Diminuendo's page

^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.

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.

Wishlist
I would love an Archetype dedicated to switching sword grips as needed, making use of Half-Swording and Murder Strikes.

Erastil is the god of hunting, I'm sure he'd be more cool with every part of a stag being used.

What 5e does has no bearing on PF 2nd Edition.

Diminuendo wrote:

Which Paizo book are your referring to when you make this statement? Can you please provide a source?

Paizo's Paladin is based off of the 3.5 Paladin, which is based off of the 3.0 Paladin, which is based off of the 2nd Edition Paladin, which is explained in the Complete Paladin's Handbook from TSR.

But apparently any edition of D&D which is convenient to you does.

This seems relevant:

"Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: X is old or traditional. Therefore X is correct or better."

Under that logic traditional players should only ever play D&D 1e.

That is awesome Kyrt, sorry I missed it among the toxicity.

My intent for this thread was always debate and discussion.

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?

I have mentioned the option of a branched class of which Lawful Good Paladin are one branch.

That's more or less what I was going for with the Archetype suggestion.

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

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.

Diminuendo wrote:

It has been a huge argument; James Jacobs feels they should always be lawful for lore reasons, while players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters...

Please, only speak for yourself - not everyone feels as you do.

Good Gaming:-)

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.

Umm, some of us are suggesting this very thing.

Correction; my original post did not suggest Paladins lose their LG restriction.

And we are saying the Gray Paladin is a terrible Archetype that is objectively worse than the base Paladin, and maybe Paladin shouldn't have exclusive rights to the Divine Full BAB Warrior party.

We are not suggesting Paladins lose their LG restriction - only that their toys are shared.

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.

They know that for a simple 2 level dip they can get +Charisma to all of their Saves. That is it. That is the ONLY reason people really want non-L/G Paladins.

They don't care about being a Paladin. They want those sweet, sweet, powers. That is it.

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.

*wakes up, bleary-eyed, grabs coffee*

“I wonder how that thread is going?”

[87 new posts]

Sweet hoogly-moogly.

Neat!

I wonder what Paizo would do if I threatened to leave Pathfinder if they did not open up the Paladin to different alignments?

I mean, it's a no-win scenario. No matter what they did, they would lose a player. What would Paizo do people? What would Paizo do?

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?

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.

Never said every player agrees. If every player agreed, I would have written: "while all players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters."

RDM42, you are free to your own opinion, but I have already responded to this argument;

RDM42 wrote:

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.

Would you like to make a counter argument?

You are ignoring part of that:

"and calls her directly"

Yes, here is the quote;

"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.

Now, a serious question to you:

"Do you think Paladin should be "just a class" in that it should only be a framework of abilities for players to use as they see fit to flavor however they want."

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"

The fact is this... If you are telling me, outright, you don't care about how I feel regarding the class... Then why should I care, at all, about how you want to play the class.

You're trying to take something away from me by making Paladin "just a class" like any other.

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.

We can further draw information from the Paizo Archetype of Paladin known as the "Chosen One" which covers that the Paladin is chosen without, and with no regards, for training. The Chosen Ones, specifically, are found without training, but this codifies that those who are going to become Paladins are chosen at birth and it has nothing to do with training.

IE you either are, or are not.

I just downloaded the Familiar Folio, and it seems the Chosen One Archetype states the opposite of your view;

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.

HWalsh wrote:

You totally don't speak for the player base here.

You have made yourself the ultimate authority on Paladins since the announcement of a new edition was made. This post feels like the ultimate in irony.

I didn't want to be the one to say it.

Paizo's Paladin is based off of the 3.5 Paladin, which is based off of the 3.0 Paladin, which is based off of the 2nd Edition Paladin, which is explained in the Complete Paladin's Handbook from TSR.

So you are saying no official Paizo source supports your view of what Paladins are?

HWalsh you seem to be making sweeping statements on what you feel Paladins should be as fact.

The problem is your argument is based on a series of premises, and if I or any other person arguing against your position feel that your premises are incorrect your message will fall flat.

For example; you state that people are born with the capacity to become Paladins, and Paladinship cannot be earnt or trained for.

Which Paizo book are your referring to when you make this statement? Can you please provide a source?

They just want to add other options. Kind of like adding natural weapons rangers did not ban the Legolas clone to those who want it.

I don't think I could make my argument any clearer Gustavo.

You seem to get to the point where people would rather abolish the class entirely than allow it to exist as lg limited and it starts seeming just plain odd.

I'm not suggesting abolishment at all, just that the Paladin class be broadened to new alignments. What I am truly suggesting is a name change.

HWalsh I made this thread to discuss how I would personally like to see Paladins done in 2nd edition. While I am open to criticism on my views, it seems you wish to shut down discussion on this issue completely.

Singling out individual points of my original post; commenting underneath with statements like "No," and "ABSOLUTELY NOT," creates no opening for further discussion, isn't constructive, and gives those in the opposing camp no choice but to argue against your abrasiveness - rather than argue your points.

I'd love to have a discussion on this issue with you, but I can only do that if there is some mutual respect.

Not pretending they do - it’s more of a lore vs mechanics issue

What is a CE wizard called, oh yeah, a wizard.

While I agree with your view of this, many in the community do not, and feel Paladins must always be LG. The suggestion for the "Herald" name change is a compromise; Paladins get to remain LG, while their mechanics become available to any alignment.

If a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, why can't we rename the Paladin?

I do not see this gaining ground with the paladin pretty much having spot in fantasy as a whole now days, often fueled by MMO's

Paladins would still have their spot though, just as an Archetype or Prestige Class.

They would still be part of PFs lore, and any player who wants to be a Paladin could be one.

The only change my suggestion makes is that it gives the Paladins tools to any alignment without besmirching the Paladins name.

That does not mean they will remove it. In may way PF has a down right archaic view of the class. I do not see many people being fine with removing what is a fantasy staple you can play on most MMO's

I am not suggesting Paladins be removed, only adapted.

I am suggesting Paladins be renamed so that they can be non-LG, and that an Archetype or Prestige Class called "Paladin" be made for those who prefer them to be LG.

It has been a huge argument; James Jacobs feels they should always be lawful for lore reasons, while players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters.

As the 2e rulebook will include Archetypes, Paizo has a unique opportunity to settle this argument to the satisfaction of all.

Maybe, instead of Paladin, the core rulebook should have a class called the "Herald."

The Herald has all of the Paladins/AntiPaladins abilities - except - they are themed around the deity of the Herald, not around being LG/CE.

The Herald also has an archetype called the "Paladin" which has a LG requirement and abilities similar to the 1e Paladin.

This allows Paladins to remain part of the lore from day one of second edition, while also making the Paladins abilities available to characters of all alignments.

Asmodean "Paladins" can also be a thing now.

You're welcome Pathfinder community. I am sure no-one will have issue with my solution.

PS. Alternately, Paladins could be a prestige class; it always bugged me that Paladins were meant to be highly warriors, who also happen to start at level 1. I feel Paladin should be an earnt title.

The general rule of thumb is if Vital Strike would be good, you've made a mistake somewhere

Or you're a Heritor Knight