Player Core 2 Preview: The Champion, Remastered

Fort reaper 225 wrote:

Logan Banner wrote:

Heightened (+2) The damage increases by 1d4.

Is anyone else thinking that this scales quite poorly? 1d4 every 2 spell levels bounds up to practically nothing at most stages of the game...

For people to more reliably pick this i feel like changing the spirit damage to 1d6 base dice would be in order seeing as it is generally difficult to even keep the party within those 15 feet that the focus spell requires.

Cantrip damage thorns on one ally that is reactionary and unavoidable that is folded up into the ally gaining an AC PLUS you raising a shield ALL FOR ONE ACTION is some crazy value. It's essentially three actions of focus spell smooshed into one.

Does it actually affect only one ally? The wording is very weird. The second paragraph pretty much says it applies to all allies that are in the aura or enter it and even goes out of its way to remind you that you're not included yourself.

You also don’t need a free hand like Lay on Hands.

Most Champions I see are Sword and Board or Polearm.

I wondered what an Unholy Liberation Champion would look like, but I realized that's Urgathoa, baby! Exist uninhibited! Protect the downtrodden (corpses)! Free yourself and others from even the bleak cycle of life and death!

Also works for Lamashtu, come to think, "bring power to outcasts and the downtrodden" and all, Monsters edition. Rovagug too, maybe. "Liberate ME SPECIFICALLY!"

The liberation of death, freedom in oblivion, tear down the injustice authority that feels it can oppose my freedom to do what ever I want.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Fort reaper 225 wrote:

Logan Banner wrote:

Heightened (+2) The damage increases by 1d4.

Is anyone else thinking that this scales quite poorly? 1d4 every 2 spell levels bounds up to practically nothing at most stages of the game...

For people to more reliably pick this i feel like changing the spirit damage to 1d6 base dice would be in order seeing as it is generally difficult to even keep the party within those 15 feet that the focus spell requires.

Cantrip damage thorns on one ally that is reactionary and unavoidable that is folded up into the ally gaining an AC PLUS you raising a shield ALL FOR ONE ACTION is some crazy value. It's essentially three actions of focus spell smooshed into one.

Does it actually affect only one ally? The wording is very weird. The second paragraph pretty much says it applies to all allies that are in the aura or enter it and even goes out of its way to remind you that you're not included yourself.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is supposed to work for everyone in your aura except you. The wording is just unfortunate.

Justice is a little annoying in that it does seem to be assuming Lawful tendencies, so not justice in that broad a sense. Liberation would probably be closer to the "justice" of the old Chaos alignment, more of the justice of the people weilded against authority rather htan the justice of the paladins that is more about defeating those that oppose a just (and usually, but now not always, benevolent) authoirty.

While Justice is typically interpreted as lawful, there are applications to non-lawful classical alignments.

Neutral Good might would of course favor fair treatment to all. A Sarenite

True Neutral would look at all sides of an issue, and try to come to the conclusion that is most objective. Ahem: Pharasma's court.

Neutral Evil would lean to more personal justices, or a more detached and professional view of what justice is, at the cost of others. Like an avenger going along a dark path. An antihero could be this type, attempting to exterminate an evil faction to exact justice on them, but they remain cruel to the citizenry as well, or care not for casualties. Alternatively, a professional agent that metes out what appears as justice to the average citizen, but is absolutely otherwise evil, like Homelander or Omniman.

Chaotic Good wants to bring about justice independent from law, actively righting wrongs that the rule of law could not. Firebrand ideology, basically.

Chaotic Neutral would seek personal interpretations of Justice, independent from law. Calistrians only care for the rule of law if it directly benefits them. Ultimately, they simply meet out revenge whenever they see fit.

And Chaotic Evil would alike seek personal intepretations of Justice, at the expense of others. Lamashtan ideology, for example wants justice for mistreated monsterfolk, but they are willing to exterminite non-monsterfolk to achieve this.

There are of course, other unsaid avenues by how alignments could gravitate toward Justice, but the main point is, Justice as a middle point that works well because most everyone can agree they want justice, either on a conventional level, a skewed level, or on a level of personal interpretation.

Ezekieru wrote:

Also, I do hope we get a lot more detail about the Alchemist if/when we get a blog about them! We were left with a lot more questions than answers from the Remaster panel at PaizoCon, so I hope Logan, or whoever they get to write the blog on the Alchemist, will give us a lot of detail about the class's changes in the coming weeks!

Shhh... Let them cook.

The book has to already be printing it is already as cooked as it is going to be for the moment.

Ezekieru wrote:

I love the split of 2 Holy Causes, 2 Unholy, and 3 Causes that can be sanctified, but you don't have to. That offers a lot of choice for how you want your Champion to play like, and opens the doors to many more kinds of "more Neutral" Champions post-Remaster.

Can we have someone confirm which of the two (Iniquity or Obedience) is the Tyrant/Antipaladin Cause? If I were a betting man, I'd say Tyrant sounds more like Obedience, while the Unholy-only Iniquity sounds like the new name of the former Antipaladin.

I think Inequity is tyrant. Obediance feels to me like Lawful Neutral.

For those saying that Obedience sounds tryranty, remember the typical lawful mantras of "obey your elders, obey your parents, obey the law, etc." But it can also flex into submit to unjust laws. Being neutral, it can flex into both it's good, and its bad applications, for example, based on whether a god like Erastil or a god like Asmodeus grants you the Obediance cause.

I tried to chart them up to help myself visualize the inspirations from the old, and using the now defunct alignment system, this is the gist I got, which ended up in a hexagonal array, 2 holy causes on the left, 3 neutral causes down the middle, and 2 unholy holy causes on the right

Obedience - Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, or Lawful Evil
Justice - True Neutral, and can find ways to bend into most any of the classical alignments. (Only one I struggle to justify is Neutral Evil.)
Liberation - Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Evil

Grandeur - Neutral Good or Lawful Good
Redemption - Neutral Good or Chaotic Good

Inequity - Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil
Desecration - Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.

It's "iniquity," not "inequity."

"Iniquity" means "immoral or grossly unfair behavior." So Iniquity sounds to me more like it's intended to cover the former Antipaladin territory. "Obedience" has always been the Tyrant's thing - it's just been tweaked to allow different interpretations that are non-evil.

I see what you did there Paizo. Each of the new causes (in a sense) embody each of the aspects of alignment or sanctification. Justice represents law (i.e paladin), liberation represents chaos (i.e liberator), desecration represents evil (i.e desecrator), redemption represents good (i.e redeemer), grandeur represents holy, iniquity represents unholy, and I guess obedience represents neutral (this is the only one I'm not so sure about, since obedience feels like the "unbiased" choice between grandeur and iniquity though obedience has like a tyrant-y feel in its name. If its meant to represent obedience to your god, I feel "devotion" would feel more neutral, but I'm probably reading too much into this).

One of the character ideas I got out of this is a stern champion of Pharasma. This character is not cruel. But she is very wedded to the concept that death makes us all equal, and all - King, knave, first citizen or least of all of us, must bow before the implacable equality of death.

Helmic wrote:

Justice is a little annoying in that it does seem to be assuming Lawful tendencies, so not justice in that broad a sense. Liberation would probably be closer to the "justice" of the old Chaos alignment, more of the justice of the people weilded against authority rather htan the justice of the paladins that is more about defeating those that oppose a just (and usually, but now not always, benevolent) authoirty.

While Justice is typically interpreted as lawful, there are applications to non-lawful classical alignments.

Neutral Good might would of course favor fair treatment to all. A Sarenite

True Neutral would look at all sides of an issue, and try to come to the conclusion that is most objective. Ahem: Pharasma's court.

Neutral Evil would lean to more personal justices, or a more detached and professional view of what justice is, at the cost of others. Like an avenger going along a dark path. An antihero could be this type, attempting to exterminate an evil faction to exact justice on them, but they remain cruel to the citizenry as well, or care not for casualties. Alternatively, a professional agent that metes out what appears as justice to the average citizen, but is absolutely otherwise evil, like Homelander or Omniman.

Chaotic Good wants to bring about justice independent from law, actively righting wrongs that the rule of law could not. Firebrand ideology, basically.

Chaotic Neutral would seek personal interpretations of Justice, independent from law. Calistrians only care for the rule of law if it directly benefits them. Ultimately, they simply meet out revenge whenever they see fit.

And Chaotic Evil would alike seek personal intepretations of Justice, at the expense of others. Lamashtan ideology, for example wants justice for mistreated monsterfolk, but they are willing to exterminite non-monsterfolk to achieve this.

There are of course, other unsaid avenues by how alignments could gravitate toward Justice, but the main point is, Justice as a middle...

As you say, there are a LOT of interpretations of "justice." I have one RPG in my closet where "Justice" is used as a Bad Thing - it's a concept used by the monsters in the game to convince people to do horrible things to others because they think they have the just right to do so.

Iniquity, not Inequity. Rather than inequality (presumably with the tyrant at the top), the word means gross sin, depravity, violation, and wickedness. Probably closer to the old Antipaladin oath, while the Desecrator lines up neatly with its OGL version.

It's "iniquity," not "inequity."

"Iniquity" means "immoral or grossly unfair behavior." So Iniquity sounds to me more like it's intended to cover the former Antipaladin territory. "Obedience" has always been the Tyrant's thing - it's just been tweaked to allow different interpretations that are non-evil.

I thank the both of you for the correction, somehow in all my years I've never ran into both of the words in a close enough time frame to realize they were even differing words. It becomes all too easy to assume a Grey versus Gray scenario.

At the very least, Iniquity including the definition of Injustice still fits in its current space when "unjust" means something is not "morally right or fair," but is amorally allowed via reality and code, such as in an Asmodean court.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Also, I do hope we get a lot more detail about the Alchemist if/when we get a blog about them! We were left with a lot more questions than answers from the Remaster panel at PaizoCon, so I hope Logan, or whoever they get to write the blog on the Alchemist, will give us a lot of detail about the class's changes in the coming weeks!

Shhh... Let them cook.

The book has to already be printing it is already as cooked as it is going to be for the moment.

Based on schedule, the first printing isn't just already printing, it's printed, in North America, and ready to be shipped out from the warehouse.

Fort reaper 225 wrote:

Logan Banner wrote:

Heightened (+2) The damage increases by 1d4.

Is anyone else thinking that this scales quite poorly? 1d4 every 2 spell levels bounds up to practically nothing at most stages of the game...

For people to more reliably pick this i feel like changing the spirit damage to 1d6 base dice would be in order seeing as it is generally difficult to even keep the party within those 15 feet that the focus spell requires.

Cantrip damage thorns on one ally that is reactionary and unavoidable that is folded up into the ally gaining an AC PLUS you raising a shield ALL FOR ONE ACTION is some crazy value. It's essentially three actions of focus spell smooshed into one.

If I'm reading that right, it's all allies in the aura. That's incredible value.

Kittyburger wrote:

It's "iniquity," not "inequity."

"Iniquity" means "immoral or grossly unfair behavior." So Iniquity sounds to me more like it's intended to cover the former Antipaladin territory. "Obedience" has always been the Tyrant's thing - it's just been tweaked to allow different interpretations that are non-evil.

I thank the both of you for the correction, somehow in all my years I've never ran into both of the words in a close enough time frame to realize they were even differing words.

Here's a cynical way to remember the difference: The bar you go to after work is a 'den of iniquity.' The office you go to for work is a 'den of inequity'. Heh.

Here's a cynical way to remember the difference: The bar you go to after work is a 'den of iniquity.' The office you go to for work is a 'den of inequity'. Heh.

Oh that's a great one. Thank you. XD

Cantrip damage thorns on one ally that is reactionary and unavoidable that is folded up into the ally gaining an AC PLUS you raising a shield ALL FOR ONE ACTION is some crazy value. It's essentially three actions of focus spell smooshed into one.

I'm not going to say that it's bad, but I'm not sure I'd go for "crazy value".

It raises a shield, which (on the builds that would be taking it) basically pays for the action cost. So you have a focus point that's giving your allies in the aura (ie, pretty close to you) a +1 status bonus to AC and also does a pretty dinky amount of damage when they get attacked... or. rather, an amount of damage that's meaningful at level 1, and then scales really badly after that... and this lasts for one round, and applies only to attacks.

For context, the damage here hovers a bit below "successful save against a relatively weak cantrip" damage.

So, at level 1, if you're facing off against a bunch of giant rats, and the party is clustering appropriately, and the rats are spreading their attacks out, then it's huge. The autodamage on attack may wind up doing more than the rat bites themselves (especially since you'll also have your champion's reaction to blunt that incoming damage further), and the status bonus on AC is likely to be useful in keeping it that way. Pick the right round to do it in, and it could massively swing the battle.

...but if you're fighting against smaller numbers of beefier enemies (who therefore produce the same damage in fewer attacks) or enemies who target saves (who aren't affected at all) or enemies who were going to attack the champion anyway (for whom it's effectively the same as raising a shield) or you're in a party where people don't like to cluster (and thus aren't in your aura) then it's a lot less significant. As you go up in levels and wind up in fights that naturally take longer, then it loses a bit of significance there, too.

I think I'd rather have Lay on Hands. Happily, that's still an option.

I hope the Redeemer's champion reaction gets a buff. In theory it's the most powerful champion reaction because it can just straight-up stop the monster from getting a powerful strike through; in practice it's weak because the GM gets to choose whether it procs its maximum effect or not, and almost every time that choice is "not."

And I think that this is because the action cost of the Enfeebled action is a potential future miss, while the action cost of completely stopping the action is a guaranteed present miss. The action cost of taking the enfeebled debuff is therefore lower than the action cost of taking the whiff on the Glimpse of Redemption.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Cantrip damage thorns on one ally that is reactionary and unavoidable that is folded up into the ally gaining an AC PLUS you raising a shield ALL FOR ONE ACTION is some crazy value. It's essentially three actions of focus spell smooshed into one.

I'm not going to say that it's bad, but I'm not sure I'd go for "crazy value".

It raises a shield, which (on the builds that would be taking it) basically pays for the action cost. So you have a focus point that's giving your allies in the aura (ie, pretty close to you) a +1 status bonus to AC and also does a pretty dinky amount of damage when they get attacked... or. rather, an amount of damage that's meaningful at level 1, and then scales really badly after that... and this lasts for one round, and applies only to attacks.

For context, the damage here hovers a bit below "successful save against a relatively weak cantrip" damage.

So, at level 1, if you're facing off against a bunch of giant rats, and the party is clustering appropriately, and the rats are spreading their attacks out, then it's huge. The autodamage on attack may wind up doing more than the rat bites themselves (especially since you'll also have your champion's reaction to blunt that incoming damage further), and the status bonus on AC is likely to be useful in keeping it that way. Pick the right round to do it in, and it could massively swing the battle.

...but if you're fighting against smaller numbers of beefier enemies (who therefore produce the same damage in fewer attacks) or enemies who target saves (who aren't affected at all) or enemies who were going to attack the champion anyway (for whom it's effectively the same as raising a shield) or you're in a party where people don't like to cluster (and thus aren't in your aura) then it's a lot less significant. As you go up in levels and wind up in fights that naturally take longer, then it loses a bit of significance there, too.

I think I'd rather have Lay on Hands. Happily, that's still...

Since it triggers on attack, and not on a hit, on an average battle this will indeed be quite a lot of damage for what amounts to a "free action focus spell".

A simple example, vs 3 enemies, each doing 2 attacks each, which is somewhat an average round in my experience will trigger the damage 6 times.

Since people are worried about scaling, let's use 7th level characters and not low level.

That would be a total of 18d4 total damage for a free action focus point, or about 6d4 "no friendly fire" aoe if you want to see it elsewise.

Since it triggers on attack, and not on a hit, on an average battle this will indeed be quite a lot of damage for what amounts to a "free action focus spell".

A simple example, vs 3 enemies, each doing 2 attacks each, which is somewhat an average round in my experience will trigger the damage 6 times.

Since people are worried about scaling, let's use 7th level characters and not low level.

That would be a total of 18d4 total damage for a free action focus point, or about 6d4 "no friendly fire" aoe if you want to see it elsewise.

So... a few things here.

- Second, level 7 means spell level 4, which with this spell actually does 2d4 damage, not 3d4 - so 12d4 total damage. If one of those three enemies decides to take their swings at the champion instead, or perhaps a party member who was not so close, that's down to 8d4.

- Third, something that claws it back the other way a bit, is that any self-respecting party-friendly AOE would be running some sort of save-for-half-damage thing... which very roughly drags the whole thing back up to 12d4ish. So... call it a 6d4 two-targets-within-30 spell. Honestly, "more or less electric arc or a bit better except it's effectively a free action" is pretty solid as a focus spell.

So... okay. Fair. If you're in a party/campaign where you're regularly getting into melee combat with small groups at close quarters, the enemy is small groups that on average make a couple of attacks a round (or alternately come in hordes of weaker enemies producing the same number of total attacks) and they either can't or won't pick someone outside your aura to focus fire on, then it's pretty solid. Also, watch out for hostile area effect attacks, because int he conditions where this spell thrives, those will tear you up pretty badly. I'll accept that it's solid in its niche.

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

shroudb wrote:

Since it triggers on attack, and not on a hit, on an average battle this will indeed be quite a lot of damage for what amounts to a "free action focus spell".

A simple example, vs 3 enemies, each doing 2 attacks each, which is somewhat an average round in my experience will trigger the damage 6 times.

Since people are worried about scaling, let's use 7th level characters and not low level.

That would be a total of 18d4 total damage for a free action focus point, or about 6d4 "no friendly fire" aoe if you want to see it elsewise.

So... a few things here.

- First it's not just "three enemies making two attacks each". It's "three enemies making two attacks each against party members who are not the Champion but are standing close enough to be in the aura."

- Second, level 7 means spell level 4, which with this spell actually does 2d4 damage, not 3d4 - so 12d4 total damage. If one of those three enemies decides to take their swings at the champion instead, or perhaps a party member who was not so close, that's down to 8d4.

- Third, something that claws it back the other way a bit, is that any self-respecting party-friendly AOE would be running some sort of save-for-half-damage thing... which very roughly drags the whole thing back up to 12d4ish. So... call it a 6d4 two-targets-within-30 spell. Honestly, "more or less electric arc or a bit better except it's effectively a free action" is pretty solid as a focus spell.

So... okay. Fair. If you're in a party/campaign where you're regularly getting into melee combat with small groups at close quarters, the enemy is small groups that on average make a couple of attacks a round (or alternately come in hordes of weaker enemies producing the same number of total attacks) and they either can't or won't pick someone outside your aura to focus fire on, then it's pretty solid. Also, watch out for hostile area effect attacks, because int he conditions where this spell thrives, those will tear you up pretty badly....

Sure, 9th level for 0 actions 18d4.

That's completely bonkers damage for 0 actions, and depending on the area of the aura, something that on an average battle will be easily achievable.

You'd be hard pressed to find more damage/action/focus.

Will there be combats where it won't shine? Sure. But "3 enemies attacking your allies" is not at all a difficult condition to achieve.

The comparison with EA is kinda ridiculous since EA is 2 actions and this, for the characters that will be using it, is effectively 0 since it gives you back the Raise Shield that either way you'd want to use.

Even the damage is off. EA at that level is only 12d4 and has a save. This is 18d4 without a save. Which is about double damage.

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

I hope the Redeemer's champion reaction gets a buff. In theory it's the most powerful champion reaction because it can just straight-up stop the monster from getting a powerful strike through; in practice it's weak because the GM gets to choose whether it procs its maximum effect or not, and almost every time that choice is "not."

And I think that this is because the action cost of the Enfeebled action is a potential future miss, while the action cost of completely stopping the action is a guaranteed present miss. The action cost of taking the enfeebled debuff is therefore lower than the action cost of taking the whiff on the Glimpse of Redemption.

Even if the GM choses enfeebled every single time, redeemer still has the strongest reaction of all the champions. Paladin maybe gets an attack if it has enough reach, but the damage is decent but not great as it just vanilla martial damage with no boosts, and having enough reach to use it consistently does restrict your build. Redemption reduces the targets attacks (including athletics maneuvers and with a feat spell attacks and save dcs) by 2, until the end of their next turn, which is huge. It also reduces damage by 2, which is nice at lower levels.

Bluemagetim wrote:

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

An average of 15 damage on an enemy with an average of around 175 health is pretty much meaningless. Sure its "free" but if your allies are getting targeted this much, why are you wasting actions raising your shield?

Bluemagetim wrote:

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

Unless you build a ranged champ in a party with lots of ranged/spellcasting characters. That automatic damage can really help bolster your ranged output as a champion.

That's why I like this focus spell so much. It looks like it'll enable lots of new champion playstyles without overshadowing other options. If you are in a game/group that focuses on ganging up on powerful enemies then Lay on Hands is going to be your go-to. It provides healing, which you can use to keep damage dealers chugging or keep up your tanky wall, whether that's you or someone else. The AC buff doesn't hurt, either.
If you're in a game/group that instead divides their attacks and attention among lots of smaller enemies then Shields of the Spirit really shines. A +1 to AC means more for lower-level enemies, where it can turn hits into misses instead of just turning crits into hits, and spreading more damage out among all your enemies is more valuable. I also like that it is soft enemy control, assuming the enemy doesn't want to take damage. They'll need to rely on non-attack abilities to do that, or hit you to do that, and both of those things are a form of dictating enemy action, which is also valuable.

It raises a shield, which (on the builds that would be taking it) basically pays for the action cost. So you have a focus point that's giving your allies in the aura (ie, pretty close to you) a +1 status bonus to AC and also does a pretty dinky amount of damage when they get attacked... or. rather, an amount of damage that's meaningful at level 1, and then scales really badly after that... and this lasts for one round, and applies only to attacks.

Is it that dinky? It's per attack, not per round. So for example at L20 enemy vs. L20 champion, an enemy who uses all three actions to try and strike at your allies is going to take an average of 75 damage per round from it. No save, and even when the enemy misses their strike. Cruising AoN, the remastered L20 critters have between 315-510 HP. 75 is a nice chunk of that, considering the Champion has just raised their shield, not yet attacked, and didn't even have to roll to hit to do the damage.

Even if the GM choses enfeebled every single time, redeemer still has the strongest reaction of all the champions. Paladin maybe gets an attack if it has enough reach, but the damage is decent but not great as it just vanilla martial damage with no boosts, and having enough reach to use it consistently does restrict your build. Redemption reduces the targets attacks (including athletics maneuvers and with a feat spell attacks and save dcs) by 2, until the end of their next turn, which is huge. It also reduces damage by 2, which is nice at lower levels.

It's... not as great as you think? Comparing with the Paladin...

- The Paladin and the Redeemer both give that extra bump of damage resistance. That's the same either way.
- The Redeemer enfeeblement doesn't apply to the triggering attack, only afterwards. So it gets all of their next turn, sure (assuming they live that long) but in the present turn it's applying to their second attack at best.

So... it's basically comparing "free MAPless melee attack" vs "enemy is enfeebled 2 for their next turn and whatever's left of this one."

Honestly, I think that's pretty even, and even then only because the redeemer doesn't have to jump through as many hoops to be sure they're in range to exploit. Redeemer's Divine Smite is better, but their exalt isn't as good.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

An average of 15 damage on an enemy with an average of around 175 health is pretty much meaningless. Sure its "free" but if your allies are getting targeted this much, why are you wasting actions raising your shield?

Lay on hands just seems stronger in every way.

You won't use it vs 1 enemy. You'd use it when there are more than 1 enemy.

On average a 2nd strike from a champion will do less than 15, and this does it vs every enemy instead of just 1.

The damage doesn't really need to be that good. It's simply an additional incentive to target the champion which is your goal most of the time

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

An average of 15 damage on an enemy with an average of around 175 health is pretty much meaningless. Sure its "free" but if your allies are getting targeted this much, why are you wasting actions raising your shield?

Lay on hands just seems stronger in every way.

15 damage per attack, even on a miss, with no saving throw is not meaningless? It's literally a death via a thousand cuts. And if the enemy was intelligent and stops attacking your allies in order to attack you instead to stop the onslaught of damage, you've now mitigated damage over to yourself. And you've Raised Your Shield, making your already great defenses even better. And if the enemies focus on you, you can Shield Block as a reaction to mitigate even more damage.

There's definitely value in picking it up for a more defensive play style, especially if you already have another party member or 2 who can either cast Heal/Soothe or use Battle Medicine. And if you pick a deity that only has Harm as their Divine Font? Unless you're rocking a Negative Healing character and wanna self-heal with Touch of the Void, Shields of the Spirit would be a more preferable alternative.

zlaxtiel wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

An average of 15 damage on an enemy with an average of around 175 health is pretty much meaningless. Sure its "free" but if your allies are getting targeted this much, why are you wasting actions raising your shield?

Lay on hands just seems stronger in every way.

15 damage per attack, even on a miss, with no saving throw is not meaningless? It's literally a death via a thousand cuts. And if the enemy was intelligent and stops attacking your allies in order to attack you instead to stop the onslaught of damage, you've now mitigated damage over to yourself. And you've Raised Your Shield, making your already great defenses even better. And if the enemies focus on you, you can Shield Block as a reaction to mitigate even more damage.

There's definitely value in picking it up for a more defensive play style, especially if you already have another party member or 2 who can either cast Heal/Soothe or use Battle Medicine. And if you pick a deity that only has Harm? Unless you're rocking a Negative Healing character and wanna self-heal with Touch of the Void, Shields of the Spirit would be a more preferable alternative.

Errr I'm confused, you quoting me and your tone is like you're disagreeing with me, but what you actually say is agreeing with me... I can't tell which is which.

Ezekieru wrote:

zlaxtiel wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

An average of 15 damage on an enemy with an average of around 175 health is pretty much meaningless. Sure its "free" but if your allies are getting targeted this much, why are you wasting actions raising your shield?

Lay on hands just seems stronger in every way.

15 damage per attack, even on a miss, with no saving throw is not meaningless? It's literally a death via a thousand cuts. And if the enemy was intelligent and stops attacking your allies in order to attack you instead to stop the onslaught of damage, you've now mitigated damage over to yourself. And you've Raised Your Shield, making your already great defenses even better. And if the enemies focus on you, you can Shield Block as a reaction to mitigate even more damage.

There's definitely value in picking it up for a more defensive play style, especially if you already have another party member or 2 who can either cast Heal/Soothe or use Battle Medicine. And if you pick a deity that only has Harm? Unless you're rocking a Negative Healing character and wanna self-heal with Touch of the Void, Shields of the Spirit would be a more preferable alternative.

Errr I'm confused, you quoting me and your tone is like you're disagreeing with me, but what you actually...

It's the internet; it's both!

I like most of what I see here. And what I do not like, I understand the reason why and I might actually grow into liking it.

Yay for Champions of Pharasma (alas too late for non-Evil Champions of Gorum).

I really read the causes as mapping to the pre-Remaster alignments. Which feels a bit odd at first, but it is quite understandable.

I had some trouble with Justice because the word itself sounds a bit on the Good side to me while the description is definitely Lawful. Which I associated with Obedience too.

Until I read an above post linking obedience to your deity, as in the divine obediences and boons system. So, obedience is doing what is of utmost importance to your deity and being rewarded for it.

Which perfectly fits my view of a True Neutral cause.

So, yes I like this and I look forward to Remastering my PFS Champions and MC Champions.

And creating new ones.

Regardless, good and evil still exist as "Holy and Unholy" but the requirements of being "good" and "Evil" are now no longer required to be holy and unholy. Being a good unholy practitioner, or an evil holy practitioner, for example. And I adore this possibility.

I am sorry but it is actually a common misunderstanding. Holy requires you to be dedicated to good. And Unholy to evil.

Interesting direction. I’m looking forward to seeing the final product. But I have two general questions: (one major, one minor)

1. The minor. Will you be dropping the word Paladin from the document?
2. The major. There’s no mention of whether Champion’s Reactions are tied to Causes. What’s happened to the Reactions? Are only Champions of Justice able to Retributive Strike? (for example…) Or are the Reactions decoupled from the Causes?

I was wondering that too. I'm honestly surprised the class didn't go back to being called paladin if that name isn't going to be used to a specific subset of that class anymore.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Interesting direction. I’m looking forward to seeing the final product. But I have two general questions: (one major, one minor)

1. The minor. Will you be dropping the word Paladin from the document?
2. The major. There’s no mention of whether Champion’s Reactions are tied to Causes. What’s happened to the Reactions? Are only Champions of Justice able to Retributive Strike? (for example…) Or are the Reactions decoupled from the Causes?

I was wondering that too. I'm honestly surprised the class didn't go back to being called paladin if that name isn't going to be used to a specific subset of that class anymore.

Too close to DnD I guess.

And too loaded with expectations that rightly belong to the DnD Paladin.

Also, to finally get rid of Paladin falls threads.

moosher12 wrote:

Regardless, good and evil still exist as "Holy and Unholy" but the requirements of being "good" and "Evil" are now no longer required to be holy and unholy. Being a good unholy practitioner, or an evil holy practitioner, for example. And I adore this possibility.

I am sorry but it is actually a common misunderstanding. Holy requires you to be dedicated to good. And Unholy to evil.

I mean, they are uncoupled somewhat. Holy and Unholy require you to be committed to fight in the great war between the higher planes and the lower planes on one side or the other- it doesn't necessarily indicate how you behave in your day to day life.

Like you could be an unholy person who is nonetheless kind to strangers and is overall a good citizen, because "having people favorably inclined towards you" makes it easier for you to accomplish your nefarious goals. You can have a holy person who is the classic "holier than thou" model where they don't feel the need to treat people well because *they* fight on the side of the angels.

Like there's a difference between Good and Evil versus good and evil that we're free to explore now.

moosher12 wrote:

Regardless, good and evil still exist as "Holy and Unholy" but the requirements of being "good" and "Evil" are now no longer required to be holy and unholy. Being a good unholy practitioner, or an evil holy practitioner, for example. And I adore this possibility.

I am sorry but it is actually a common misunderstanding. Holy requires you to be dedicated to good. And Unholy to evil.

Yeah. The difference between sanctification and the old alignment system is that being Holy/Unholy is much more of a conscious choice now. If you sanctify to Unholy then you've made an active decision to make people's lives worse, for example.

Ezekieru wrote:

zlaxtiel wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

That ability looks like it only requires allies to be in the aura and triggers on any attack against those allies no matter the result of the attack. Ranged or melee or spell, as long as they are attacks.

It's true. It does that... but if your enemies are primarily ranged, then you're not generally going to want to cluster in the way that the Champion needs for this thing to actually do anything. The Champion themselves is generally going to want to be pretty up-close-and-personal with the enemy wherever it is that they happen to be. Champions aren't known for having great ranged options, and the champion's reaction requires you to be close to the offending foe.

An average of 15 damage on an enemy with an average of around 175 health is pretty much meaningless. Sure its "free" but if your allies are getting targeted this much, why are you wasting actions raising your shield?

Lay on hands just seems stronger in every way.

15 damage per attack, even on a miss, with no saving throw is not meaningless? It's literally a death via a thousand cuts. And if the enemy was intelligent and stops attacking your allies in order to attack you instead to stop the onslaught of damage, you've now mitigated damage over to yourself. And you've Raised Your Shield, making your already great defenses even better. And if the enemies focus on you, you can Shield Block as a reaction to mitigate even more damage.

There's definitely value in picking it up for a more defensive play style, especially if you already have another party member or 2 who can either cast Heal/Soothe or use Battle Medicine. And if you pick a deity that only has Harm? Unless you're rocking a Negative Healing character and wanna self-heal with Touch of the Void, Shields of the Spirit would be a more preferable alternative.

Errr I'm confused, you quoting me and your tone is like you're disagreeing with me, but what you actually...

I'm not quoting you? I'm replying to zlaxtiel and arguing against their points. If I'm making the same arguments as you, then good! They're good points to make. But I'm not in disagreement with you. I'm in disagreement with zlaxtiel.

The Raven Black wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Regardless, good and evil still exist as "Holy and Unholy" but the requirements of being "good" and "Evil" are now no longer required to be holy and unholy. Being a good unholy practitioner, or an evil holy practitioner, for example. And I adore this possibility.

I am sorry but it is actually a common misunderstanding. Holy requires you to be dedicated to good. And Unholy to evil.

I mean, they are uncoupled somewhat. Holy and Unholy require you to be committed to fight in the great war between the higher planes and the lower planes on one side or the other- it doesn't necessarily indicate how you behave in your day to day life.

Like you could be an unholy person who is nonetheless kind to strangers and is overall a good citizen, because "having people favorably inclined towards you" makes it easier for you to accomplish your nefarious goals. You can have a holy person who is the classic "holier than thou" model where they don't feel the need to treat people well because *they* fight on the side of the angels.

Like there's a difference between Good and Evil versus good and evil that we're free to explore now.

They're not as uncoupled as we might like, though.

"The holy trait indicates a powerful devotion to altruism, helping others, and battling against unholy forces like fiends and undead. The unholy trait, in turn, shows devotion to victimizing others, inflicting harm, and battling celestial powers."

I mean, I'd love to play around the grey edges of these things, but... it only goes so far.

moosher12 wrote:

Regardless, good and evil still exist as "Holy and Unholy" but the requirements of being "good" and "Evil" are now no longer required to be holy and unholy. Being a good unholy practitioner, or an evil holy practitioner, for example. And I adore this possibility.

I am sorry but it is actually a common misunderstanding. Holy requires you to be dedicated to good. And Unholy to evil.

Conventionally, yes. But I do think the definitions have room for stretching.

Holy is defined as a "powerful devotion to altruism, helping others, and battling against unholy forces"

Unholy is defined as "victimizing others, inflicting harm, and battling celestial powers."

On the note of altruism, helping others, and battling unholy forces. Altruism cares for the well-being of others yes, but the definition can still be skewed and corrupted. The sentiment that something is for someone's own good can go many dark paths.

On the note of vitimizing others, inflicting harm, and battling celestial powers. Victimizing others and inflicting harm is still an element of antiheroes, Much of this can still be directed toward people who do bad, for a net good.

I don't have many examples of antiheroes or unholy good guys from among the Lost Omens setting. As I have not read many other books that features them, but they remain a common staple in media.

And Perpdepog's point as another point. Being undead. Though being undead stunts your ability to empathize with the living in the long term, it is still possible to remain a good unholy undead for a period of a few years to a few hundred years before you succumb to evil, depending on your willpower to continue to give the insects that are the living that old dose of respect they are apparently supposed to have.

While Justice is typically interpreted as lawful, there are applications to non-lawful classical alignments.

Neutral Good might would of course favor fair treatment to all. A Sarenite

True Neutral would look at all sides of an issue, and try to come to the conclusion that is most objective. Ahem: Pharasma's court.

Neutral Evil would lean to more personal justices, or a more detached and professional view of what justice is, at the cost of others. Like an avenger going along a dark path. An antihero could be this type, attempting to exterminate an evil faction to exact justice on them, but they remain cruel to the citizenry as well, or care not for casualties. Alternatively, a professional agent that metes out what appears as justice to the average citizen, but is absolutely otherwise evil, like Homelander or Omniman.

Chaotic Good wants to bring about justice independent from law, actively righting wrongs that the rule of law could not. Firebrand ideology, basically.

Chaotic Neutral would seek personal interpretations of Justice, independent from law. Calistrians only care for the rule of law if it directly benefits them. Ultimately, they simply meet out revenge whenever they see fit.

And Chaotic Evil would alike seek personal intepretations of Justice, at the expense of others. Lamashtan ideology, for example wants justice for mistreated monsterfolk, but they are willing to exterminite non-monsterfolk to achieve this.

There are of course, other unsaid avenues by how alignments could gravitate toward Justice, but the main point is, Justice as a middle...

Unfortunately, the Edicts and Anathema of the Justice cause in the post contradict many of those interpretations.

Edicts follow the law, respect legitimate authorities or leadership

Anathema take advantage of another, cheat

So the justice they seem to be going for is very much "follow the rules as laid out by an authority." Which since that seems to be really the only defining factor of the cause, the mechanics of it are very likely going to be themed around it to where it'd be difficult to reflavor, much as it's extremely annoying trying to reflavor the current versions of the champion's causes.

That said, because Law and Chaos aren't things anymore, it would be a lot easier to play a character who does believe in those edicts and otherwise acts in stereotypically Chaotic ways since playing to alignment is no longer a concern.

Though that does raise the question. If the legally-rightful tyrant in the region, and your respected commander of a rebel group, are both legitimate authorities in their domains. Which authority is more legitimate?

What defines being rightful, when it may not be moral, but remains done lawfully and in accordance to tradition? Or if a difference in cultures makes what is rightful for another culture not rightful to you?

Most of the times, you'd be allowed to choose your commander as the more legitimate for this purpose. And a champion of the enemy side may pick the tyrant. Both could be champions of justice. But the interpretation of being rightful is subjective.

exequiel759 wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Interesting direction. I’m looking forward to seeing the final product. But I have two general questions: (one major, one minor)

1. The minor. Will you be dropping the word Paladin from the document?
2. The major. There’s no mention of whether Champion’s Reactions are tied to Causes. What’s happened to the Reactions? Are only Champions of Justice able to Retributive Strike? (for example…) Or are the Reactions decoupled from the Causes?

I was wondering that too. I'm honestly surprised the class didn't go back to being called paladin if that name isn't going to be used to a specific subset of that class anymore.

Too close to DnD I guess.

And too loaded with expectations that rightly belong to the DnD Paladin.

Also, to finally get rid of Paladin falls threads.

D&D didn't create paladins. In fact, the concept of paladins in D&D isn't even that unique. It's literally "holy warrior", which is a concept as old as time itself. There's a ton of other PF2e classes that are way closer to D&Ds interpretation than paladins (For example, druids, which in most media are associated with nature magic, though in TTRPGs they are usually shapeshifters too. The PF2e druid isn't necesarily one, but its one of the "common" ones).

Though that does raise the question. If the legally-rightful tyrant in the region, and your respected commander of a rebel group, are both legitimate authorities in their domains. Which authority is more legitimate?

What defines being rightful, when it may not be moral, but remains done lawfully and accordance to tradition? Or if a difference in cultures makes what is rightful for another culture not rightful to you?

Edicts and anathema are inherently subject to personal interpretation. They always have been. The definition of "rightful" is part of that.

I mean, there's an even simpler form. Old king dies, has two kids. Both kids have claims to the throne. Each asserts that their claim is the rightful one for various reasons. Which one is rightful? There's all sorts of different things you could slap in as arguments on either side and the answer would inevitably boil down to "personal interpretation".

Of course, the munchkin immediately says "aha! That lets me cheese it so that this isn't a meaningful restriction at all, and i can just ignore it!" That's missing the point entirely. The issue here isn't about following a set of mechanistic rules as a limitation on character freedom. The issue is that these are supposed to be things that your character actually cares about at a fundamental level, and a creed that they are following to the best of their ability. As soon as you handwave it away and say "so I can stop worrying about it now", that's the moment that you've truly violated your edict and/or anathema. Even when it goes along with what you would have done anyway, your character (and by extension you) are supposed to both know and care why that is.

If someone swears upon their honor to follow a creed that they don't understand half the words to, they have already indicated that they do not care about their word of honor. It doesn't matter if they're following the creed. If their honor meant what it was supposed to, they would not be willing to swear without knowing what it was they were swearing to... or at bare minimum, they would do whatever they could to find out what they had sworn to immediately thereafter - not because they felt constrained by some outside requirement or obligation, but because they would desperately want to know.

D&D didn't create paladins. In fact, the concept of paladins in D&D isn't even that unique. It's literally "holy warrior", which is a concept as old as time itself. There's a ton of other PF2e classes that are way closer to D&Ds interpretation than paladins (For example, druids, which in most media are associated with nature magic, though in TTRPGs they are usually shapeshifters too. The PF2e druid isn't necesarily one, but its one of the "common" ones).

I believe that Charlemagne created Paladins.

Also, druids have been shapeshifters since De Situ Orbis

nice

Gives me hope for the Monk

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Also, I do hope we get a lot more detail about the Alchemist if/when we get a blog about them! We were left with a lot more questions than answers from the Remaster panel at PaizoCon, so I hope Logan, or whoever they get to write the blog on the Alchemist, will give us a lot of detail about the class's changes in the coming weeks!

Shhh... Let them cook.

The book has to already be printing it is already as cooked as it is going to be for the moment.

I meant let them cook the advertising.

The Raven Black wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

I was wondering that too. I'm honestly surprised the class didn't go back to being called paladin if that name isn't going to be used to a specific subset of that class anymore.

Too close to DnD I guess.

And too loaded with expectations that rightly belong to the DnD Paladin.

Also, to finally get rid of Paladin falls threads.

D&D didn't create paladins. In fact, the concept of paladins in D&D isn't even that unique. It's literally "holy warrior", which is a concept as old as time itself. There's a ton of other PF2e classes that are way closer to D&Ds interpretation than paladins (For example, druids, which in most media are associated with nature magic, though in TTRPGs they are usually shapeshifters too. The PF2e druid isn't necesarily one, but its one of the "common" ones).

That's kinda beside the point.

It doesn't have to be legally mandated in order to be a good idea. Avoiding naming confusion and misunderstood expectations is a good thing.

I mean, I'd love to play around the grey edges of these things, but... it only goes so far.

Farther than I think you're giving it credit for.

A cleric of Abadar or Calistria (or another god that allows both) can choose to Sanctify to Unholy and as far as I can tell has absolutely no requirements whatsoever needed to maintain that sanctification (other than the rule about gaining the opposite trait). Maintaining their powers as is, including their holy/unholy augmentations, only requires adhering to their deity's own rules and nothing else.

Obviously, willingly associating yourself with a certain faction has its own implications, but the fact that there are no anathema connected to sanctification itself is also pretty meaningful and something I think people gloss over too easily sometimes.