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
1,401 to 1,450 of 1,735 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smite Makes Right wrote:
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.

Uh...I'm pretty sure 'raise' is used for the Reaction where you get DR while 'ready' is the action to get it, y'know, ready. So it gets rid of the action to get +2 AC, but you still need to spend a Reaction for DR.

Or at least that seems to be what Mark was saying from context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those that missed our awesome back and forth with Mark last night... I'm going to paraphrase 3 really cool parts...

1. Righteous Ally can grant weapon runes (flaming, etc) that are always active, but can be switched each day.

2. A poster suggestion he's adding, but won't make the play Test, is a feat to spend spell points to swap it on the fly.

3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

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.

What would a champion of Erastil look like? More like a Ranger than anything else. But despite how unthematic an LG Paladin might be for Erastil, he can have his LG Paladins, no problem. But other deities' champions? No, we have to gut the entire class and start from scratch. Paladin for Erastil when Ranger is more thematic, sure. Paladin of Nethys when a more caster-y class would be more thematic, no? Why?

But to answer your question, Clerics, starting in at least 3.5 if not sooner and extending at least into P1E, were the most spellcastiest class of a deity OR of a philosophy. And if that deity isn't LG or LG-adjacent or if that philosophy isn't lawful and good, then that's how much refinement you're allowed without going the extra steps of making a multiclass Frankenstein's monster. But a LG deity or LG as a philosophy, if you see your character as being more warrior-y and less caster-y, then you get more choices on how to express your character.

Oh, unless your theme is nature. Then you get also get that level of refinement (full Druid or dialed back to Ranger).

Why? We have a class that CAN be both the "knight in shining armor" class AND the "divine champion" class. And I think it's unfairly stifling to have that opportunity sitting right in front of you and not allow it to be used to its fullest potential. I'm not even sure how people could NOT see that. By having a class that can easily fulfill your idea for what it should be used for and my idea of what it could be used for and going out of its way to make the job more difficult for one of us, it's essentially the game enforcing "One True Way-ism". How is that its job?

I never would have pegged a fantasy role playing game as being the vehicle by which players learn what sorts of character concepts they're not supposed to be interested in. It's disheartening that I find myself changing that view.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Smite Makes Right wrote:
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.

Uh...I'm pretty sure 'raise' is used for the Reaction where you get DR while 'ready' is the action to get it, y'know, ready. So it gets rid of the action to get +2 AC, but you still need to spend a Reaction for DR.

Or at least that seems to be what Mark was saying from context.

Pretty sure that both ‘raise’ and ‘ready’ have been used for the +2 AC action. They are synonymous in informal message board speak. Shield DR is usually called ‘block’.


1 person 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.

If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.

The problem is that, as they are written, being influenced by the Grail Knights of Round Table, paladins are always religious. The question is if they follow religious tenets from religions in game, or from a real life religion. But their whole mechanics are built using the Christian knights as example (Templars, Grail knights, crusaders, Charlemagne paladins, etc). Smiting demons, undeads and dragons, for example.


Smite Makes Right wrote:

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.

For one I'm not so sure "ready" and "raise" are two separate things, but we'll have to wait and see.

Smite Makes Right wrote:
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).

To be fair, this is totally possible... as a Fighter. They have their Charge thing to move 2x speed and strike as 2 actions. But who knows, maybe there'll be a way for Pally to get something similar.

Smite Makes Right wrote:
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.

Sword and Board is the option of less offensive action in favor of better AC. In other words... it's a tank. Sure a maneuverable foe can literally run circles around you maybe, but that doesn't really matter when they can't pierce your defenses. Likewise Two-Weapon Fighting might not be able to keep up with the same maneuverable foe... but if they do catch you (which is quite possible, tight spaces happen) they'll tear into you with at the very least improved accuracy (going by the strong main-hand, agile off-hand suggestions seen in other threads) making them more likely to hit and maybe even crit in that one round.

Also note that even the most mobile of melee enemies does still have one notable flaw: They are still melee. Meaning they'll have to come within striking range to attack. So it's highly unlikely they'll be able to consistently stay 2 move increments away from you. Range and Caster enemies may still be a hassle though I'll admit.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
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).

why do people consider L and C G/E more hardline? To me NG/NE/LN/CN are potentially more so, in that they only care about one axis, and could be seen as the purest versions possible of that axis,


Tectorman wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

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.

What would a champion of Erastil look like? More like a Ranger than anything else. But despite how unthematic an LG Paladin might be for Erastil, he can have his LG Paladins, no problem. But other deities' champions? No, we have to gut the entire class and start from scratch. Paladin for Erastil when Ranger is more thematic, sure. Paladin of Nethys when a more caster-y class would be more thematic, no? Why?

But to answer your question, Clerics, starting in at least 3.5 if not sooner and extending at least into P1E, were the most spellcastiest class of a deity OR of a philosophy. And if that deity isn't LG or LG-adjacent or if that philosophy isn't lawful and good, then that's how much refinement you're allowed without going the extra steps of making a multiclass Frankenstein's monster. But a LG deity or LG as a philosophy, if you see your character as being more warrior-y and less caster-y, then you get more choices on how to express your character.

Oh, unless your theme is nature. Then you get also get that level of refinement (full Druid or dialed back to Ranger).

Why? We have a class that CAN be both the "knight in shining armor" class AND the "divine champion" class. And I think it's unfairly stifling to have that opportunity sitting right in front of you and not allow it to be used to its fullest potential. I'm not even sure how people could NOT see that. By having a class that can easily fulfill your idea for what it should be used for and...

That's the point, I don't think there should be "Paladins of" anything. A Paladin of Erastil doesn't make sense because the flavor doesn't really work. Paladins are NOT the divine champion class. There are so many other options for that. To make them both divine champions and the knight class means that they kind of half-ass both roles. We end up losing the knight class and getting yet another divine champion class.

And I'm open to compromise to open the class up to more playstyles. I'd like to see a "champion of alignment" class, with LG, CG, CE, and LE subclasses. I think PF can be the game where you can play anything you're interested in without making all the classes feel samey by sacrificing flavor.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.

The problem is that, as they are written, being influenced by the Grail Knights of Round Table, paladins are always religious. The question is if they follow religious tenets from religions in game, or from a real life religion. But their whole mechanics are built using the Christian knights as example (Templars, Grail knights, crusaders, Charlemagne paladins, etc)

I'm fine with them losing some abilities to make them less deity focused. Others can stay, because there are already many different ways to power spells. Calling them alignment champions rather than divine champions is a flavor difference, not a mechanical difference, so why take things like spells away?

I'm not saying they can't be religious. Just that it's not their big thing. I'd argue that's the case already. PF1 paladins don't require a deity. (Not sure about PFS). And the Round Table really wasn't overtly religious until the Holy Grail. A lot of the mythology was balancing old and new cultures, so yes there were Christian elements, but honestly, they were few and far between.


Smite Makes Right wrote:
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?

Pendragon is a great game. Ahem. That just needs saying at every opportunity.

Anyway, while I certainly think there are Round Table knights who would be best portrayed as Paladins, I don't think all of them really qualify. Tristan is no Perceval or Galahad, or Roland or Oliver to use a couple of the French Paladins. He does have a good deal of wood-lore in the stories although in that respect he's reputedly the author of an unsurpassed book on hunting, which suggests Ranger to me, and a Fighter/Ranger ultimately. Though with fictional characters, it's often quite hard to make them fit a class-and-level-based system and different people can reach different conclusions easily enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.

Why, when the following divine classes didn't need to be religious to a deity for their divine power in 1e: Druid, Onymoji, Oracle, Paladins, Ranger, Shamans, and Shifters?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
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).
why do people consider L and C G/E more hardline? To me NG/NE/LN/CN are potentially more so, in that they only care about one axis, and could be seen as the purest versions possible of that axis,

I agree that NG is the purest version of Good (and in my opinion, the best version of Good), but that doesn't make it hardline. For me, paladins aren't just interested in Good, they are interested in Good and Order, or Good in the way they think it should be accomplished. A CG "Liberator" would be interested in Good, but would be almost equally interested in individual freedom. Kind of like they all three have strong opinions on good vs evil, but LG/CG also have strong opinions on discipline vs freedom, and so are less flexible in their world views.


Shady Stranger wrote:
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.

because of where it feels like they come from, they feel like the Chaplain of a knightly order, able to throw down if he has to but a priest first, a paladin(or in fact Hell Knight who do come very close to holy warrior, especially the Godclaw) feel different, like chosen fighters, knows the ritual and lore, but his primary focus is attack the unbelievers and protect the faith, his god aids this cause.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


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'd like to thank you Mark for all of the great input and openness you are currently showing. Jason might be open to new things too, but he's got a few things to learn from you if that's the case.

Now to go back to the subject...

Something I liked about the cleric blog post was the fact that the system seemed to be open to the fact that an evil deity could be open to healing instead of harming benefits.

I would REALLY like that we distance ourselves from "EVIL" and "GOOD" spells/damages/etc. Things are only as good as or as evil as what we use them for, even if those things tend to be used in a good/evil way. And I think that is why some "iconic" paladins abilities could be used for lots of other "Champions of Faith".

If I don't own a ladder and you give me one but I use it to build a bookshelf, you could be shocked by what I'm doing with it, but can we really tell it's wrong? It's creative, it's different, and it's totally normal that your base reaction is to be shocked. Our brain is conditioned to think in some very limiting way and to only accept what it knows and accept. By giving the paladin the LG limitation, I am perceiving that you are actively trying to limit what I can do with a great class, because it does not fit what you want it to be.

That's the main issue right now in this discussion... One side thinks you're actively trying to limit their creativity and roleplay by putting roleplay limitations in a mechanic, while others want to protect the concept they believe in... And we all need some understanding and openness about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.
Why, when the following divine classes didn't need to be religious to a deity for their divine power in 1e: Druid, Onymoji, Oracle, Paladins, Ranger, Shamans, and Shifters?

Already answered this question in other thread, but I think "primal" magic should have different flavor, closer to sorcerer in style. I think Paizo will go that route, with the thing they told about 4 kinds of magic, and wizards and Clerics having 2 of them. Druids, rangers or shamans should use this kind of spiritual, /material magic , and not divine. However, if Druids and others stay divine, then yes, in my opinion they should pick one of the multiple nature gods


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

I'm fine with them losing some abilities to make them less deity focused. Others can stay, because there are already many different ways to power spells. Calling them alignment champions rather than divine champions is a flavor difference, not a mechanical difference, so why take things like spells away?

it is not like non religious paladins can't have spells, it is like the spells they have should not be "bless", "prayer", "divine favor" and, "litany of...."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.
Why, when the following divine classes didn't need to be religious to a deity for their divine power in 1e: Druid, Onymoji, Oracle, Paladins, Ranger, Shamans, and Shifters?
Already answered this question in other thread, but I think "primal" magic should have different flavor, closer to sorcerer in style. I think Paizo will go that route, with the thing they told about 4 kinds of magic, and wizards and Clerics having 2 of them. Druids, rangers or shamans should use this kind of spiritual, /material magic , and not divine. However, if Druids and others stay divine, then yes, in my opinion they should pick one of the multiple nature gods

Okay, but until I see any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that druids still have divine magic and don't need to worship a god. Oracles still notably do not have to worship a god, but still use divine magic and divine abilities. As far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough for a paladin to not need to.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Oracles still notably do not have to worship a god, but still use divine magic and divine abilities.

Oracles don't get a subscription nor return to sender option on their powers.


Neurophage wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.
Why, when the following divine classes didn't need to be religious to a deity for their divine power in 1e: Druid, Onymoji, Oracle, Paladins, Ranger, Shamans, and Shifters?
Already answered this question in other thread, but I think "primal" magic should have different flavor, closer to sorcerer in style. I think Paizo will go that route, with the thing they told about 4 kinds of magic, and wizards and Clerics having 2 of them. Druids, rangers or shamans should use this kind of spiritual, /material magic , and not divine. However, if Druids and others stay divine, then yes, in my opinion they should pick one of the multiple nature gods
Okay, but until I see any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that druids still have divine magic and don't need to worship a god. Oracles still notably do not have to worship a god, but still use divine magic and divine abilities. As far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough for a paladin to not need to.

Sure, if others have also divine magic, and can cast "Bless", "prayers", summon "divine favor", etc, without being religious, certainly Paladins can do it too.


So are the spells listed in the blog spells, or are they spells? How are spells different from spells? Do the spells function just like spells, but with a different pool to draw them from, or are these spells different in other ways?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
So are the spells listed in the blog spells, or are they spells?

Yes.

master_marshmallow wrote:
How are spells different from spells?

Some cost spell points, others use spell slots.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Do the spells function just like spells, but with a different pool to draw them from, or are these spells different in other ways?

They aren't different in any other way. That's explicitly, by the word of people from Paizo, one of the main reasons they made the non spell-slot ones spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, some people might like 5e Oaths for paladins, and hate with passion something like Bounded Accuracy, for example. And thus would not want to play 5e, despite having something they like in the Oaths.
Which is why those people would like to see the 5e-style Oaths in PF2, without bounded accuracy (or whatever else they don't like from 5e).

However, despite liking myself the 5e approach to paladin oaths, my answer to those that claim that without that, they won't play PF2, is "farewell", just the same I say to those that do the same "wallet voting threat" for other aspects of the game they don't like and I do (being it goblins, alchemy, 3 action rounds, whatever).

Yes, there are things in the game I like less than others. Of course, it's possible that, in the end, I dislike it more than I like (happened to me with 4e, which had some things I liked, but did not overcome the things I disliked). So what? That's true for EVERYBODY. And "threatening to leave" is pointless. Paizo is not dumb, they KNOW everybody will have something in PF2 they don't like and for some people that straw will break the camel's back.

If when PF2 final version arrives you don't like it, then don't play it. It's that simple, really.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
So are the spells listed in the blog spells, or are they spells?

Yes.

master_marshmallow wrote:
How are spells different from spells?

Some cost spell points, others use spell slots.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Do the spells function just like spells, but with a different pool to draw them from, or are these spells different in other ways?
They aren't different in any other way. That's explicitly, by the word of people from Paizo, one of the main reasons they made the non spell-slot ones spells.

But which spells are these and how do I tell them apart?

Would it be safe to assume that the spells for partial casters all got changed to the new spells that take points instead of slots?

Lay on Hands is now one of these, is Divine Grace tied to the same pool?

What does smite do?


Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
But which spells are these and how do I tell them apart?

Ones will be in one (or more?) of the new four "major" spell lists (Divine, Arcane, something or other and whatchamacallit). The others will (likely) be described alongside the respective class or alongside the feature that grants access to them. In any case, that's just an editing/formatting issue, not a rules one. As far as the rules go, they're both Spells.

Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
Would it be safe to assume that the spells for partial casters all got changed to the new spells that take points instead of slots?

I'd bet on yes. If part of the reason of revamping magic and spells was to help increase the mechanical and gameplay distinctions between different casters I'd expect stuff like Bards and Rangers to use Spell Points rather than Spell Slots.

I could even picture Spell Points being the "Spontaneous Casting" resource and Spell Slots being the "Prepared Casting" resource so a Sorcerer wouldn't even have Spell Slots but rather a large pool of Spell Points with higher level spells draining more points than lower level spells, but that'd raise some issues and I'm just speculating anyways so disregard that.

Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
Lay on Hands is now one of these, is Divine Grace tied to the same pool?

Divine Grace is a Reaction. It's not, as far as we know, a spell in any form.

Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
What does smite do?

We don't know.


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.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I doubt you will, it's still really efficient money-wise not to be toting around a bunch of fully kitted weapons. As an aside, let's avoid using
...

I'm just waiting to see lawful barbarians and chaotic monks togheter with all chaotic/neutral good/evil paladins/Champions!

But what about non-neutral druids, Mark?


Corwin Icewolf wrote:
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.

its the difference between a holy warrior and a warrior priest, a jaguar warrior was a holy warrior, blessed in their faith(afaik, trying to use examples from dead religions. Here) the priests also sometimes fought, but their duties and focus was split, at best they ministered to the flock, spiritual needs, ritual duties etc, the Jaguar Warriirs basically did not, they had some part in ritual but the focus was always the militant role.


Again, spend hours away from the thread, come back, it is still the same thing happening. People trying to move a goalpost that aint moving. What makes many like the paladin is subjective, one could say a thousand times: "Making it not LG only would keep exactly the same flavor" and in those a thousands times literally hear a "No." back. Cause this isnt an exact science and another person simply doesnt feel the same.

On a side note, worth highlighting are Mark posts, which do move the thread away from its eternal circle.

Those new paladins options will be thing to see.

Dark Archive

Fuzzypaws wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:


So I think the approach chosen by Jason is reasonable: Build the best LG version possible, then build each class or sub-class for different alignements at a later point, maybe in time for the Core book, otherwise in a quick follow-up (there would be demand for it, obviously, so I don't think it would linger for years). Some posters seems to think the follow-up version will necessarily be bad, but that mistrust of Paizo's dev team is unwarranted, in my opinion.

Paizo has done some amazing stuff over the years out of Core.

Paladin variants are not one of them.

Pretty much everything they have ever done with respect to variant or loosened paladins has been completely awful trash. That's why people are so worried and skeptical. If Paladin and alternatives are not done right out the gate, and we don't get to playtest them properly, there is very little faith that they won't end up as watered down, underpowered, flavor-crippled garbage.

I disagree; one of the characters I'm currently playing is a halfling paladin (divine guardian archetype) and I'm loving him to bits! He started his career in 3.0, and originally seemed more of a "joke" than an actual holy warrior and constantly underperformed for a martial character of his level, despite his relatively high (rolled) ability scores and saving throws. He was brave and always stood his ground, but couldn't hit a barn wall once he had spent his daily smites. It became more and more apparent when we hit mid-levels that we all wanted to put the campaign on hold for a while.

Last year we dusted off the old 3E character sheets and finally converted our PCs to Pathfinder, and finally my paladin really functioned as a holy warrior. I critted two NPCs with my smites, slaying them in a couple of rounds, and the first session ended with my paladin single-handedly slaying a shambling mound to save our (engulfed) ranger. And then there was a huge battle against 30+ enemies; I raised my shield and stood my ground, downing foes even without smite and enabling other PCs to "do their thing".

Lastly, I have personal experience from gaming with two high-level (human) paladins in PF1; one is a PC in my own campaign, and the other is a PC in the longest-running campaign in our group. Both paladins are the heart and soul of their respective groups, and both truly shine in what they do -- even though one is more "defensive" (shield-focused leader type) and other a mythic two-handed sword wielder who deals lots of damage.

Needless to say, I have lots of faith in Jason, Mark, Logan, Erik and others "getting the paladin in right" this time as well, variants and acrhetypes included! :)


Nox Aeterna wrote:

Again, spend hours away from the thread, come back, it is still the same thing happening. People trying to move a goalpost that aint moving. What makes many like the paladin is subjective, one could say a thousand times: "Making it not LG only would keep exactly the same flavor" and in those a thousands times literally hear a "No." back. Cause this isnt an exact science and another person simply doesnt feel the same.

On a side note, worth highlighting are Mark posts, which do move the thread away from its eternal circle.

Those new paladins options will be thing to see.

I am very excited about the new spells and the new mechanic on Righteous Ally. The weapon rune thing sounds neat.


HWalsh wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Again, spend hours away from the thread, come back, it is still the same thing happening. People trying to move a goalpost that aint moving. What makes many like the paladin is subjective, one could say a thousand times: "Making it not LG only would keep exactly the same flavor" and in those a thousands times literally hear a "No." back. Cause this isnt an exact science and another person simply doesnt feel the same.

On a side note, worth highlighting are Mark posts, which do move the thread away from its eternal circle.

Those new paladins options will be thing to see.

I am very excited about the new spells and the new mechanic on Righteous Ally. The weapon rune thing sounds neat.

Yeah, the bonus to the companion part really got me going even more for the class. Cant wait to see what toys they are giving us to play with.

Gotta make that steed shiny.

Also now i have hopes that the druids will also come full of toys, more akin to the hunter from PF1. It is interesting as most paizo blogs not only for the most part answer my concerns one after another, they also make me want to see a next one.

At this point i honestly think if i dont like the final version, i would still be up for the playtest version haha.

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm excited about an old concept of CG goblin paladin I want to play since 3.5. He will be epic with a flaming sword granted by the new rune mechanic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey Star wrote:
I'm excited about an old concept of CG goblin paladin I want to play since 3.5. He will be epic with a flaming sword granted by the new rune mechanic.

Makes me wonder if now that goblins are core, goblin dogs will become a standard mount.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:
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.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I doubt you will, it's still really efficient money-wise not to be toting around a bunch of fully kitted weapons.
...

For me at least Neutral Druids never made sense, various orders having alignments surely does, but nature is cruel and capricious as often as it is beautiful and serene, and having Druids emphasis one side or the other, or wanting to destroy cities for defiling the land, or teach people how to live in harmony with nature, all give very different alignments than an order focused on balance and harmony..


Nox Aeterna wrote:

Yeah, the bonus to the companion part really got me going even more for the class. Cant wait to see what toys they are giving us to play with.

Gotta make that steed shiny.

That is an interesting tidbit, and one that didn't get much follow-up.

I wonder if we'll be able to make guesses about the eventual summoner and hunter classes when we see the feats the mount gets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Yeah, the bonus to the companion part really got me going even more for the class. Cant wait to see what toys they are giving us to play with.

Gotta make that steed shiny.

That is an interesting tidbit, and one that didn't get much follow-up.

I wonder if we'll be able to make guesses about the eventual summoner and hunter classes when we see the feats the mount gets.

Makes me wonder if we will get a hunter class at all.

Maybe the whole thing is now in the druid where they pick feats to directly fight beside their AC? Maybe an archetype?

Personally i would prefer ofc it being a single class so it gets more options tailored for it alone, but who knows, maybe a goal was to cover the half and half classes from the get go.

I wonder how will they build the summoner around this time true, guess for a class that was already about picking the pet in a modular fashion this new system will fit like a glove.


Nox Aeterna wrote:


Makes me wonder if we will get a hunter class at all.

Maybe the whole thing is now in the druid where they pick feats to directly fight beside their AC? Maybe an archetype?

Personally i would prefer ofc it being a single class so it gets more options tailored for it alone, but who knows, maybe a goal was to cover the half and half classes from the get go.

I wonder how will they build the summoner around this time true, guess for a class that was already about picking the pet in a modular fashion this new system will fit like a glove.

In the first video interview that Logan and Erik did, I remember them saying they wanted to get the foundation of the game solid before doing some of the more complex concepts, which likely would need playtests of their own. I remember three classes were specifically mentioned, but the two I recall are Kineticist and Summoner, so I'm hopeful that it'll be easier to mod PF2.

1,401 to 1,450 of 1,735 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards