Alastir Wade

Bronzemountain's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 16 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
Bronzemountain wrote:
The Archetype/Class swap between Cavalier and Paladin is an elegant solution.

A bit behind on this due to site maintenance, but I wanted to comment; This notion only solves the desire for a mounted knight of any alignment. Now, I'm not super against making a paladin an archetype, but the reasons that I'd want to play a CG paladin are not solvable by the introduction of the cavalier. Hell, it took until the introduction of the Daring Champion for me to even think about playing a cavalier in 1e.

To me, they operate in fundamentally different circles, despite having a couple overlapping features, in the form of both having options (or actually not having options, in the case of most of the life of the cavalier) for mounted combat, and having a form of anathema, in their order and code, for cavs and paladins respectively. But the reason I'd play a cavalier, is for the tactician-style buffing ability on a non-magical character, and the reason for playing a paladin is a divinely powered non(-traditional) spellcaster, with the flavor of divine power from championing an ideal (notably, an ideal broader and more core than found in a cavalier's order's edicts). A cavalier was never a substitute for a paladin of non-LG alignment, even in 1e, and is incapable of serving the same purpose in any edition, even if it were made a class instead of an archetype.

You're right, and I agree with you actually. What I meant with Cavalier/Paladin swap was more in line with what others have been saying - have a Knight or Champion (I like Champion, personally) class that covers smiting on behalf of grand powers and defending the party. And make the lawful-good-only version either a subset, or an archetype.

Subclass/subset/class feat path allows for Paladin to be more integrated as a version of the Champion. Archetype makes Paladin a function of spirit, virtue, and intent, more than of skills, and that has some really interesting narrative possibilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Archetype/Class swap between Cavalier and Paladin is an elegant solution.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For people who are dead set on Paladin being a Lawful Good fixed entity, the solution is to make Paladin an Archetype. Thus, anyone in any class who satisfies the requirements of being an unwavering champion of goodness can qualify and advance (similar to Gray Maiden, etc).

This frees up classes to remain broader toolkits for enabling and empowering character concepts. And toolkits shouldn't be so narrowly focused on something as arbitrary as alignment.

And to reiterate, Paladins were not grand champions of goodness, historically (no more or less so than people with any other skillsets), they haven't always been LG in previous editions of dnd, and 'this is how they started' is a problematic argument unless you want Elf to be a class again.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Amalie Grisae wrote:
I actually sit mostly middle of the road in this debate, as I am a fan of divine champions of faith and battle, not just clerics, for all dieties, but the term Paladin I reserve for purely LG diety champions, both due to its actual history with Charlemagne (specifically the built mythos around him and his Paladins) and the history the class has built through the systems.

Charlemagne's Paladins, in addition to being the source of the actual word, are often cited as the inspiration for the class (with Arthurian myth, etc, coming in as well). But Roland and Olivier, most famous of Charlemagne's Paladins, provide us some helpful perspective.

Roland and the Paladins' heroic greatness basically boils down to one thing: They very bravely killed a lot of foreigners. They were generally decent people, certainly, but they were not shining paragons of lawful goodness as we might imagine.

One of the famous Roland and Olivier stories, for instance, involves Roland explicitly lying to Olivier so that he can claim all of the glory of a battle (not for God or country but for himself). There's a moral at the end of the resolution and Roland is taught a valuable lesson by Olivier, but he is not a paragon of justice. He is a paragon of heroic combat - of courage.

This LG nonsense is a nostalgic hangover based on a malformed understanding of historic antecedents and an alignment system that provides no utility beyond telling us what Paladins must be and what deities you can follow, as if there's no possibility for evil people to revere good gods (again, many counterexamples in mythology and history).

It's interesting to me, also, that people desperately want ranged Paladins (not supported by anything resembling tradition or antecedent) but believe they should be LG.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A class feat for both Fighters and Paladins that provided a ranged option keyed to Attack of Opportunity and Retributive Strike would be excellent. It doesn't have to duplicate the feature at range, but provide some linkage.

For instance, Retributive Shot as a Paladin Class Feat might allow you to use your reaction (trigger: ally in range takes damage) to add +1 damage to your next shot against the offending enemy. It's a feat tax, but at least you'd have some Paladin-y ranged action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Igor Horvat wrote:

I see a patern with ranger in recent years

D&D 3.0 - ranger sucks
D&D 3.5/PF1 - ranger is good class
D&D 5e - ranger sucks
D&D 5e UA rework - ranger is a good class
PF2 playtest - ranger sucks

PF2 release - we will see if pattern continues...

+D&D 4e - rangers are murder gods


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Clearly the new elven ranger is a Halfling ranger with a Sling staff (1d10, propulsive). Highly accurate, no volley restriction, bit of damage bump, and can reload on the move (at 4th level, I think).

Bilbo is the new Legolas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the action system in PF2 is excellent - so good that other games should poach it, in fact. It's intuitive, smooth, flexible, and fast. I also like deterministic character generation, as they've implemented it.

So, as others have mentioned, much of the core system is quite solid. But, there are fiddly bits. And those fiddly bits seem to have been made extra super fiddly in ways that impede rather than aid play. These, obviously, are much easier to fix than core system issues. But I hope they do get smoothed off and polished before official release.

These are things like Signature Skills, monster/PC equivalency levels, death and dying, 'exploration mode' and so on.

And finally, there are some issues with how information is organized (spells/powers/feats in particular). These are the easiest to change, and will make a huge difference all by themselves.