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
351 to 400 of 1,735 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a friendly reminder that there's going to be a "how to remove alignment" sidebar in the core book so all this sturm und drang about LG is a tempest in a teapot. It isn't as though you'll have to redesign an alignment system and requirements from the ground up as would be the case were it removed as a standard.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as making everyone happy goes, here's where I'd be willing to compromise: Make a class with the following features.

Alignment: Any
Primary feature: Martial combat.
Secondary feature: Healing and buffing.
Stat focus: Charisma instead of Wisdom (this is the big deal for me; I like Charisma. I like expressive characters.)

Do it in a blend reasonably close to what the Paladin has and I will be totally satisfied. You can call it the Crusader or the Zealot or the Cobra Kai Never Dies or whatever, it doesn't have to be called 'Paladin.' Doesn't even have to be mechanically identical to Paladin. Just has to be 'melee primary, with some modest access to healing and buffs to do nice things for their teammates from time to time' and I'm totally happy with it.

Problem is Paizo has a very poor history with actually providing this. I don't trust them to make good on it now, not when every previous attempt at it has been so low-quality and not fun to play.

I want a specific, clear commitment to a real take on this idea before I'll be satisfied. I want details and timelines. Vague assurances on this particular topic are worth very little from Paizo because they have consistently shown throughout the last several years that they're aware players want this sort of thing but their attempts have all been really lacking in the end. I don't use Martial Artist on Monk, nor Grey Paladin on Paladin.

I'm not trying to banish the Shining White Knight Atop A Charger from Pathfinder. I'm trying to get Martial Primary plus Some Healing And Buffing on a Charisma-driven class without being tied to Lawful Good. PF1E doesn't have any good options for this (I won't say 'no options at all', because it does have them, they just suck).

All told, I'm very upset by this decision and it has gutted my interest in PF2E. Which is a shame, because up until now they had been making some interesting changes which I supported. I trusted Paizo enough to drop the $60 or so for the special playtest book. And right now, I feel like an idiot for doing so.

I am strongly considering getting my money back from my card issuer (no ethical concerns here; the product hasn't shipped yet, it's months out from shipping and I have no doubt they'll be able to sell 'my' copy to someone else at full price). "Paizo might block you from future purchases anyway if you do that", one might note. I'm too angry to care right now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
there's going to be a "how to remove alignment" sidebar in the core book

Link please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RickDias wrote:

As far as making everyone happy goes, here's where I'd be willing to compromise: Make a class with the following features.

Alignment: Any
Primary feature: Martial combat.
Secondary feature: Healing and buffing.
Stat focus: Charisma instead of Wisdom (this is the big deal for me; I like Charisma. I like expressive characters.)

Do it in a blend reasonably close to what the Paladin has and I will be totally satisfied. You can call it the Crusader or the Zealot or the Cobra Kai Never Dies or whatever, it doesn't have to be called 'Paladin.' Doesn't even have to be mechanically identical to Paladin. Just has to be 'melee primary, with some modest access to healing and buffs to do nice things for their teammates from time to time' and I'm totally happy with it.

Problem is Paizo has a very poor history with actually providing this. I don't trust them to make good on it now, not when every previous attempt at it has been so low-quality and not fun to play.

I want a specific, clear commitment to a real take on this idea before I'll be satisfied. I want details and timelines. Vague assurances on this particular topic are worth very little from Paizo because they have consistently shown throughout the last several years that they're aware players want this sort of thing but their attempts have all been really lacking in the end. I don't use Martial Artist on Monk, nor Grey Paladin on Paladin.

I'm not trying to banish the Shining White Knight Atop A Charger from Pathfinder. I'm trying to get Martial Primary plus Some Healing And Buffing on a Charisma-driven class without being tied to Lawful Good. PF1E doesn't have any good options for this (I won't say 'no options at all', because it does have them, they just suck).

All told, I'm very upset by this decision and it has gutted my interest in PF2E. Which is a shame, because up until now they had been making some interesting changes which I supported. I trusted Paizo enough to drop the $60 or so for the special playtest book. And right now, I...

Again, I feel for you. Had they done what you want I'd feel the same way. We were just on opposite sides.

If you got your way I'd have been just as mad as you are now. I'm not sad I'm getting my desire, but I feel bad that you're upset.

Though... Paizo never promised you Alignment free Paladins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"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."

This particular bit is going to be a headache.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "Don't attempt to subvert the code" is sufficient for most purposes. People should know if they are trying to exploit a loophole, it's not a thing that happens by accident.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Always been of the belief that a Paladin should be a champion of a faith, regardless of alignment.
Was hoping to see Paladins that have to match the exact alignment of their faith, but with strict anathema.
No Problems with what's here though, other than the alignment issue


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RickDias wrote:

As far as making everyone happy goes, here's where I'd be willing to compromise: Make a class with the following features.

Alignment: Any
Primary feature: Martial combat.
Secondary feature: Healing and buffing.
Stat focus: Charisma instead of Wisdom (this is the big deal for me; I like Charisma. I like expressive characters.)

Do it in a blend reasonably close to what the Paladin has and I will be totally satisfied. You can call it the Crusader or the Zealot or the Cobra Kai Never Dies or whatever, it doesn't have to be called 'Paladin.' Doesn't even have to be mechanically identical to Paladin. Just has to be 'melee primary, with some modest access to healing and buffs to do nice things for their teammates from time to time' and I'm totally happy with it.

Problem is Paizo has a very poor history with actually providing this. I don't trust them to make good on it now, not when every previous attempt at it has been so low-quality and not fun to play.

I want a specific, clear commitment to a real take on this idea before I'll be satisfied. I want details and timelines. Vague assurances on this particular topic are worth very little from Paizo because they have consistently shown throughout the last several years that they're aware players want this sort of thing but their attempts have all been really lacking in the end. I don't use Martial Artist on Monk, nor Grey Paladin on Paladin.

I'm not trying to banish the Shining White Knight Atop A Charger from Pathfinder. I'm trying to get Martial Primary plus Some Healing And Buffing on a Charisma-driven class without being tied to Lawful Good. PF1E doesn't have any good options for this (I won't say 'no options at all', because it does have them, they just suck).

All told, I'm very upset by this decision and it has gutted my interest in PF2E. Which is a shame, because up until now they had been making some interesting changes which I supported. I trusted Paizo enough to drop the $60 or so for the special playtest book. And right now, I...

Yeah, I can understand here. It sounds like you want the heal/harm mechanics. It doesn't sound like you're as interested in the theme. Others really are though, and that's cool. It's like some people really like playing tieflings for the storyline, or elves because they're elves.

Take heart in the barbarian playtest. Having run UnBarb over the last few years, it just needs some status removal abilities and the class is a true "tank." The "free/more temp HP at /every combat/" is crazy good.

Level 11: "Here's +40 hit points for you, for free, at the start of every encounter."

It's good.

Barbarian's a solid forward for a tanky option; let's make sure it gets some status-removals.

So, hey. Barbarian may be far from the other option.

Can I ask: come back tomorrow, and let's take a second look at Cleric? Why couldn't that class allow two paths with the inbuilt option-swapping, and gishness-from-day-one that 2e seems to have at Core?


CrystalSeas wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
there's going to be a "how to remove alignment" sidebar in the core book
Link please.

Gonna be honest, theres too much to dig through to find the developer post regarding it. I think it was Seifert and i think it was in the blog post where they listed off anathema and alignments for clerics. I know i saw it though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm running a game with four paladin PCs. They're all Lawful Good. It's fine.

I have no qualms with anything Paizo posted about the PF2 paladin. Well, okay, I hope there's an option for less-than-heavy-armor paladins, but right now we're working on the baselines.

I want to see more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd prefer to see paladins as a martial variant class of cleric with half casting (only up to 5th level spells) and the same for the ranger/ druid.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Though... Paizo never promised you Alignment free Paladins.

You're right, they didn't.

I trusted them to continue being willing to try interesting new ideas and then walk back if they present a problem. This is the idea of a playtest.

They had, up until this point, shown lots of good game design decisions. Enough good decisions that I, in hindsight naively and stupidly, trusted them to continue guiding the game in directions I supported. I am now currently pondering how much ill-will I wish to generate with Paizo's financial dept. and my card issuer to get my money back because this is one hell of a point for Paizo to start dropping the ball this badly.

To use language we both understand: I didn't want them to take Street Fighter's Ryu away from you. I wanted them to either let me pick Ryu with a different costume... or failing that, let me pick Ken or Sakura or Sagat; 'mostly the same basic features, but expressed differently and with different finer details.'

Right now I'm not getting either of those options. If making Paladin non-LG-only would have chased you off, then I expected a compromise solution wherein a similar but distinct class was made available. Failing that, I wanted clear plans up front on how they would accomplish this later on and a timetable for doing so. I got none of this.

This sucks.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
But I need to say: these abilities really don't sound like something Asmodeus or Set or Cronos or Loki or Lolth or The Great Mother or Tiamat or... would grant their followers. They are perfect for a Lawful Good guy, though.

I think they do. Nothing inherently lawful good about using your armor effectively. Nor removing status effects. Not shielding yourself, not bonding with a divine spirit, not piling on a fistful of oaths to follow for increased power. Not even dying then coming back a moment later with a big chunk of fresh hitpoints.

I like the mechanics presented here, and the code as presented would have been a great set of Oaths to take, with additional spellpoint options and perhaps an increased power level of your divine bond. But I would have rather the armored knight chassis been the default, with sacred oaths and sinister contracts letting you flavor the class as you like, including a more traditional paladin.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Nox,

How, then, do I build a Legendary 'Tank' fightermans WITHOUT being A. Lawful Good or B. Spending a Feat?

If that can be answered by the rules without another alignment gating, it'll be a good day.

You do realize that you are basically complaining about the lack of 1 point of AC/TAC? I doubt that you won't be able to gear up both high level Fighters and Paladins in Full Plate with a Sword and Shield.

Posters are acting as if the best armors are locked to Paladins exclusively.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Lawful Good deities probably don't have Barbarians, or Druids either.

Erastil would like a word with you.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Erastil

There are mentions of Druid followers among his faithful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Wowie wrote:

"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."

I know this clause only exists to satisfy rules lawyers more or less, but the first half (everything before the "or") confuses me. What's the RAI here?

"This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents..." (emphasis mine) A paladin is not an overprotective idiot, trying to prevent all risks to others. They are not obligated (on pain of falling) to rush everyone indoors because an oncoming thunderstorm might cause someone to be struck by lightning.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ultimatecalibur wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Nox,

How, then, do I build a Legendary 'Tank' fightermans WITHOUT being A. Lawful Good or B. Spending a Feat?

If that can be answered by the rules without another alignment gating, it'll be a good day.

You do realize that you are basically complaining about the lack of 1 point of AC/TAC? I doubt that you won't be able to gear up both high level Fighters and Paladins in Full Plate with a Sword and Shield.

Posters are acting as if the best armors are locked to Paladins exclusively.

If all Legendary proficiency in armor does is increase your AC by a point then we've been outright lied to. Higher level proficiencies have been advertised as unlocking more epic and mythic level abilities; the difference between a Paladin's Legendary proficiency and a Fighter's Master is going to be more than just numbers.

RickDias wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Lawful Good deities probably don't have Barbarians, or Druids either.

Erastil would like a word with you.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Erastil

There are mentions of Druid followers among his faithful.

Ragathiel has Barbarians, too.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
RickDias wrote:
Right now I'm not getting either of those options. If making Paladin non-LG-only would have chased you off, then I expected a compromise solution wherein a similar but distinct class was made available. Failing that, I wanted clear plans up front on how they would accomplish this later on and a timetable for doing so. I got none of this.

Hmmm... I can't really get behind the tone of the rest of your post, but that is a good way to state why I'm also leaning toward just forgetting about PF2.

I mean, I accept that Lawful Good only supporters are a major faction of the game, and reconciling their desires with the other side is difficult indeed. But its the fact that there's likely to be no consideration at all for the "Other Good Alignment" camp that's really tying the cannon to my boots and throwing me overboard.

A vague statement that the door isn't closed on them, but with the quality of the Gray Paladin as a standard, I have little hope for any serious effort. The Anti-Paladin and Tyrant are more important than other Good alignments getting something.

Its not an unknown desire either, to have other Good alignments join that Divine Champion party, but the Evil alignments not even meant for players have stronger footing. Its a terribly unfortunate circumstance for me.

Edit: Also the fact that the 'Armor Class" is alignment locked. I'm calling shenanigans on that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand that the Paladin is very contentious among a lot of people, but I for one am glad and relieved that the LG Paladin retains its core place in PF2. I've always found Paladins to be simultaneously both simple and complicated to play.

Simple in the fact that the Paladin is the ultimate good guy, so their goals are fairly straightfoward. Sometimes all it takes is to not be a dick or an ass. Just be nice. I've always played my Pallysas people always striving to be living embodiments of the seven virtues. For my players who play Paladins, I measure their actions and decisions in how they embody those seven virtues.

On the other hand, paladins are complicated because life isn't fair, and the universe cares not for your simple morals. As flawed mortals, it is understood that they won't always fulfill the goal of embodying the virtues, but as long as they sincerely try to and exhaust all their options, it's not the end of the world for the paladin. What I find fun with playing with paladins in no-win scenarios is being forced to come up with backup plans, contingencies should I ever find myself in a situation where I might violate my oath. That's where the complicated part comes in. Paladins need to be thoughtful and shrewd if they want to have a long career without dying or falling; they should know that not everyone lives to the paladin standards, so Paladins should anticipate the worse actions the bad guys can do, and prepare for them. Not an easy task.

In the example above regarding revealing witnesses, if I was the paladin in that scenario, I would be trying to find ways to provide protection to those witnesses, or find a way to foil the villains plans, usually by recruiting help. You see a lot of those types of dilemmas in crime drama on TV or in books, so there's a lot of inspiration to take from. And if push comes to shove, I believe a paladin should be willing accept the consequences of breaking the law and possible violating their oath to follow which good they believe in (either lie/refuse testimony, or allow harm to come to innocents).

What irks me when I hear about paladin horror stories: both players and GM try playing the paladin in a moral straightjacket. Instead, I feel it should be path that the paladin sometimes stray from, but can return. LG Paladin players should understand what the intent of their code should be, understand why their decisions may violate it and fall, and be willing to find a way to atone for it. A good guy can perform a horrible act when left with no choice, but because they are good, they would feel guilty and try to make up for what they did, even if they might never end up doing so in their lifetime (which makes for a great tragic story!).

GMs should be aware of the dilemma they put their paladins through, and prepare for possible falling. As long as the PC paladin is sincere, GMs should make it clear that they can atone for their misdeeds and return to the light. If you're a god or some cosmic arbiter of morality that guides paladins, then mercy and forgiveness should be a big thing for you. Angelic visions should be appearing to the fallen paladin, guiding them back onto the path of goodness. And GMs should make it fun and rewarding! I feel that the roleplaying experience can be extremely engaging. And I just love a good redemption arc.

Regarding poisons, that's one of the few things I disagreed with from previous editions. Poisons are a tool; intent is the key factor. Paladins should not have to worry about using poisons when their use could reduce the amount of harm and save lives (sleep/knockout poisons would be super useful for pallys).

On another note, I think a class that fills the role of deity/philisophical champion would be a great addition to the game, but just don't call it paladin.

Paladin Features wrote:
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.

Paladins having their role officially defined as the party's tank/defender sounds good to me. It fits with their flavor as a defender of justice and everything that's good.

Paladin Feats wrote:
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.

Looking forward to reading more oath and other feats. Sounds like Paladins will have many areas to progress in (aura, smites, martial abilities, and so on).

Litanies wrote:
Following their mold from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat, litanies are single-action Verbal Casting spells that last 1 round and create various effects.

I liked these in UC, so I'm glad they're back!

I see no mention of paladins casting spells. Has this been removed? No big loss, especially if litanies and smite powers are plentiful. And Lay on Hands and its feats would be far better than the cure spells the old paladin was saddled with.

Can't wait to get my hands on this class that has long fascinated me!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Hmmm... I can't really get behind the tone of the rest of your post,

That's okay. You shouldn't get behind the tone of my posts.

I am pretty hurt and angry right now. I am posting from 'hurt and angry and surprised in very bad ways and I feel like I stupidly wasted my money supporting Paizo in this endeavor.'

Very little of what I'm doing right now is according-to-Hoyle for proper debate. I'm simply well beyond caring, even as I fully acknowledge it's not quite good form.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
RickDias wrote:
Xerres wrote:
Hmmm... I can't really get behind the tone of the rest of your post,

That's okay. You shouldn't get behind the tone of my posts.

I am pretty hurt and angry right now. I am posting from 'hurt and angry and surprised in very bad ways and I feel like I stupidly wasted my money supporting Paizo in this endeavor.'

Very little of what I'm doing right now is according-to-Hoyle for proper debate. I'm simply well beyond caring, even as I fully acknowledge it's not quite good form.

I feel you, the fighter blog is what made me cancel my plans to pre-order the book.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of players have problems with LG-only paladins because they're predictable, or boring, or whatever. Maybe that's just my perception. My problem with LG-only paladins is that it entirely goes against what I see as good character creation. Allow me to explain.

I'm really fond of roleplay. I love the idea of roleplaying a champion of truth and justice, everything the typical "LG Paladin" seems to be. However, the Paladin Code is just to metagamey for me to feel that it encourages good roleplay. It breaks all verisimilitude. In real life, people have all kinds of beliefs, and they all see themselves as "good." I'm sure that somewhere there's a radical vegan who fully believes that it is both just and right to bomb a meat-packing factory because it murders billions of innocents every year. While IRL, I would call that person evil, I would be willing to call that person a Paladin of Veganism. Anyone who genuinely believes that animals have equal rights as humans would be horrified at the thought of murdering animals for food, and would be within the bounds of their own belief system to defend animals from the aggressors and tyrants who are murdering them daily. The only restriction I would add to a paladin is one of genuine faith. The paladin must believe his own religion. Even if he serves an evil deity, he must believe with all his heart that his deity is legitimately worthy of devotion and worship.

To sum it up, I think that alignment is not well suited to the delicate moving parts that make up an individual's belief system and moral compass. At my tables, I will probably steal the cleric rules on alignments and codes of conduct. I will probably also ask players to write up their own Code. I will do this because a Paladin is a paragon of his deity and belief system, whatever that system may be. At the end of the day, every man considers himself and his actions as "good." In the case of a paladin, those actions are "good" because they are commanded by his deity.


I kinda like the new Paladin. I feel less like I'll fall when playing with a GM who decides using combat maneuvers offensively is 'acting without honor.'. Little sad that Paladin is still LG-only and I hope they release CN or CG paladinoid equivalents at some point, preferably not one that feels like a paladin being punished for not being the correct alignment.

Glad they shifted away from killing evil and towards defending good/innocence. As a GM I felt like I had to ban Paladin if I wasn't writing a story that involved evil being the threat consistently (and I've had many cases where law or chaos are the villain, even occasionally with celestial allies opposing good PCs). Lots of fun, but not for Paladins. Now it feels much safer for Paladins to oppose and combat non-evil enemies, with smite Evil taking a back seat and a code focused more on Gods and the protection of innocents.

All that said, I really hope there is a way to get legendary armoe proficiency on a fighter. Not all tanks are or should be good. That doesn't mean they should have to be less tanky.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Really confused about why people are so opinionated about paladins ._. Its not really worth it to get personally hurt by definition of RPG classes, though I do hope people follow the advice in first post. Either way, if Paizo removes alignment restrictions for Paladins, people will get mad, if they don't remove it, people also get mad.

Either way, I personally didn't find anything in post I really minded. Though I do agree that it would have been nice for it to be clearer whether or not the core book will feature paladins only for LG, paladins & anti paladins(note guys: if you think class name is silly, you don't need to use it in setting, its for benefit of player knowledge :P), LG/CG/LE/CE paladins or for all 9 alignments.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
deuxhero wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Quote:

(...) when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it.

Problem solved :)
Adding "without causing greater harm to others" would make that a patch to the first problem, but the problem is that you could reasonably prevent it, just at the cost of having it happen to others.

A false dilemma is a false dilemma. If someone is going to get hurt no matter what action you take how can you be considered as "[knowing] your action could reasonably prevent it?" (emphasis mine)

This type of false dilemma is the most common situation that is used to "force" a paladin to fall. It's a good to see that Paizo is trying to minimize that sort of "interpretation" from the get-go in PF2.

deuxhero wrote:
Even then that still doesn't fix "taking advantage of others." being so broad that it applies to exploiting the flaws and weakness of evil (You'd fall for hitting a white dragon with fire.).

Yay... Another false dilemma. When fighting that white dragon to protect innocents or to prevent harm to innocents (the 2nd tenet) you are allowed to "take advantage" (the 3rd tenet) of a white dragon's vulnerability to fire.

Quote:
If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren't in a no-win situation; instead, follow the most important tenet.

What you are not allowed to do is go hunting a white dragon in some remote wilderness and "hit them with fire" for no reason (or "because they're a chromatic dragon"). This is where "This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents" comes in, as well. Just because the white dragon in the remote wilderness might, at some point, endanger someone, the paladin is not required to go attack them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I really love the idea of paladins being of the four extreme alignments. I was never crazy about letting characters of any alignment be a paladin because it felt like cutting out part of what made them special. But this would be a great compromise by allowing for greater diversity in paladins while maintaining the feel of the class and letting it still generally mean something to be one.


RickDias wrote:

As far as making everyone happy goes, here's where I'd be willing to compromise: Make a class with the following features.

Alignment: Any
Primary feature: Martial combat.
Secondary feature: Healing and buffing.
Stat focus: Charisma instead of Wisdom (this is the big deal for me; I like Charisma. I like expressive characters.)

Do it in a blend reasonably close to what the Paladin has and I will be totally satisfied. You can call it the Crusader or the Zealot or the Cobra Kai Never Dies or whatever, it doesn't have to be called 'Paladin.' Doesn't even have to be mechanically identical to Paladin. Just has to be 'melee primary, with some modest access to healing and buffs to do nice things for their teammates from time to time' and I'm totally happy with it.

Problem is Paizo has a very poor history with actually providing this. I don't trust them to make good on it now, not when every previous attempt at it has been so low-quality and not fun to play.

I want a specific, clear commitment to a real take on this idea before I'll be satisfied. I want details and timelines. Vague assurances on this particular topic are worth very little from Paizo because they have consistently shown throughout the last several years that they're aware players want this sort of thing but their attempts have all been really lacking in the end. I don't use Martial Artist on Monk, nor Grey Paladin on Paladin.

I'm not trying to banish the Shining White Knight Atop A Charger from Pathfinder. I'm trying to get Martial Primary plus Some Healing And Buffing on a Charisma-driven class without being tied to Lawful Good. PF1E doesn't have any good options for this (I won't say 'no options at all', because it does have them, they just suck).

All told, I'm very upset by this decision and it has gutted my interest in PF2E. Which is a shame, because up until now they had been making some interesting changes which I supported. I trusted Paizo enough to drop the $60 or so for the special playtest book. And right now, I...

Just pointing out if you haven't already you can attempt to just cancel your order through paizo customer service as whatever payment method used isn't even being charged until late July.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

and the side bar allowing the removal of alignment from the game is moot. if pfs makes it mandatory to be in.

telling someone else what they want to play when you are not them is also bad form.( really the warpriest is a cleric geared toward war and nothing more; no it is not a cleric fighter hybrid, it gets fighter feats and gets damage = class level but no full bab even though bab is gone in 2.0 this is also moot)

there is no reason why a ng paladin of either sarenrae or iomedae could not exist....

to state call it anything but a paladin is also bad form.

LG paladins are tyrants.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

and the side bar allowing the removal of alignment from the game is moot. if pfs makes it mandatory to be in.

telling someone else what they want to play when you are not them is also bad form.( really the warpriest is a cleric geared toward war and nothing more; no it is not a cleric fighter hybrid, it gets fighter feats and gets damage = class level but no full bab even though bab is gone in 2.0 this is also moot)

there is no reason why a ng paladin of either sarenrae or iomedae could not exist....

to state call it anything but a paladin is also bad form.

LG paladins are tyrants.

The part that just confuses me is that apparently only LG gods have figured out the secret to this special class, with CE gods figuring out how to pervert it into the anti-paladin. The other gods are just unable to figure out an equivalent sort of champion for their beliefs.

It makes the other deities of all other alignments seem a bit slow on the uptake or just too .. simple? naive? unmotivated? .. to look into the same sort of champion, or any other champion.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the blog post! I'm glad that there's now distinct hierarchy for the Paladin Tenets so less-than-honorable GMs will have a tougher time putting the party Paladin into lose/lose situations.

However, there are some important things to bring up. After talking with my players about it, a lot of them are concerned with the fact that the Paladin is the de jure armor specialist; they believe that the Fighter should obtain legendary proficiency with Armor and Weapons by default, and they believe that making the Paladin the one class with legendary armor proficiency limits player agency if they don't want to play a religious character.

For a variety of different reasons, I agree with them. Personally, I feel that locking the armor specialist behind a specific alignment (LG) is particularly limiting - I understand the reasoning behind keeping the playtest version of the Paladin LG, especially since alignment in general is such a touchy subject, but considering being the tank is a pretty serious role, the prospect of that role being limited to one alignment is worrying. This concern is further cemented by the Barbarian, as I can only imagine that, with their heavy focus on damage output, would also have legendary weapon proficiency that is augmented by their rage.

Ignoring the alignment concerns (because frankly it's so touchy of a subject I don't want to focus on it), I believe a good middle ground would be to make the Paladin the armor specialist, the Barbarian the weapon specialist, and giving the Fighter legendary proficiency in both weapons and armor - seeing as the Paladin and Barbarian both have special class abilities that further cement their ability to tank hits and dish out intense damage respectively, with the Fighter being more dependent on feats, I feel that they deserve to get legendary proficiency in both weapons and armor to compensate and help promote build variation for Fighters. However, this is just my opinion, and I'm withholding a cemented opinion on this until after I get my hands on the playtest.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Thats the part why I don't get getting hurt personally(with emphasis put on that) about this. I don't get behaving as if Paizo is personally ignoring you or personally trying to hurt you, why would they do that?

World doesn't revolve around individual people, paizo(which itself is composed of multiple individuals with different opinions) can't as company show favoritism to individual customers <_< Even if Pathfinder isn't big as wizards, there are thousands of customers, its not reasonable to assume they will support your opinion personally.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Stuff I like:

Paladins being tied to a deity. I always felt like a paladin/cleric of a divine concept was too wishy washy.

Anathema. I continue to love this and support its inclusion with paladins.

Paladin Code being listed in order of importance seems like it'll help clear up some debates.

Atonement being a ritual (& hopefully not easy to do).

---

Stuff I don't like:

Having both a code and anathema feels a bit weird. I honestly think that all the important parts of the paladin code could just be wrapped into the edits / anathema of paladin appropriate deities. That way, if your deity really encourages telling the truth and not lying - all followers have to respect that and not just paladins.

Making "the armor guy" of the core classes alignment restricted and tied to a deity isn't fun. I'd prefer a separate "Armiger" class or something if you really need an armor focused tank class (though please no aggro abilities, those feel so unnatural outside an MMORPG).

While I thought I was an oddball in this view, I was one of the people who really wished that the Warpriest in 1E was a straight up replacement for the Paladin. Conceptually, they seem to step on each others toes of being the holy warrior for a deity, so there isn't a need for two of them. Plus, the Warpriest can actually follow any deity, which seems like a better option for a core book.

Honestly, I'd have prefered it if Paladins were either just LG Warpriests (maybe with some alignment restricted class feat options), an archetype that could be selected (with appropriate paladin code), or an expanded class released after core to reflect them being a more selective specialist class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
jedi8187 wrote:
Why can only LN, LG, and NG deities have champion warriors of their faith? If you are going to have paladins as champions of the faith they need to be open to all or most deities. If you want them to be the knight in shining armor archetype drop the champion of faith aspect. This is why the War Priest was created in first edition.

Yeah... Bringing up War Priest undermines your conceit. LG Paladin does not imply non-LG champions of faith don't exist. Be that War Priests, or alt-Paladins ala Antipaladin, Tyrants, Liberators, etc. If Paizo tomorrow announces they are releasing all Alignment Extreme Champion classes in Core, nothing about Paladin changed. Nothing they are doing implies anything about future implementation of those concepts.

I think they are great concepts and can do well with own class, even P1e Antipaladin felt a bit strained IMHO (as defacto archetype of Paladin), but that's what you get when taking that approach. IMHO they deserve to be at least as distinct as Druids from Clerics, does even the 'armor' focus (mostly proficiency from what we know) fit a CE Antipaladin psychopath?

war priests do not feel anything like paladins, Paladins are in fluff and pretth well represented in crunch (un)holy champions, they feel like blessed warriors and play that way, resistance, smite, auras etc feel like blessings, feel like a diety taking a personnal interest, War Priests feel like a gish classs, like a cleric who lifts, not an empowered champion, but a less bookish cleric, they don't play the same, and they feel like the system is setup to say 'only LG dieties are strong enough to bless their champions, others are fake gods. Also if they are to be THE tank class, then they should not be alignment limited, you should not alignment gate the tank role.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm. I don't really have a holy mount/warhorse in this race, but making a CORE, base class, even if only in the Playtest need to:

A: be Lawful Good only and
B: worship a qualifying Lawful Good god from Golarion

seems a little wacky. I'm not sure what goes on in them puh-laddin threads (yup, that's how I pronounce Paladin, with an emphasis on the second syllable, here in Australia) but the designers may need to ignore them if this is the result.

One alignment. Only. A handful of gods? I'm not down with the lore. Feels shady.

Still, I'll try to convince someone to play this cookie-cutter shape and we'll get some feedback on the mechanics. Plus a lengthy diatribe on why this restrictive and reductionist approach is unhealthy for the system. Which I totes can theorycraft from here.

Apart from all the above, what is outlined seems ok. Not sure why paladin's are the heavy armor types, seems a bit Eurocentric and cilturally arbitrary, but then maybe that is a Paladin through and through. I'm not sure I've played one for three decades...

Litanies sound good. The tiered code schtick seems unfortunately necessary given the player milieu.

Nice blogpost Mark. You seem to get the easier ones, that are simple to break down. Yes. Paladins=simple. Especially as presented here. ;) I think this approach does make a lot of sense - perfect the model and then allow the other paintjobs. Just...unfortunate. For the game. Damn you paladin-thread warriors to...more threads of inexorable posts...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
RickDias wrote:

All told, I'm very upset by this decision and it has gutted my interest in PF2E. Which is a shame, because up until now they had been making some interesting changes which I supported. I trusted Paizo enough to drop the $60 or so for the special playtest book. And right now, I feel like an idiot for doing so.

I am strongly considering getting my money back from my card issuer (no ethical concerns here; the product hasn't shipped yet, it's months out from shipping and I have no doubt they'll be able to sell 'my' copy to someone else at full price). "Paizo might block you from future purchases anyway if you do that", one might note.

No need to feel like an idiot. You won’t face any problems or repercussions from cancelling your preorder (and you haven’t yet paid anything so your card issuer won’t be able to help at the moment).

Paizo don’t charge for preorders, they charge when the product ships so you can just let them know that you no longer want the printed book (via the customer service forum or via email to customer.service@paizo.com) and they’ll cancel it easy-as.

EDIT: sorry, just caught up with the rest of the thread and see that you had already had this suggested. I’ll leave it there anyhow, since it’s got links to the best avenues for cancelling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Xerres wrote:
Only Lawful Good can be this shining champion against Evil, so... kinda means "Best Good" there. Given that other Good alignments are just unable to really channel the righteousness. Or use their armor, apparently.

Cleric, Warpriest, Inquisitor?

Xerres wrote:
As to Gods, Iomedae is the one that closed the Worldwound, Asmodeus is the mastermind destined to control all creation, Zon-Kuthon gets to wear the leather chaps, and Irori became a God by throwing up the horns and daring reality to stop him. And Abadar has a pretty good beard, I like it.

Iomedae's worshipers alternate between being punching bags for whichever writer is angry about organized religion this week, or faceless/viscous goons to slaughter (Hell's Vengeance). Iomedae herself doesn't get away any better, being presented as an violent, iron-fisted weirdo, in the AP ostensibly focused on her... who doesn't even play a major part in sealing the World Wound, since the PCs are the stars of the show, and their coalition actually has relatively few Iomedaeans, given where they are.

Xerres wrote:
Asmodeus is the mastermind destined to control all creation

Asmodeus gets consistently awful mechanics, and has been retconned to be wayyy stupider, in the name of making some social point.

Xerres wrote:
Irori became a God by throwing up the horns and daring reality to stop him.

So did Cayden. One is one of the poster boys for the setting, the other has so little lore most people can't tell you anything beyond his most generic traits.

Xerres wrote:
Contrasting that, Cayden is a drunk that no one cares about

Who gets the second most exposure of any god...

Xerres wrote:
Desna is the one who riled the Abyss enough to make it a problem to begin with.
First off, not true. Second off, Desna gets more exposure than any every other god. The majority of APs have a major Desnan NPC, who is always just super helpful and the bestest person ever, and some even bring in...

Clerics, war priests and Inquisitors feel like also rans they do not feel like divine champions, not in the same way as paladins, which apparently can only be the most boring alignment (can't think of a single LG character I actually like, people say Capt Amefica and Superman, but man those guys at best.bore me)


Honestly, I don't expect Barbarians to be default Legendary Weapon Experts. They weren't anything like that in P1E. They had very good offensive/defensive abilities that were often orthogonal to normal combat rules. All Legendary is by default is a attack/damage boost. Other abilities can boost those things just fine. More substantively, Legendary "unlocks" Feats granting new abilities. But if you have your own pool of competitive abilities (e.g. Rage Powers) in related mechanical areas, there's no reason to expect Legendary Weapon Feats will have any over-all advantage, although both will have isolated advantages because otherwise there is no point in not using same mechanics. Barbarian was just never Weapon-specific.

I would expect there will be boilerplate wording for Proficiency upgrades that state if you gain the same upgrade later by different means, the proficiency is now stacked to next level. Or this could be stated as there not being any Feats granting X proficiency, there is an Upgrade Proficiency Feat which increases your current level by 1, and limits on how often you can retake the Feat.

Designer

27 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Thats the part why I don't get getting hurt personally(with emphasis put on that) about this. I don't get behaving as if Paizo is personally ignoring you or personally trying to hurt you, why would they do that?

World doesn't revolve around individual people, paizo(which itself is composed of multiple individuals with different opinions) can't as company show favoritism to individual customers <_< Even if Pathfinder isn't big as wizards, there are thousands of customers, its not reasonable to assume they will support your opinion personally.

Even when we do make decisions that are nearly perfect for an individual person, that doesn't mean all of them will be. It's unrealistic for anyone to expect to definitely like absolutely everything in the entire playtest. I don't think that's true for anyone, not even the designers! So, for instance, there's a Sarenite sorcerer concept that RickDias was talking about early in the playtest blogs, as an example of something that can only be executed with recent splatbooks, and that we just so happen to be able to cover brilliantly in the playtest book alone (and I think two designers managed to respond to that in quick succession). A game this big is bound to be full of some things you really like and some things you don't, especially since sometimes there are groups of people who want mutually exclusive things to be in the game.

One thing is for certain: we're working hard to make things more effective for fans of all sorts. For instance, we're trying to both use alignment in interesting ways and to make it easy to remove alignment from your game if you want. Or for the paladin, we're working on perfecting the chassis for the lawful good paladin, but the paladin class chassis in the playtest book is much more flexible in terms of creating non-lawful-good versions than the one in the PF1 CRB (for instance, the antipaladin in the adventure has delightfully selfish versions of several of the abilities). I can't say one way or the other which options we'll explore in terms of paladins in other alignments. I can only say that any we do explore, I'm excited for what those could be, much more than I was in PF1.


I could care less about the alignment debate. I'm more upset about he auras and divine grace. They can always open the paladins alignment up later. But I'm very curious to how this reaction diving grace and curious to see how the auras are going to work. Maybe once I see everything in practice it will make sense So I'm going to hold of any final judgement. However it looks like pushing to make divine grace NOT a reaction might be something I'll be pushing for in the play-test (based on of course how it plays)

Silver Crusade

I've always houseruled LG out, no biggie. I do think it should be any good alignment personally as a baseline.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Can’t say as I understand, either. Paizo goes out of their way to say, “they want to get the core class right before building more onto it,” and people act like they said, “screw you, there’ll NEVER BE a non lawful good Paladin class.” They try to resolve Paladin code conflicts, and people come up with the most odd corner-cases to try and prove a Paladin code is a bad idea. From it I can only glean that (1) some people will never be satisfied with any class with roleplay-restrictive components, (2) some people seem to assume Paizo employees are lying to them directly or holding their play styles in contempt, and (3) some people game with GMs that are just plain jerks who hate classes with role play-restrictive components. I just feel so bad for people playing in such seemingly hostile table atmospheres, that their paladins fall from grace just for breathing the same air as the NPCs.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, finding whatever I can to grasp at some semblance of hope for P2E...

The game is supposed to have the alignment cancer be very easy to excise. God willing, this will trump whatever alignment/code-of-conduct restrictions exist.

The class is only LG-only right now. We have a chance that that will die in a fire between now and the final launch.

The class is the armor class, and gating that behind a behavioral restriction is bad form.

On a related note, we cannot fairly playtest non-LG Paladins if they don't exist. They need to exist to be evaluated. God willing, the Beta playtest will correct this heinous oversight and maybe we can then do two playtests worth of evaluating at once.

The only things lost on a fall are spell points and righteous ally. For all we know, those may be entirely optional class features such that a Paladin that never takes them can "fall" (read: become the Paladin of Desna or Gorum or Pharasma that the player meant to play from the getgo) and lose no effectiveness; he may have to take other class features, instead, but as long as those are just as good, it's not the "like what the Paladin gets but lesser" heinousness that the Gray Paladin got saddled with.

Which is really reaching on my part, but I have to hope for a silver lining, that the baggage of bullying and "Neener neener" that has plagued what is ostensibly supposed to be a concept of a guy defined by honor, decency, and forthrightness will finally no longer by supported, rewarded, or enabled.

And yes, I have felt that Pathfinder was enabling a very toxic mindset for the past decade. No, not liking alignment in your game or for your character; that's not toxic. Nor having your character adhere to a code or set of edicts. But the idea that the game should create a situation where certain players with certain character concepts should have to fight tooth and nail, face probable rejection time and time and time and bloody time again? I'm tired of that bullying getting enabled. I'm sick of how being a jerk is the easy option.

Regardless, I will do what I did last time; support Paizo however long it takes for them to finally take this legacy of "Neener neener" and finally bury it in the ground where it belongs. Whether that glimmer of hope lies just over a year from now or another decade or (God forbid) two.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, the good: I like the tiered tenets. I like that they've acknowledged poison use isn't evil. I like that Paladins (probably) aren't spellcasters anymore.
The bad: LG only paladins. As far as I'm concerned, LG only Paladins are fun once in a very long while. If it's gonna be alignment locked to a single alignment, it seems like a niche class that doesn't belong in Core. Especially if it has a specialty mechanical play style that no other class gets.
I get that there's no one solution that will make everyone happy, but it feels like a pretty major missed opportunity to me.

Silver Crusade

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

A lot of the hurt feelings I’m seeing here are acting like the CRB is the only book that will ever come out. This version of the Paladin has a very malleable chassis, in a way the previous Paladin never did. Even with archetypes it was real difficult to make a divergent Paladin.
However with a modular chassis it’s possible to make Paladins of other alignments and gods without having to account for a bunch of side cases They tried that with the Tyrant Paladin in PF1E and there was a lot of stuff missed.

I would think people who want Paladins of other alignments would like the time and page space used to really differentiate each kind of alignment in a meaningful way. Which there just wouldn’t be space enough to do while also providing options for 11 other classes.

While those who want LG Paladins only have that in the CRB. With enough options that two Paladins of LG alignment would have meaningful game relevant differences and choices.

What I’m saying is can everyone follow the only Paladin tenet that matters for all alignments:

Be excellent to each other and party on dudes.


Hmm also I'm gonna hope for the option later for fighters to get legendary armor by some means. (archetype or what have you.)

351 to 400 of 1,735 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards