also agree with the otherside. What would the codes be? I mean LG we have, LE and CE we have also. What kind of codes could you have for a CG? What kind of codes can you have for a Neutral? I mean technically the Cavaliers/Samurai have an oath/codes that enable a "neutral"/selfish ways. The Knights Errant or Ronin. Then again, I always saw the Cavalier/Samurai as some weird "neutral" variant of the Paladin. I mean they have no alignment restrictions but they can be seen almost having similar/thematic powers without a deity. IDK I might be wrong and rambling.

Personally I care about Chaotic Monks and Lawful Barbarians than I do CG Paladins. The former especially is ridiculous to me, there are plenty of non-lawful monks in fiction and reality.
I never really understood why we can't have lawful barbarians. If anything, the lawful character who exercises intense discipline to bottle up this unnatural rage and only let it out when it's needed most is super fun to roleplay. It's not the same thing as the paladin though.

There is a character in the First Law series named Colonial West who essentially exemplifies the lawful barbarian. He is a respectable military man who ends up in the uncivilized lands of the north and the barbarians there eventually conclude that he is too angry. If they ever made those books into a movie, it is my hope that West would be portrayed by Nicolas Cage.

On a separate note: it is 2 a.m. here and I should sleep.


Since I really haven't seen it answered (it's a concern that came up a few times but got buried in all the big giant arguments) in regards to the decision to tie paladins to deities, is there any chance of there ever being a version that is just a holy warrior of an alignment rather than a deity? It just seems like a paladin with the philosophy that one should go directly to the real source of virtue and that personal deities are an attachment that distracts from true enlightenment should be perfectly valid.

Especially since even good deities can be jerkheads at times. But even in 1e your only option unless you're playing outside of pfs is the Oracle which... doesn't feel quite right for some reason. The Oracle feels like someone who divine power was forced on whether they wanted it or not. With this change you'll be less likely to be able to play a nonthristic paladin even in a home game since some gms would feel they'd have to do more work to help you come up with custom anathema.

Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
42nfl19 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
I think I asked this before but how easy it
I think we should leave the discussion of magic items, beyond what Logan revealed in the gear blog, for a later date when it can get its own full blog. So I will answer all these questions with just three words and my most favorite of all punctuation marks, those heroes of the LISP programming language, parentheses: Etch Rune (Crafting).
With the tease if being Crafting, I hope it becomes more accessible to all/other classes that are not the wizard. It kind of sucked/was sub-optimal if your crafter of magical wondrous items was not a wizard. I am ok with other classes only ever reaching Master or something and the wizard gets Legendary prof or something.

The whole point of making magic item based on Crafting (and not like Arcana or something) is so that you can be a fighter blacksmith and be a badass item crafter. Heck, the best crafter early game in my playtest was the fighter. She used Crafting to identify a siccatite door and warned the wizard that it was a metal that fell from the sky and was constantly burning hot. The wizard scoffed at the "obvious gibberish" coming out of the "stupid fighter's" mouth and got his hand burnt trying to open the door. It was hilarious. But I guess if someone told me the door fell from the stars and was always on fire when it looked normal, I doubt I'd believe it either.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
But even in 1e your only option unless you're playing outside of pfs is the Oracle which... doesn't feel quite right for some reason. The Oracle feels like someone who divine power was forced on whether they wanted it or not. With this change you'll be less likely to be able to play a nonthristic paladin even in a home game since some gms would feel they'd have to do more work to help you come up with custom anathema.

The pearl seeker paladin also explicitly doesn't have a deity in PF1, albeit it's an incredibly specific archetype (if they did have one, it would be Lysianassa, but she's trapped in the Gasping Pearl).


I was wondering about going forward in 2e actually, if it might ever be considered after the playtest, but wow, thanks for the quick response.


I am just somewhat overall glad about the Paladin even with all this division. First time I ever played a tabletop game was 4e. First every character was a Paladin. Then when we switched to pathfinder, guess what I played? Paladin. Paladin is my most favorite class. With a close second being the Magus.

I asked this before but now that it is late night and the board has slowed down I think I will try and ask again. Have Paladin spells been "rebalanced"? Because they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
42nfl19 wrote:
they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.

No, you are definitely not wrong about that as far as PF1 paladin spellcasting.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
graystone wrote:
This is why I said "You could have 100% the exact same identity and even the exact same abilities" since it's true. The framework is ALREADY modular enough to have deity based modular options so it doesn't seem a bridge too far to apply that same idea to aligned abilities.
This is true: You could. It would be harder to achieve, though. At the very least, it's more work since you need to design specific game elements for each alignment.

It doesn't seem to be regarded as necessary for Clerics, who get one chassis for every alignment and deity.


Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.
No, you are definitely not wrong about that as far as PF1 paladin spellcasting.

Using your spells offensively was a non-starter for anyone that wasn't a 9th level caster (with a few exceptions like the Mesmerist) due to the way DC's scaled. I suspect that the new proficiency system will help alleviate that issue and make DC's relevant even for "weaker" spells used by less casting-oriented classes.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
42nfl19 wrote:

I hope this does not derail but I had a thought. For the people who wish to lighten/remove the alignment restrictions from the Paladin, does that mean you also wish to remove the alignment restrictions from Druids and Barbarians? Druids in PF1 have to be any neutral. Barbarians can be anything but lawful.There might be some archetypes that can change that, same as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin but it was never a built in core thing. I mean I sometimes wish the names were different. Paladin=sounds cool. Anti-Paladin...sounds kind of dorky. I mean Tyrant is a cool name for a LE pally. Hellknight would of been a cool name for an evil paladin thing but that is taken by something else.

I am in the camp that alignments should be lifted. But I also agree with the otherside. What would the codes be? I mean LG we have, LE and CE we have also. What kind of codes could you have for a CG? What kind of codes can you have for a Neutral? I mean technically the Cavaliers/Samurai have an oath/codes that enable a "neutral"/selfish ways. The Knights Errant or Ronin. Then again, I always saw the Cavalier/Samurai as some weird "neutral" variant of the Paladin. I mean they have no alignment restrictions but they can be seen almost having similar/thematic powers without a deity. IDK I might be wrong and rambling.

I think it should be relegated to a suggestion at most. I feel that it is less of an issue since it is more flexible. For paladin, even opening it up to any good would be a huge improvement. In general, alleviating the alignment restrictions, to adapt James's phrase, would expand the stories that we can tell.

For example, I could see Sir Tristan being statted out as a Paladin/Druid.

As far as the codes, I was hoping that they would be derived entirely or primarily from the deity, like the cleric's.


I just had a weird thought and I hope this does not lead to more strife. Will smite evil only work on people with the evil alignment/subtype? I could see times where a neutral type character can be seen killing innocents. Or a neutral creature being controlled/commanded to do evil thing like attacking innocent civies. Will the act of evil be allowed to be smiteable? Or at the very least, evil/against in the eyes of your deity/tenants? It sometimes sucks when a thing is doing an evil act but nope he is not "really evil". So no smite for you. I would be happy for a reduced smite evil effect for an act that is evil. Like a chaotic good character can thinks that doing this evil act will result in a net good thing in the bigger picture but the pally is having none of that. Just like how we have "tiers" of codes, will we also have "tiers" of evil or something? To be flexible?


Smite Makes Right wrote:
For example, I could see Sir Tristan being statted out as a Paladin/Druid.

Now that does make me curious. I don't see either Paladin or Druid in Tristan at all. What do you think I'm missing?


Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.
No, you are definitely not wrong about that as far as PF1 paladin spellcasting.

Total, but with scaling being tighter, I can see this will not be a problem in PF2.

I wanted PF1 to scale spell DCs at: 10 + 1/2 HD + spellcasting modifier.


Weather Report wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.
No, you are definitely not wrong about that as far as PF1 paladin spellcasting.

Total, but with scaling being tighter, I can see this will not be a problem in PF2.

I wanted PF1 to scale spell DCs at: 10 + 1/2 HD + spellcasting modifier.

That is not to far off from how I think spell-casting in PF2 will be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread and the various other Paladin threads have me thinking that Paladin should NOT have been in the Pathfinder Core classes -- instead, put in something else that a whole bunch of people want that currently isn't in there: the Oracle. Then tackle the Paladin and its Sacred Cows in a later book. Of course, I also think that Pathfinder should have done what Kirthfinder(*) did -- make Paladin a prestige class (and not just because of the alignment issue, although making it a prestige class conveniently also gives you a lot better excuse to make it alignment-specific).

(*)Also one of the options in D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, although it never seems to have caught on -- oddly, although that book also had an option for Paladinoids of the other 3 corner alignments, it made no effort to combine the concepts.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little to restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.

She's a DEITY in Golarion.

The class of entities that does not get stats because they didn't want players 'attacking X deity'.

The sort of power that the rules of Man do not apply.

So why can't she have Neutral Good champions (no, not warpriests/paladins/clerics)?

What prevents her from making this a reality?

Nothing prevents her, it’s just not in her nature.

All the deities off Golarion have goals. They achieve those in various ways, but the fact some have unique methods doesn’t necessarily mean others are somehow prevented from using them, just that it’s not their style.

so the warrior goddess doesn't want divi e warriors... What? That makes no sense.
I guess it wouldn’t have if I’d said that.

that is exactly what you said, that they were not her style, which makes zero sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

This thread and the various other Paladin threads have me thinking that Paladin should NOT have been in the Pathfinder Core classes -- instead, put in something else that a whole bunch of people want that currently isn't in there: the Oracle. Then tackle the Paladin and its Sacred Cows in a later book. Of course, I also think that Pathfinder should have done what Kirthfinder(*) did -- make Paladin a prestige class (and not just because of the alignment issue, although making it a prestige class conveniently also gives you a lot better excuse to make it alignment-specific).

(*)Also one of the options in D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, although it never seems to have caught on -- oddly, although that book also had an option for Paladinoids of the other 3 corner alignments, it made no effort to combine the concepts.

Eh probably best to go ahead and tear the band-aid off fast. However it could be a decent ploy to continue to sell books to people that are going to "quit as soon as the paladin isn't my way"(ok so its now an actual quote but you know what I mean) But I think if Paizo did that they would have to seek out an atonement spell for such an evil action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All those Paladin threads would be a decent and legitimate excuse for holding up Paladin(oids) for a later book -- "Due to difficulties this class has caused in previous editions of the game, which illustrate the exceptional difficulty in building this class properly, we feel that its introduction in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Rulebook is likely to prove disruptive, and therefore we are postponing the Paladin for introduction in later material."

(Also should have mentioned an actual prestige Paladinoid that got some noticeable traction in Pathfinder: the Hellknight.)


UnArcaneElection wrote:


(*)Also one of the options in D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, although it never seems to have caught on -- oddly, although that book also had an option for Paladinoids of the other 3 corner alignments, it made no effort to combine the concepts.

Yeah, very cool, they went more into the extreme alignment deal with Incarnum in 3rd Ed (seems very unpopular, but I dig it), specifically the Soulborn class (very Paladinesque).


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.
No, you are definitely not wrong about that as far as PF1 paladin spellcasting.

Total, but with scaling being tighter, I can see this will not be a problem in PF2.

I wanted PF1 to scale spell DCs at: 10 + 1/2 HD + spellcasting modifier.

That is not to far off from how I think spell-casting in PF2 will be.

Total, with 10 + Level, give or take -2 to +3 (due to proficiency).

As for PF1, I highly recommend houseruling Spell DCs set at: 10 + 1/2 Hit Dice (level) + Spellcasting mod.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little to restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.

She's a DEITY in Golarion.

The class of entities that does not get stats because they didn't want players 'attacking X deity'.

The sort of power that the rules of Man do not apply.

So why can't she have Neutral Good champions (no, not warpriests/paladins/clerics)?

What prevents her from making this a reality?

Nothing prevents her, it’s just not in her nature.

All the deities off Golarion have goals. They achieve those in various ways, but the fact some have unique methods doesn’t necessarily mean others are somehow prevented from using them, just that it’s not their style.

so the warrior goddess doesn't want divi e warriors... What? That makes no sense.
I guess it wouldn’t have if I’d said that.
that is exactly what you said, that they were not her style, which makes zero sense.

She has divine warriors. Paladins aren’t her style. I never said “the warrior goddess doesn’t want divine warriors”. What I said was:

“This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little too restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.“

If you don’t understand, how about asking me to clarify rather than leaping to “that makes no sense”?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
42nfl19 wrote:

I hope this does not derail but I had a thought. For the people who wish to lighten/remove the alignment restrictions from the Paladin, does that mean you also wish to remove the alignment restrictions from Druids and Barbarians? Druids in PF1 have to be any neutral. Barbarians can be anything but lawful.There might be some archetypes that can change that, same as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin but it was never a built in core thing. I mean I sometimes wish the names were different. Paladin=sounds cool. Anti-Paladin...sounds kind of dorky. I mean Tyrant is a cool name for a LE pally. Hellknight would of been a cool name for an evil paladin thing but that is taken by something else.

I am in the camp that alignments should be lifted. But I also agree with the otherside. What would the codes be? I mean LG we have, LE and CE we have also. What kind of codes could you have for a CG? What kind of codes can you have for a Neutral? I mean technically the Cavaliers/Samurai have an oath/codes that enable a "neutral"/selfish ways. The Knights Errant or Ronin. Then again, I always saw the Cavalier/Samurai as some weird "neutral" variant of the Paladin. I mean they have no alignment restrictions but they can be seen almost having similar/thematic powers without a deity. IDK I might be wrong and rambling.

I'm of the opinion that, much like Clerics, the Champion (née Paladin) should be within the valid alignments of their code. If that code is based on the Paladin's Code, then they are to be LG, as would be listed in that code's entry. If they follow the code of Shelyn, they would need to be CG, NG, LG, or N (as listed in Shelyn's entry).

If you see what I'm doing here, I'm not trying to get 'Paladins of other alignments'. I'm trying to make a more robust class that can serve more than a single purpose. Single-task items are very wasteful, and when the developers are quite often placing blame for lesser design decisions based on page and/or word count limits, it seems especially important to not dedicate an entire class to a single trope. The options for this Champion's edicts/code/oath/etc can be quite varied, such that this singular class can end up filling the roles of the previous Inquisitors, Paladins, Warpriests and Cavaliers (and quite possible more). Everyone seemed happy with the mention of modular classes in pf2e - this is how you do it.


Mark Seifter wrote:
But I'm a paizo messageboarder for life, since before working here, so I'm often found around here long past the time when I probably should be.

Is there a club for that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little to restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.

She's a DEITY in Golarion.

The class of entities that does not get stats because they didn't want players 'attacking X deity'.

The sort of power that the rules of Man do not apply.

So why can't she have Neutral Good champions (no, not warpriests/paladins/clerics)?

What prevents her from making this a reality?

Nothing prevents her, it’s just not in her nature.

All the deities off Golarion have goals. They achieve those in various ways, but the fact some have unique methods doesn’t necessarily mean others are somehow prevented from using them, just that it’s not their style.

so the warrior goddess doesn't want divi e warriors... What? That makes no sense.
I guess it wouldn’t have if I’d said that.
that is exactly what you said, that they were not her style, which makes zero sense.

She has divine warriors. Paladins aren’t her style. I never said “the warrior goddess doesn’t want divine warriors”. What I said was:

“This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little too restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.“

If you don’t understand, how about asking me to clarify rather than leaping to “that makes no sense”?

what divine warriors? I can think of no other class that fits that Archetype.


Warpriest?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clerics are perfectly capable of being built as divine warriors, for one. They can fit that archetype, they just aren't locked into it.


Shady Stranger wrote:
Warpriest?

No, way to much casting, they study for their spells, cut class and went to sword practice, they aren't blessed and empowered holy warriors. Sorry they just don't fit, at least for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Clerics are perfectly capable of being built as divine warriors, for one. They can fit that archetype, they just aren't locked into it.

No they can't, they can be pure casters who hit people. No belssings, no grace, way to much casting, not full BAB.. They aren't warriors and they study for their spells, they aren't granted their blessings, they feel completely different and are completely different in both rules and lore.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Clerics are perfectly capable of being built as divine warriors, for one. They can fit that archetype, they just aren't locked into it.
No they can't, they can be pure casters who hit people. No belssings, no grace, way to much casting, not full BAB.. They aren't warriors.

So warrior clerics aren't really warriors because instead of getting abilities given to them by Gods they get spells from gods which they then use to make themselves better warriors?

They wear chain mail. It ain't plate, but it ain't a robe either. They get proficiency with their god's weapon. I wonder what their god might want them to do with that. They're able to be played as divine warriors. Or at the very least, divine battlemages.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little to restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.

She's a DEITY in Golarion.

The class of entities that does not get stats because they didn't want players 'attacking X deity'.

The sort of power that the rules of Man do not apply.

So why can't she have Neutral Good champions (no, not warpriests/paladins/clerics)?

What prevents her from making this a reality?

Nothing prevents her, it’s just not in her nature.

All the deities off Golarion have goals. They achieve those in various ways, but the fact some have unique methods doesn’t necessarily mean others are somehow prevented from using them, just that it’s not their style.

so the warrior goddess doesn't want divi e warriors... What? That makes no sense.
I guess it wouldn’t have if I’d said that.
that is exactly what you said, that they were not her style, which makes zero sense.

She has divine warriors. Paladins aren’t her style. I never said “the warrior goddess doesn’t want divine warriors”. What I said was:

“This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little too restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.“

If you don’t understand, how about asking me to clarify rather than leaping to “that makes no sense”?

what divine warriors? I can think of no other class that fits that Archetype.

I reckon I could play a cleric as a divine warrior. Or a multiclassed fighter. It seems to me pathfinder gives lots of options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Clerics are perfectly capable of being built as divine warriors, for one. They can fit that archetype, they just aren't locked into it.
No they can't, they can be pure casters who hit people. No belssings, no grace, way to much casting, not full BAB.. They aren't warriors.

So warrior clerics aren't really warriors because instead of getting abilities given to them by Gods they get spells from gods which they then use to make themselves better warriors?

They wear chain mail. It ain't plate, but it ain't a robe either. They get proficiency with their god's weapon. I wonder what their god might want them to do with that. They're able to be played as divine warriors. Or at the very least, divine battlemages.

same way a mage with a sword isn't a Magus really, part of it is having far to much casting, it takes away from the feel of it, part of it is not being good enough at hitting things without using spells, it just plays completely differently, and lore wise lg clerics with a sword is not a paladin, so neither is any other alignment a holy warrior. Sorry I can't make that leap.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little to restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.

She's a DEITY in Golarion.

The class of entities that does not get stats because they didn't want players 'attacking X deity'.

The sort of power that the rules of Man do not apply.

So why can't she have Neutral Good champions (no, not warpriests/paladins/clerics)?

What prevents her from making this a reality?

Nothing prevents her, it’s just not in her nature.

All the deities off Golarion have goals. They achieve those in various ways, but the fact some have unique methods doesn’t necessarily mean others are somehow prevented from using them, just that it’s not their style.

so the warrior goddess doesn't want divi e warriors... What? That makes no sense.
I guess it wouldn’t have if I’d said that.
that is exactly what you said, that they were not her style, which makes zero sense.

She has divine warriors. Paladins aren’t her style. I never said “the warrior goddess doesn’t want divine warriors”. What I said was:

“This interpretation is just that it’s not the way she operates. She could have paladins following a code and deriving power from that pure devotion to a strict set of tenets - but that’s just a little too restrictive and potentially constraining for her (non lawful) tastes.“

If you don’t understand, how about asking me to clarify rather than leaping to “that makes no sense”?

what divine warriors? I can think of no other class that fits that Archetype.
I reckon I could play a cleric as a divine warrior. Or a multiclassed fighter. It seems to me...

the remove paladin, whats good for the goose is good for the Gander.


Hmm Its to early to tell but i'm wondering if it is going to be possible to do magus with a wizard by changing up your attributes and feats or if doing that will require a whole new class heck might be possible with archetypes. Still to soon to tell I think. I'm leaning towards no but I don't think that it is extremely unlikely.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Clerics are perfectly capable of being built as divine warriors, for one. They can fit that archetype, they just aren't locked into it.
No they can't, they can be pure casters who hit people. No belssings, no grace, way to much casting, not full BAB.. They aren't warriors.

So warrior clerics aren't really warriors because instead of getting abilities given to them by Gods they get spells from gods which they then use to make themselves better warriors?

They wear chain mail. It ain't plate, but it ain't a robe either. They get proficiency with their god's weapon. I wonder what their god might want them to do with that. They're able to be played as divine warriors. Or at the very least, divine battlemages.

same way a mage with a sword isn't a Magus really, part of it is having far to much casting, it takes away from the feel of it, part of it is not being good enough at hitting things without using spells, it just plays completely differently, and lore wise lg clerics with a sword is not a paladin, so neither is any other alignment a holy warrior. Sorry I can't make that leap.

I don't really see how casting precludes being a warrior, but alright. I mean that in a flavor sense, by the way. No pointing out bab and other game mechanics to me, please.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Shady Stranger wrote:
Warpriest?
No, way to much casting, they study for their spells, cut class and went to sword practice, they aren't blessed and empowered holy warriors. Sorry they just don't fit, at least for me.

Fair enough.

Why not, though? They have many things granted to them by their deities: sacred weapon, spells, fervor, blessings, channeled energy and sacred armor.


In the books about the faiths, paladins were treated like a sect inside the religions that were close enough to accommodate them. So there is explicit "group of paladins" that forms these sects and LN/NG gods tolerate them even if they do not 100% sync with their ideals.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Clerics are perfectly capable of being built as divine warriors, for one. They can fit that archetype, they just aren't locked into it.
No they can't, they can be pure casters who hit people. No belssings, no grace, way to much casting, not full BAB.. They aren't warriors and they study for their spells, they aren't granted their blessings, they feel completely different and are completely different in both rules and lore.

Clerics and Warpriests don't study for their spells. They are granted by their deity.

I'm not sure why people even think of the Paladin as the divine champion class. I mean, for most of the deities their divine champion would look nothing like the paladin. A champion of Nethys would have way more magic. A champion of Calistria would be more subtle in conflict. A champion of Irori wouldn't use weapons or armor. The deities already have champions. It's just that the paladin is not the divine champion class. It's the knight in shining armor class. Subtle difference, but really important.

I'm actually in favor of removing alignment restrictions for everyone but the paladin. A chaotic monk is an important archetype that we are missing. But the flavor of the paladin IS lawful good. They are inseparable. To me, the restriction is a natural byproduct of the flavor.

Maybe we should remove religion from their mechanics entirely? This seems to be the hangup for many people, but the paladin (at least for me) is entirely separate from religion. They don't get their abilities from a deity. They get them from their way personal beliefs and discipline.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Maybe we should remove religion from their mechanics entirely? This seems to be the hangup for many people, but the paladin (at least for me) is entirely separate from religion. They don't get their abilities from a deity. They get them from their way personal beliefs and discipline.

I actually agree with this pretty much entirely. I just also think there's room for a CG version with a different set of personal beliefs to empower them (plus LE and CE Antipaladin versions, naturally).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whoa, thanks for all the cool info, Mark!

The shield feat to regenerate your shield and remove the action cost sounds great! I love that the circumstantial ability got paired with a powerful always-useful one.

Angel wings as a feat? Heck yeah! Looks like you can make a pretty good take on Fanatic from Sentinels of the Multiverse. Plus, if we get other alignments, fiendish body mods would be cool. The angelic halo not being a Paladin-specific option is intriguing!

Feats to improve your mount sound cool. I hope that there’s a wider variety of mounts available this time around, but if not, this bodes well for Druid getting cool animal companion stuff.

Dream for future Paladin stuff- the option for a summoned angel buddy like Antipaladin got.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Maybe we should remove religion from their mechanics entirely? This seems to be the hangup for many people, but the paladin (at least for me) is entirely separate from religion. They don't get their abilities from a deity. They get them from their way personal beliefs and discipline.
I actually agree with this pretty much entirely. I just also think there's room for a CG version with a different set of personal beliefs to empower them (plus LE and CE Antipaladin versions, naturally).

I would love to see something like that. Kind of a class that gets benefits directly from alignment, specifically the more hard-line alignments? Although I don't really like the name Antipaladin, I want the class to kind of stand on it's own two feet, if that makes sense. I've been talking so much about the four corners option, I'm starting to feel like a four corners chearleader. I just think it's a fun idea.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
I would love to see something like that. Kind of a class that gets benefits directly from alignment, specifically the more hard-line alignments? Although I don't really like the name Antipaladin, I want the class to kind of stand on it's own two feet, if that makes sense. I've been talking so much about the four corners option, I'm starting to feel like a four corners chearleader. I just think it's a fun idea.

I think we're stuck with Antipaladin for the CE version at this point. It's been used too much and is too recognizable to just get ditched.

And yeah, I'm a big fan of the 'four corners' model as well. I'm still hopeful that's what we'll get eventually.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
I would love to see something like that. Kind of a class that gets benefits directly from alignment, specifically the more hard-line alignments? Although I don't really like the name Antipaladin, I want the class to kind of stand on it's own two feet, if that makes sense. I've been talking so much about the four corners option, I'm starting to feel like a four corners chearleader. I just think it's a fun idea.

I think we're stuck with Antipaladin for the CE version at this point. It's been used too much and is too recognizable to just get ditched.

And yeah, I'm a big fan of the 'four corners' model as well. I'm still hopeful that's what we'll get eventually.

I’d like the any Good and any Evil approach for the two classes :3

Liberty's Edge

Bluenose wrote:
Smite Makes Right wrote:
For example, I could see Sir Tristan being statted out as a Paladin/Druid.
Now that does make me curious. I don't see either Paladin or Druid in Tristan at all. What do you think I'm missing?

Well, it has been over 20 years since I read The Acts of King Arthur And His Noble Knights and there have been assorted movies, the Pendragon RPG, and I may just be confused.

If you consider paladins as inspired by the round table knights, the foundation for paladin is laid out.

For druid, I thought Tristan studied under Merlin (sometimes portrayed as a druid rather than a wizard) or studied to replace him.

How far off base am I?

Liberty's Edge

QuidEst wrote:

Whoa, thanks for all the cool info, Mark!

The shield feat to regenerate your shield and remove the action cost sounds great! I love that the circumstantial ability got paired with a powerful always-useful one.

I think what Mark meant was basically quickdraw for shields.

He said "ready," not "raise," which implies that there is no way around the sword and board action tax. It could be that there is, but it is not related to the holy ally options.

However, as it stands, you cannot hold out your kite shield from in front of you, double stride to your foe, and swing in one turn (barring haste).

Sword and board becomes an option of less action, inability to keep pace with a maneuverable foe (even if your movement rates are the same), and as a paladins, using a shield is even worse because there are more class features to compete for those actions.

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,735 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards