Zombie lord seems to be the best, with Toughness evening out the HP loss, but I was hoping for unintellegent.
I may just homebrew it, making CHA decide heath, removing the need to breath, and adding positive energy sensitivity. I just wish there was a legal template I could use.
[Before anyone suggests it I am aware of Dread; I dislike Dreads use of Jenga.]
I plan to run an undead invasion outside of a Sarenite church in a small village (specifically Roslar's Coffer). The problem is I'm not a fan of mass battles and keeping track of large amount of units.
Between a small group of survivors, and a unending horde of undead, the only thing I plan to track is whether the makeshift wall between them stays up or goes down. The unpredictability of Jenga will emphasise the uncertainty of mass warfare. An unlucky block pull could result in a short encounter, or maybe, just maybe, the tower could hold - though I'm having difficulty figuring out a natural endpoint for before tower falls).
After the initial outbreak the PCs will find a small group of villagers holding out, asking for help and advice on maintaining their safety.
Before the PCs can answer I'll dump the Jenga blocks onto the table. As the tower is built ill instruct;
"A blockade is like a tower, and like a tower this small militia will crumble if its foundations become unstable. Instead of brick, mortar, and steel, this tower is made of archers, pike men, and town guard."
I'm confident in my set-up, though fine-tuning the mechanics for a smooth running game has proven difficult.
The battlefield will be split into 3 choke points; the PCs will have to choose between attending one battlefront or spreading themselves thin, and where to sent the townspeople to defend.
I intend to use faction initiative (all allies act, all foes act, party act, and repeat) for simplicity but I may reconsider.
The big question is what mechanics to use to decide how many Jenga blocks need to be pulled. I've thought each choke point could have a d8 rolled which can be reduced to d6, d4 or d2 depending on the level of re-enforcement.
I'd love opinions and critique
As much as I like the idea of Paladin & co. being a prestige class, it's already locked in that PF2 will have the same 11 base classes as PF1 launched with, plus Alchemist.
That doesn't rule out a "Knight" class taking the Paladins place to allow access to the mechanics from more than one alignment.
^Make it be like a Herbalist Alchemist, and this would be pretty good (like someone who brews healing remedies like Aragorn, but doing it more often).
I could go for a nature focused Alchemist that combines the best parts of Herbalist, Horticulturist and Bramble Brewer - All three are based around the same concept, with more than a little overlap. Lets do it once and put the excess features into Discoveries/Alchemist Feats.
Or the anti-paladin can be its own too, as can a religious zealot of any specific ideology or faith and the paladin purists could still have Paladin be its own, unique and entirely lawful good thing, without having major mechanical features (a heavy armored defender) be gated behind a single alignment.
I only suggest combining the two because of worries about available space for archetypes, two different archetypes would definitely be best.
Really part of me would have loved to not count all the votes raving about a mechanic but saying nothing about flavor. But that was a hell of alot of votes, and discounting them all because I don't like the apparent reasons for their vote just isn't cool.
I agree Quandary, because there is no guarantee that 2e Archetypes will be carbon copies of their 1e equivalents, but it would be hard to know where to draw the line. Mechanics can create flavor.
Would the BoltAce count as a mechanics suggestion or a flavor suggestion? The same could be said for the Sohei; PCs often have a signature weapon - does opening up the Monks Flurrying pool allow players to Min-Max or does it allow players to create a swift spear-wielding Oberyn style character?
PF is a game of flavor and mechanics, and some players are more interested in one side than the other. Should Team Roll Play really have less of a vote than Team Role Play?
Sohei Breaking the Monk mold with the ability to Flurry with non-Monk weapons, wearing armor while doing so, the Sohei could remove need for a Brawler base class as 2Es Monk + Fighter option. Adding additional weapons to the Flurry list without dipping Cleric is a great boon, as is single weapon TWF.
Archaeologist A caster who wears armor, dodges dragons breath, and has the guile of a Rogue - without needing to drag a set of bagpipes everywhere I go? Sign me up!
Is it bad I also just want to keep the Glibness and Rumormonger?
Daring Champion/Virtuous Bravo I feel many base classes in the ACG need not be reproduced in 2E, and strong Archetypes can recreate play styles and fill gaps in build options, rather than requiring an entire Swashbuckler class.
A similar archetype for Rogue or Fighter may be more suitable to the nimble Duelist theme.
Bolt Ace While not Core Rule Book, The Gunslingers ranged focused feature set is an important character option. Extra effort should be made to allow the Bolt Ace to stack with every (or close to every) Gunslinger Archetype for full comparability with firearm free games.
Separatist Not a required Archetype as much as a problem to be addressed - many deities do not have access to Domains they should, such as Caydens lack of access to the Glory, Liberation, and Luck Domains.
I would also like to ask that if Clerics have 2 Domains in 2E, that each domain be considered its own class feature, to allow players to take 2 Archetypes that each trade one Domain, creating combinations like Divine Strategist/Crusader Cleric.
Still working on this. I've identified the key benefit of Shield Gauntlet Style is an early access Shield Mastery. Shield Gauntlet most suits builds that has abilities which increase weapon enhancement bonus' such as the Fighters Advanced Weapon Training (Warrior Spirit), or the Magus' Arcana.
The optimum build would have 4 things;
-Brawlers Flurry or equivalent (save money enhancing a second Gauntlet)
While I'd prefer this character to be a WarPriest I'm looking into other options. Here are some Pros and Cons;
Rondelero Swashbuckler 2 / Weapon Master 3
Feel free to add input everyone.
What 5e does has no bearing on PF 2nd Edition.
But apparently any edition of D&D which is convenient to you does.
Under that logic traditional players should only ever play D&D 1e.
They'll single you out for direct personal Snipes and they outright refuse to practice what they preach.
I know a therapist in the Atlanta area who can probably help with that
The fact that you are so tone deaf as to write both of these sentences in the same post is astonishing. You are so self deluded that you have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees with you must have mental instability. You are so immature that you feel people offering a counter argument are attacking you personally.
I initially tried to extend an olive branch, tried to convince you that it's OK for us to disagree on this issue, encouraged you to discuss your views, and share evidence for your arguments rather than continue your stomping tantrum.
With the above comment you have successfully graduated from an annoyance to outright offensive.
How dare you make light of people seeking to improve themselves through mental health services.
Find another thread to comment on. You have shown nothing toxicity in this thread, even those who share your opinion on LG Paladins are disgusted by your behavior. Your opinion is no longer wanted here.
How is that for a personal snipe?
While folks like Wei Ji the Learner or Diminuendo would certainly dislike having Paladins only be LG, I doubt it would be anything they'd stop playing Pathfinder over, with my primary evidence being they're playing it right now.
I can confirm I wouldn't, that's why I created this thread. I want 2e to be the game I want to play, and the only way to influence that is to post here about what I want out of the new system. I figure if enough people agree with me the developers will take that into consideration.
I want PCs and NPCs with the title of Paladin to keep their LG requirement because I know how important this is to some players, but I want the class mechanics to no longer be locked behind that door. I feel removing the Paladin name from the class achieves a happy middle ground.
I wouldn't put this much effort into the thread if I wasn't super excited for 2e. I am honestly getting burnt out on Pathfinder 1e - lately, I feel 3.5s dated mechanics get in the way.
I'm sick of feat taxes, I hate that I can't build characters to suit my concepts without sacrificing viability. Why is it impossible to make two weapon fighters wielding mismatched weapons viable? Why is antagonize a feat when any character should be able to bait their opponents? Why do 50 charge wands cost so little that you would never need to waste a spell slot on cure spells?
All of my complaints about Pathfinders current form are mechanics. I've considered leaving, or even trying to make my own system.
But I love Golarion, I love the gods, I love the set pieces, and don't want to move to a new system without them. I am currently writing a campaign that involves Sarenraen Orcs invading Lastwall. The only thing that has kept me playing Pathfinder is the setting.
I will be downloading the playtest 3 days before my birthday and as a gift to myself I'll buy a physical book which will be out of date in 6 months. I'm ready to jump ship now.
If Paladins end up being LG restricted I'll live, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try to convince the community they shouldn't be.
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
Bold text for emphasis, chaotic characters could be described by any combination of reckless, resenting legitimate authority, acting arbitrarily, or being irresponsible.
Chaotics only feel constricted by if they are prevented from acting how they otherwise would.
a CG character would feel right at home in a liberal nation that only regulates actions they would never consider, such as "no murdering".
Also what's to stop a 2e Paladin from having an oath similar to the Cavaliers Order of the Cockatrice, which is literally "Order of Being a Selfish Bastard, Who Always Thinks of Themselves First".
Do you honestly believe a CN "Paladin" would have difficulty following that?
gustavo iglesias wrote:
So you are telling me that a Gorumite having a code that follows step by step the core beleifs of Gorum is no longer Chaotic, and therefore gorumite clerics can't cast spells?
To follow that logic even further, Clerics would lose their spells as well as chaotic PCs aren't lawful enough to follow Gorums edicts
gustavo iglesias wrote:
For all the arguments about opening out the codes for paladins, «But if they do that, it will be very popular» sounds like tge wprst ever.
I actually love the idea of giving Paladins/Heralds "Oaths" similar to how the Cavalier recieved Orders.
The Cavalier always was 33% making teamwork feats actually viable, 33% making mounted combat actually viable, and 33% Paladin with smite everything.
Please read the whole thread so you don't repeat others posts.
And the thing in 5e isn’t a paladin.
Unless they have 11 buddies and work for Charlemagne the Pathfinder "Paladin" is technically not a Paladin.
Because the calling isn't about gods. It's a calling to be a Paladin. It has nothing to do with what a deity wants.
Official Paizo source, please.
TheFlyingPhoton everything you just mentioned already exists in 1e:
Gorumite Druids can wear fullplate, and both Blight and Urban Druid Archetypes exist.
Clerics were never required to be healers; you see, they can channel both positive and negative energy.
The Alchemist class is a Wizard who doesn't cast spells and uses bombs to blast foes instead of to fireball spells.
In regard to Monks I feel there is confusion between "lawful" and "disciplined." A circus acrobat would require just as much training and discipline as a Monk, but when people think carnie they think "chaotic."
To go even further, why must Barbarians be non Lawful? Why couldn't a character be a straight-laced warrior poet with anger issues?
The main problem is, my suggestion was "let's have Paladins appear in a different form for 2e," while it seems some are hearing "let's remove Paladins entirely."
I'm suggesting the Paladin class be diversified to represent Paladins/AntiPaladins and any full BAB divine warrior, whilst still requiring those with the title of Paladin to remain LG.
Divine Grace... See, and this is why people were never satisfied with the non-L/G Paladins they made... None of them got Divine Grace. (And no Antipaladin, as stupid as it is, isn't a Paladin, it is an Antipaladin.)
You seem overly focused on Divine Grace, a class feature that we don't even know will make it to 2e in the same form.
Bards, Oracles, and Sorcerers can all be multiclassed with the Paladin already. If you feel that Divine Grace is so overpowered, maybe Divine Grace needs to be altered or removed from 2e.
Though, it would admittedly sound far less authoritative.
Admittedly, that is why I wrote "players," with the intention of it reading like "[some] players." Always write with strong language, you know?
Charlie Brooks wrote:
Something big like chopping out a core class seems like it would do more harm to public perception of the new game than good.
Again, not suggesting Paladins are "chopped out." Suggesting that the existing class is renamed and diversified.
RDM42, you are free to your own opinion, but I have already responded to this argument;
Would you like to make a counter argument?
Yes, here is the quote;
"Familiar Folio wrote:
"Most paladins train for years at a temple to attain a holy status, but rarely, an emissary of the divine appears to one of humble origins and calls her directly to the charge.
Again, the Chosen One clearly states that this call is a rare exception to the normal Paladin path.
They are all still chosen to receive the call. You either get the call, or you don't, you don't just train for it. That has NEVER been how Paladins work.
There is no evidence to support your theory in official Paizo material.
Yes. I believe that there is a difference between "Paladin" the Class and "Paladin" the title. I feel that Paladins should earn that position, and feel that even a Wizard should be able to achieve the title of Paladin. Alternately, maybe Paladins should be considered "trainee Paladins" until they get to a certain level.
To be clear though, the above is my opinion, which is what you asked for.
I am suggesting the name change from the Paladin to Herald because I know others like you are super passionate about what Paladins should be. I am suggesting we separate the mechanics from lore, making the Herald a "full BAB Holy Warrior," and keeping the Paladin "a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry"
And you are basically telling us we can't have differing opinions because of your emotions.
We aren't trying to take anything away from you. We are trying to have our say, which Paizo has encouraged, about how the Paladin should be handled in 2e.
This isn't a personal attack. I literally never heard of you before starting this thread.
It's also pretty offensive to suggest how I want to play the game cheapens Pathfidner.
Why is “make a new class” not equally viable for you? Why is it ‘it MUST be the paladin!!!!z”
Because an alternate class would either work fundamentally different from the core Paladin (like how the Champion of The Faith Warpriest does not have full BAB), or the second class would work so closely to how the OG Paladin works that the exercise would be a waste of paper.
I just downloaded the Familiar Folio, and it seems the Chosen One Archetype states the opposite of your view;
Familiar Folio wrote:
Most paladins train for years at a temple to attain a holy status, but rarely, an emissary of the divine appears to one of humble origins and calls her directly to the charge. These chosen ones may lack experience, but their teamwork with their emissaries allows them to defeat any evil.
The bold text clearly states that Paladin status is usually trained for, and earned. The Chosen One Archetype is the exception, not the rule.
To turn that around, the other side seems to be designating themselves ‘the voice of the pathfinder community, which of course agrees with us.”
You do realise the following quote was a joke?
You're welcome Pathfinder community. I am sure no-one will have issue with my solution.
I have said multiple times that I made this thread for discussion. If you disagree with my views, make an argument. In response, I will make a counter-argument.