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
1,451 to 1,500 of 1,735 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
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...."

Not having to devote your Paladin to a specific deity also allows you to play a Paladin who venerates, say Shelyn, Irori, Sarenrae, Abadar, and Iomedae seeing the lessons of each as important and valuable.

For whatever reason Golarion is really short on people who pray to multiple gods, depending on circumstances; which is really what we should expect the norm to be in a polytheistic society. I get how Clerics have to be devoted to a single deity, but Paladins should be free to venerate like "Torag's entire family".


Benjamin Medrano wrote:
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.

Well, those two certanly fit the modular concept pretty well, guess they want to rock the boat with them this time around, making them ultra awesome since they fit so well.

Well, i imagine PF2 will be easier than ever to mod, cause apparently more things than ever are feats and options, instead of built in stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
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...."

Not having to devote your Paladin to a specific deity also allows you to play a Paladin who venerates, say Shelyn, Irori, Sarenrae, Abadar, and Iomedae seeing the lessons of each as important and valuable.

For whatever reason Golarion is really short on people who pray to multiple gods, depending on circumstances; which is really what we should expect the norm to be in a polytheistic society. I get how Clerics have to be devoted to a single deity, but Paladins should be free to venerate like "Torag's entire family".

Arguably, Commoners and stuff are likely very polytheistic, as can be fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. I also believe that one of the splatbooks added rules for worshiping a pantheon for clerics.

EDIT: PPC Faiths & Philosophies has it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Well, i imagine PF2 will be easier than ever to mod, cause apparently more things than ever are feats and options, instead of built in stuff.

That's been my read. Also that new classes will be pretty easy to spin out. If only (at best) half the class's abilities are tied to everyone in the class, and the rest is a sack of mechanics that might not even be exclusive to your class, alt-classes might be spun up pretty fast.

Just pick a few options that everyone in the class gets, then a dozen or so class feats, another dozen or so cherry picked options from an already existing class, and done.

I said this elsewhere, but I'm likely to spend the first month of the playtest idly mixing and matching class options to see how many classes I can Frankenstein together out of the existing pool. I was going to start with Shifters and Kineticists, but now summoner intrigues me.

...I wonder if Gate is going to become a 10th level spell?

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.

Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Arguably, Commoners and stuff are likely very polytheistic, as can be fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. I also believe that one of the splatbooks added rules for worshiping a pantheon for clerics.

I feel that the Paladin who venerates a whole bunch of gods and goddesses of goodness and law should be explicitly supported by the class though. It makes more sense to me for a Paladin to honor a bunch of gods but to realize that they are called for heroism rather than servility and that they should look to the lessons of Gods as role models more than the rites and observances.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Not having to devote your Paladin to a specific deity also allows you to play a Paladin who venerates, say Shelyn, Irori, Sarenrae, Abadar, and Iomedae seeing the lessons of each as important and valuable.

For whatever reason Golarion is really short on people who pray to multiple gods, depending on circumstances; which is really what we should expect the norm to be in a polytheistic society. I get how Clerics have to be devoted to a single deity, but Paladins should be free to venerate like "Torag's entire family".

*The Hellknight fanboy in the room goes twitchy.*

*gathers self*

I mean, there was an explicitly polytheistic knightly order that likely had a few paladin members (I say likely because PF1 code would have made it difficult, the PF2 version is much easier on that note). The paladins of the single diety got jealous, riled up their other paladin buddies, and declared war on them so they could beat them up and steal their stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Arguably, Commoners and stuff are likely very polytheistic, as can be fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. I also believe that one of the splatbooks added rules for worshiping a pantheon for clerics.
I feel that the Paladin who venerates a whole bunch of gods and goddesses of goodness and law should be explicitly supported by the class though. It makes more sense to me for a Paladin to honor a bunch of gods but to realize that they are called for heroism rather than servility and that they should look to the lessons of Gods as role models more than the rites and observances.

Pantheon worship is under supported imho.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Pantheon worship is under supported imho.

I mean, the line in the blog that I find most objectionable is "Paladins are divine champions of a deity" which suggests to me that the Playtest Paladin is not someone who can be devoted to 2 deities, or 7 deities, or 0 deities, but must be devoted to 1 deity.

I would like to see this changed.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Well, i imagine PF2 will be easier than ever to mod, cause apparently more things than ever are feats and options, instead of built in stuff.

That's been my read. Also that new classes will be pretty easy to spin out. If only (at best) half the class's abilities are tied to everyone in the class, and the rest is a sack of mechanics that might not even be exclusive to your class, alt-classes might be spun up pretty fast.

Just pick a few options that everyone in the class gets, then a dozen or so class feats, another dozen or so cherry picked options from an already existing class, and done.

I said this elsewhere, but I'm likely to spend the first month of the playtest idly mixing and matching class options to see how many classes I can Frankenstein together out of the existing pool. I was going to start with Shifters and Kineticists, but now summoner intrigues me.

...I wonder if Gate is going to become a 10th level spell?

maybe if this becomes popular, a book about putting classes together could come out with options for that. Lots of options seem open going foward.

Dunno how they moved spells around, personally i hope they are all still there, at most just moved around if need be. But i dont think any blog post will help on this, only the full list will answer such a broad thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).

Holy form seems quite great. Hope more classes can unlock their own ultimate versions in the looks departament too haha.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Pantheon worship is under supported imho.

I mean, the line in the blog that I find most objectionable is "Paladins are divine champions of a deity" which suggests to me that the Playtest Paladin is not someone who can be devoted to 2 deities, or 7 deities, or 0 deities, but must be devoted to 1 deity.

I would like to see this changed.

Same. Whether my paladin seeks the unity of all the good gods, is the champion of one of them or thinks that the cosmic principle of good is bigger and more worthy of veneration than all of them put together should be my call.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Not having to devote your Paladin to a specific deity also allows you to play a Paladin who venerates, say Shelyn, Irori, Sarenrae, Abadar, and Iomedae seeing the lessons of each as important and valuable.

For whatever reason Golarion is really short on people who pray to multiple gods, depending on circumstances; which is really what we should expect the norm to be in a polytheistic society. I get how Clerics have to be devoted to a single deity, but Paladins should be free to venerate like "Torag's entire family".

*The Hellknight fanboy in the room goes twitchy.*

*gathers self*

I mean, there was an explicitly polytheistic knightly order that likely had a few paladin members (I say likely because PF1 code would have made it difficult, the PF2 version is much easier on that note). The paladins of the single diety got jealous, riled up their other paladin buddies, and declared war on them so they could beat them up and steal their stuff.

Order of the Torrent says 'hi' on the Hellknight paladins front.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Right, but I meant the Order of the Godclaw, which had a different membership makeup and included evil members, even clerics of evil deities. Hellknight Paladins were explicitly in the setting, but also specifically had to bend their conflicting allegiances at times, if they didn't happen onto an order like the Torrent.


Mark Seifter wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).

Roger that, it was 3am and I was medicated. :P


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).
Holy form seems quite great. Hope more classes can unlock their own ultimate versions in the looks departament too haha.

I always wanted a Paladin who could transform into an Angel, you can do it in PF1 with a spell for a few minutes, you can pull it off in Mythic for 24 hours, but to get it as a feat... Squee.

Shadow Lodge

Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts.
Even that's not true anymore, since now alignment is no longer connected to positive or negative energy with evil gods now being able to providing healing powers to their clerics instead of harm powers.

Besides, Mercy isn't something all paladins get anyway. It's an option that they can choose from. Same with auras.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).

Ah, but a slotted spell or a power? I'm still curious how this is going to work; I could see Paladins becoming half-casters (though where would that leave warpriests to go?) OR not having spell slots at all.

Actually I guess I'm just curious how casters of each partial level would work.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).
Roger that, it was 3am and I was medicated. :P

Honestly, it wasn't a faulty interpretation of what I said or anything. When someone reads something, they always have their own take on it, and the writer has their own knowledge to help them interpret what they said. This goes for all the "not quite" posts I make on here. I'm not saying the person I responded to made a bad interpretation, but instead clarifying to avoid a telephone game where the book comes out and people think I "totally promised something" that has, after passing through four different people, morphed into something very different from the original post. In this case, people would probably be thrilled that what they thought was a spell was something they could just always have, but in some of the cases, maybe not.


HWalsh wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. There may be a spell that lets a Paladin pop wings, or a literal divine Halo.
Close. I said there may be a feat that just gives your paladin angel wings all the time (I checked and there is, but I had forgotten it gives you a cosmetic halo too, and some vision improvements; it's high level) and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic, though I didn't mention that part; not a bad guess that it could be a spell).
Holy form seems quite great. Hope more classes can unlock their own ultimate versions in the looks departament too haha.
I always wanted a Paladin who could transform into an Angel, you can do it in PF1 with a spell for a few minutes, you can pull it off in Mythic for 24 hours, but to get it as a feat... Squee.

I mean, cant you already do that with an aasimar in PF1?

Pick the halo trait, then build up for the wings feat. Sure it isnt optimal... but you can :P.

You will have the wings, the halo and the dark vision.

PS: Sorry i was mistaken, you lose the darksion when you get halo, well you still look like one :P.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
parsimonious

Someone got to use their word of the day calendar. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
parsimonious
Someone got to use their word of the day calendar. ;)

Sorry about that, I can get a bit sesquipedalian sometimes, especially with a concept like parsimony that's important in algorithms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Right, but I meant the Order of the Godclaw, which had a different membership makeup and included evil members, even clerics of evil deities. Hellknight Paladins were explicitly in the setting, but also specifically had to bend their conflicting allegiances at times, if they didn't happen onto an order like the Torrent.

Indeed, the LE AP and LG Pala in the same Order was always an interesting conflict (and was usually Godclaw)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m all for keeping the “traditional” Paladin. I like the fact that she/he is LG and bound by tenets. Heck I liked the old rules when the paladin had to give away all of his or her wealth and only maintain enough to get by. Or the fact they could only have so many magic items.

I get that there is a community of players that want to do away with alignment restrictions or see some other changes. I also know that no matter what Paizo does there will always be a subset of people that are unhappy.

For those of you saying that this breaks the game or I’m going to drop PF and move to 5e, that’s your prerogative. Instead how about giving it a chance? Or better yet – as many Paizo staff have said over the years – these rules are guidelines. House rule it any way you want.
In my 40+ years of gaming experience (I started in 1978 when I was a mere 13 year old snot nosed teenager) more often than not it’s an obnoxious player that ruins a class and not the class itself. We’ve been playing with paladins since first edition and never once (never, yes I used the word never) did we ever have a contentious moment with a paladin or a player playing a paladin. Maybe we’re unique (or dysfunctional) but at the end of the day we got together to have fun. If we debated a rule we talked it out or house ruled it but ultimately the DM/GM had the final say.

So I say give the pally a chance. Playtest him and provide your feedback in a calm and rational way. Stop the name calling and ultimatums. Lose the I’m right and you’re wrong attitude. Give Paizo a ton of credit for trying to improve the game we all love and help them make it better without derailing the boards. Constructive feedback – not criticism always wins the day.

Just my 2 coppers since I had to tithe my excess gold away to the orc orphanage down the road…

Dark Archive

Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
parsimonious
Someone got to use their word of the day calendar. ;)
Sorry about that, I can get a bit sesquipedalian sometimes, especially with a concept like parsimony that's important in algorithms.

I have no idea what you're talking about, Mark! How about translating that sentence to Chelaxian, please? ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gunny wrote:

I’m all for keeping the “traditional” Paladin. I like the fact that she/he is LG and bound by tenets. Heck I liked the old rules when the paladin had to give away all of his or her wealth and only maintain enough to get by. Or the fact they could only have so many magic items.

I get that there is a community of players that want to do away with alignment restrictions or see some other changes. I also know that no matter what Paizo does there will always be a subset of people that are unhappy.

For those of you saying that this breaks the game or I’m going to drop PF and move to 5e, that’s your prerogative. Instead how about giving it a chance? Or better yet – as many Paizo staff have said over the years – these rules are guidelines. House rule it any way you want.
In my 40+ years of gaming experience (I started in 1978 when I was a mere 13 year old snot nosed teenager) more often than not it’s an obnoxious player that ruins a class and not the class itself. We’ve been playing with paladins since first edition and never once (never, yes I used the word never) did we ever have a contentious moment with a paladin or a player playing a paladin. Maybe we’re unique (or dysfunctional) but at the end of the day we got together to have fun. If we debated a rule we talked it out or house ruled it but ultimately the DM/GM had the final say.

So I say give the pally a chance. Playtest him and provide your feedback in a calm and rational way. Stop the name calling and ultimatums. Lose the I’m right and you’re wrong attitude. Give Paizo a ton of credit for trying to improve the game we all love and help them make it better without derailing the boards. Constructive feedback – not criticism always wins the day.

Just my 2 coppers since I had to tithe my excess gold away to the orc orphanage down the road…

The thing is: the paladin could be played perfectly and STILL would have the LG is best good problem, that the other gods are so stupid and weak they cannot have blessed warriors, that none-LG war gods cannot have divine champions that actually work as divine champions not clerics with a gym membership..that is my problem, we only have one divine champion, and it is alignment locked.


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
parsimonious
Someone got to use their word of the day calendar. ;)
Sorry about that, I can get a bit sesquipedalian sometimes, especially with a concept like parsimony that's important in algorithms.

LOL No problem here. I just was amused to see someone actually use it in a sentence. It's like tripping across pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanosconiosis in a post. ;)

Dark Archive

Gorbacz wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Meh, pass. Oh well, no Paladins at my table again :)

Oh, c'mon, Bagsy! Why so grumpy again? Do the dwarven nekkid beard dance and enjoy the previews! ;P

(Although nice to see some old...er, faces (?) still around here! :))

I'm enjoying the previews and nekkid beard dwarven dances (wait wait what?) but I was kind of looking forward to a cheeky blog that features a Paladin of Ragathiel torching an orphanage so that none of those kids grows up to be evil.

I mean, Thanos is basically a Paladin. Show me a man of more noble intent and readiness to sacrifice what he loves in order to get done what everybody else is afraid to even think about. That's dedication. That's altruism. That's casting aside your ego, your ambition and your gluttony for power in order to pursue a higher goal. This is what Paladins are all about.

Hah! I knew you had been watching my...uh, performances (?) on ThruneTube! Let you little fello... er, beard flap at the breeze! ;P

(I can't comment on the Infinity war, as I haven't seen the film yet. However, Thanos as portrayed in Marvel comics doesn't come across anything but a power-hungry and self-righteous tyrant, unable to focus on anything else beside acquiring cosmic-level powers.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanosconiosis

Gesundheit


I'm finding it surprisingly easy to brainstorm ideas for a Chaos Knight.

Let's step outside and think differently. :D


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Asgetrion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Meh, pass. Oh well, no Paladins at my table again :)

Oh, c'mon, Bagsy! Why so grumpy again? Do the dwarven nekkid beard dance and enjoy the previews! ;P

(Although nice to see some old...er, faces (?) still around here! :))

I'm enjoying the previews and nekkid beard dwarven dances (wait wait what?) but I was kind of looking forward to a cheeky blog that features a Paladin of Ragathiel torching an orphanage so that none of those kids grows up to be evil.

I mean, Thanos is basically a Paladin. Show me a man of more noble intent and readiness to sacrifice what he loves in order to get done what everybody else is afraid to even think about. That's dedication. That's altruism. That's casting aside your ego, your ambition and your gluttony for power in order to pursue a higher goal. This is what Paladins are all about.

Hah! I knew you had been watching my...uh, performances (?) on ThruneTube! Let you little fello... er, beard flap at the breeze! ;P

(I can't comment on the Infinity war, as I haven't seen the film yet. However, Thanos as portrayed in Marvel comics doesn't come across anything but a power-hungry and self-righteous tyrant, unable to focus on anything else beside acquiring cosmic-level powers.)

Film Thanos is very different, put it that way.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Any chance of a Holomog-specific archetype that worships the Lady of Contracts at some point? ;)


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Right, but I meant the Order of the Godclaw, which had a different membership makeup and included evil members, even clerics of evil deities. Hellknight Paladins were explicitly in the setting, but also specifically had to bend their conflicting allegiances at times, if they didn't happen onto an order like the Torrent.

I mean, the only one ive seen (maybe there's some in adventure paths) is a single level 3 paladin of Iomedae who hopes to change the order from within, that the order is basically manipulating to get their hands on some ancient relic only someone of her bloodline can retrieve.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
parsimonious
Someone got to use their word of the day calendar. ;)
Sorry about that, I can get a bit sesquipedalian sometimes, especially with a concept like parsimony that's important in algorithms.
LOL No problem here. I just was amused to see someone actually use it in a sentence. It's like tripping across pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanosconiosis in a post. ;)

Oh man, that word is the perfect example of how dumb my memory is. I read it once in a dictionary in grade 6, and I can still remember the verbatim definition being : a chronic inflammation of the lungs, produced by inhaling microscopic particles of silica. Also, there's no S after volcano, so it's pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. But ask me somebodies name 5 minutes after I meet them...


Deighton Thrane wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
parsimonious
Someone got to use their word of the day calendar. ;)
Sorry about that, I can get a bit sesquipedalian sometimes, especially with a concept like parsimony that's important in algorithms.
LOL No problem here. I just was amused to see someone actually use it in a sentence. It's like tripping across pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanosconiosis in a post. ;)
Oh man, that word is the perfect example of how dumb my memory is. I read it once in a dictionary in grade 6, and I can still remember the verbatim definition being : a chronic inflammation of the lungs, produced by inhaling microscopic particles of silica. Also, there's no S after volcano, so it's pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. But ask me somebodies name 5 minutes after I meet them...

And here I was pretty sure it was some word made for the movie Beerfest.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
parsimonious
Someone got to use their word of the day calendar. ;)
Sorry about that, I can get a bit sesquipedalian sometimes, especially with a concept like parsimony that's important in algorithms.
LOL No problem here. I just was amused to see someone actually use it in a sentence. It's like tripping across pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanosconiosis in a post. ;)
Oh man, that word is the perfect example of how dumb my memory is. I read it once in a dictionary in grade 6, and I can still remember the verbatim definition being : a chronic inflammation of the lungs, produced by inhaling microscopic particles of silica. Also, there's no S after volcano, so it's pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. But ask me somebodies name 5 minutes after I meet them...

LOL That's me to. It has the same meaning as silicosis but is needlessly long in an attempt to make the longest word possible. That I recall no problem. [antidisestablishmentarianism too]. Names... Yeah, not so much. ;)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
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...."

Not having to devote your Paladin to a specific deity also allows you to play a Paladin who venerates, say Shelyn, Irori, Sarenrae, Abadar, and Iomedae seeing the lessons of each as important and valuable.

For whatever reason Golarion is really short on people who pray to multiple gods, depending on circumstances; which is really what we should expect the norm to be in a polytheistic society. I get how Clerics have to be devoted to a single deity, but Paladins should be free to venerate like "Torag's entire family".

That's perfectly ok. I didn't say that they have to be devoted to a single god, but that they have to be part of a religion. Being part of a religion that follow a pantheon works perfectly (assuming Paizo do anathemas for pantheons too).

My point is that someone who in the first round says a Littany, in the second round says a Prayer, and in the third round ask for Divine Favor for himself, IS religious. He is not just a knight, he is a religious knight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:
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?

I don't think so, but there may be a support group...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
and that there was something not directly involving paladin that you could take that could give a halo (one that isn't cosmetic,

This looks like a lot of fun for nonPaladins.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gunny wrote:
Or better yet – as many Paizo staff have said over the years – these rules are guidelines. House rule it any way you want.

Just gonna re-state for the record that some people don't have the luxury of house ruling. Even outside of PFS. For instance, I never get to house-rule anything because I can't GM worth a dang. And there's only one person in my group (of somewhere around 20) who can GM that has historically shown to be at all amenable to modifying much of anything. Fortunately for my case Paladins are not the hill I'm willing to die on, I'm more of a Sorcerer or Rogue guy myself TBQH, though I will happily join the slow-burn to get CG since playing Lawful is also something I can't do worth a dang.


Shinigami02 wrote:
I will happily join the slow-burn to get CG since playing Lawful is also something I can't do worth a dang.

I have to ask... Why?

I mean, what is so difficult about lawful?


HWalsh wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
I will happily join the slow-burn to get CG since playing Lawful is also something I can't do worth a dang.

I have to ask... Why?

I mean, what is so difficult about lawful?

This is actually something I'm interested in as well. I have several players in my group that avoid Lawful like the plague, or write in on the sheet and then continue their Chaotic antics. I know why they don't want to play Lawful, and it involves them being brain dead monkey children that tricked me into being friends with illicit mind wave technology they somehow acquired from the government.

But its still something I'm curious about. I really like Lawful, discipline and calculation and such. In my group, there is a heavy lean toward 'Prodigy' type characters over characters that just train/try very hard. Which is the variety I prefer, and it normally points me to Lawful. In Samurai Champloo terms, I like me some Jin over Mugen. (Love both of them though.)

Also, Jin would beat Mugen. Fight me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
I will happily join the slow-burn to get CG since playing Lawful is also something I can't do worth a dang.

I have to ask... Why?

I mean, what is so difficult about lawful?

Something doesn't have to be difficult to be something you don't find enjoyable.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
I will happily join the slow-burn to get CG since playing Lawful is also something I can't do worth a dang.

I have to ask... Why?

I mean, what is so difficult about lawful?

Something doesn't have to be difficult to be something you don't find enjoyable.

Shinigami said "Can't do worth a dang." which implies difficulty more than disinterested. Means maybe Shinigami would enjoy Lawful if it didn't seem 'hard'? Maybe not, probably doesn't matter to Shinigami, but its a topic of discussion, so...

Jin or Mugen. Decide.

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:


Jin or Mugen. Decide.

Momo.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Xerres wrote:


Jin or Mugen. Decide.
Momo.

Hello Kitty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It feels odd when people say they can't play lawful to me.

Lawful is pretty easy to do, it's my default state. Though there is almost no difference between a LG and an NG unless I absolutely force it.

There are so many ways to play Lawful...

Goku from DB/Z/S is lawful. He is dedicated, determined, and above all tends to follow the rules.

Deku, from Boku no Academia, is lawful.

Guy, from Naruto, is lawful. So is Hinata, Rock Lee, and Sakura.

Captain America is lawful, despite going against the government in Civil War (the comics) - Which only happened because SHIELD attacked him for protesting.

Cyclops, Black Panther, and Carol Danvers are lawful.

Spider-Man is lawful.

Superman, Wonder Woman, and the Flash are all generally lawful.

Hercules (Kevin Sorbo) was lawful.

Luke Skywalker (Episode 9 not withstanding) was lawful.

Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid was lawful.

Captain Picard, Data, the Doctor (Voyager), Spock, and Word were all lawful.

Its... Lawful is a very wide spectrum... I rarely notice it.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Xerres wrote:


Jin or Mugen. Decide.
Momo.
Hello Kitty.

death.. to that charcter...

The God of Death is Back form Hell


I personally have the hardest time with chaotic alignments, since it's hard to play them in a way that is meaningfully distinct from their neutral counterpart. Like if you want to go along with the story, you're still going to respect authority and follow rules when it is expedient to do so, so I have to keep reminding myself to do that less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gunny wrote:

I’m all for keeping the “traditional” Paladin. I like the fact that she/he is LG and bound by tenets. Heck I liked the old rules when the paladin had to give away all of his or her wealth and only maintain enough to get by. Or the fact they could only have so many magic items.

I get that there is a community of players that want to do away with alignment restrictions or see some other changes. I also know that no matter what Paizo does there will always be a subset of people that are unhappy.

For those of you saying that this breaks the game or I’m going to drop PF and move to 5e, that’s your prerogative. Instead how about giving it a chance? Or better yet – as many Paizo staff have said over the years – these rules are guidelines. House rule it any way you want.
In my 40+ years of gaming experience (I started in 1978 when I was a mere 13 year old snot nosed teenager) more often than not it’s an obnoxious player that ruins a class and not the class itself. We’ve been playing with paladins since first edition and never once (never, yes I used the word never) did we ever have a contentious moment with a paladin or a player playing a paladin. Maybe we’re unique (or dysfunctional) but at the end of the day we got together to have fun. If we debated a rule we talked it out or house ruled it but ultimately the DM/GM had the final say.

So I say give the pally a chance. Playtest him and provide your feedback in a calm and rational way. Stop the name calling and ultimatums. Lose the I’m right and you’re wrong attitude. Give Paizo a ton of credit for trying to improve the game we all love and help them make it better without derailing the boards. Constructive feedback – not criticism always wins the day.

Just my 2 coppers since I had to tithe my excess gold away to the orc orphanage down the road…

I intend to playtest a gobbo Paladin of Shelyn.

I intend to do it right, fairly, and test the play. Good or ill at the end of the day it's the only way to see the depths of the class.

There have been significant ultimatums on BOTH sides of the discussion, along with a very 'Holier than thou' attitude since the Blog released that has been verging on a sensation of 'neener neener I got mine'.

I give the developers credit for taking the risks.

I do NOT give those who would diminish, belittle, and condemn my reasoned discussion points as 'bad' because it 'violates TRADITION!' and 'It's NOT WHAT GARY WOULD DO!' credit.

House rules are not an option for folks who play in Organized Play.

Having the rules flexible to begin with allows for more options for everyone. This is inclusive rather than the exclusive desire of an apparently arrogant, entitled and self-righteous few individuals who flaunt their 'victory' in getting 'the Playtest they wanted'.

Personally, I don't want to hear or see another ten years of 'My Paladin fell because...' threads. Seriously, that's a relic of 3.x that could be buried in the trashbin of History, as far as I'm concerned.

My only request if it does NOT change from LG and remains wedged there like a too-tight pair of pants, is that paladins ALSO have a tenet of Humility added to their list, so they can't lord their character choice over other players and their characters.

It's a hard road, being a paladin, and they shouldn't be able to use it as a 'bully stick' to limit other play.

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,735 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards