PFSocietyInitiate's page

I don't know if this is a good place or not to ask such a question but I wasn't sure where else I could ask this.

I was considering putting work into creating a Pathfinder Infinite product that is essentially a what-if scenario for the Lost Omens setting where the adventure paths of first edition each end with the antagonists winning. This would of course create an essentially apocalyptic version of the Inner Sea.

I checked the content guidelines and I am not sure if this would be allowed or not. As the content guidelines specifically say "The Pathfinder Infinite site is geared toward setting-neutral and Lost Omens content only".

Would a variation of the Lost Omens setting be allowed to be published?

A what if book for lost omens campaign setting about the world if every Adventure path was concluded with the worst ending.

Patrick Newcarry wrote:

wait, how tall are you Jason? You're towering over everyone else in that photo.

I'm 6 foot, 7 inches tall. We were all standing I'm afraid. The photographer even asked if I could duck down a bit.

I'm sorry but WHAT?!?!

I've only ever seen you sitting down behind a GM screen or doing lore interviews! I had no idea you were 6 foot 7 inches! You just blew my mind!

How the system pushes a personality onto your character. In 1st edition I can't tell you how many PC's made by my friends didn't have a background or personality. Now you have to choose a background as well as have spaces on your character sheet to talk about yourself which I will definitely be making my players fill out each time

This is kinda vague but I love how everything is included.

Like if you have a fascination with genre in pop culture, you can find at least some of that genre in the Lost Omens campaign guide.

That flexibility lets you build any type of character you want and I love that.

Have you played one of those shoot the target arcade games? Which is harder to hit the stationary target or the moving target? Does the target try to avoid the bullet? Does the bullet always hit, but sometimes doesnt knock over the target?

Again Dex to AC represent that the character isnt an object and is in fact in motion. A gun is not a point and click effect like a fireball; The user has to aim just like any other ranged weapon, the only 2 differences are: Travel speed and Power. Again if you can passively (with no feat investment) dodge a bullet (2.5k ft/s) 50% of the time at standard ranges, less than 100 ft (a mere 33-34 yards of the 500 yard minimum), you can dodge arrows (~100 ft/s) at the same distance 100% of the time without investment.

You're missing the point. If bullets are so fast that you can't dodge them, as you keep saying, then it shouldn't matter if you are in motion because even if you are you can't dodge them according to you.

Also dragon fire breath isn't instantaneous yet still goes against reflex. Reflex is being used as a way to calculate how good you are in avoiding something, ie how hard you are to hit ie if the thing touches you, you take damage.

A simple way to resolve it is have firearms work in the following way. You roll to attack, targeting the opponents reflex DC for a standard save. If the target is unaware of you or flat footed treat the attack as one degree of success better for the purposes of resolving the hit.

Get out of here with your common sense!

Jk

The reason its touch AC is because it doesn't matter how hard or where it hits, just that it does; and adding Dex to AC is represention of how much/fast characters are moving around in a round, as well as their reaction speed.

Basicly, shooting touch AC asks, "how good are you at hitting moving targets, when armor doesn't matter?". However, Reflex saves reverses this and asks the target, "how good are you at moving/dodging, that you can prevent getting hit?".

Effectively to have Guns require a Reflex save, would require motion/reactions so fast that it would invalidate all other ranged and splash weapons.

Touch AC is 10+DEX+Size... If bullets are too fast to dodge then you shouldn't be adding Dex to your AC against it because Dex represents you actively trying to dodge it. This isn't that hard to understand.

Okay so just to get it straight, you believe an average person has a roughly 50% chance to dodge a gunshot aimed straight at them is more believable then an average person having a 50% chance to not miss when firing said gun.

Is this right?

Because let me tell you, dodging a bullet is very hard and it absolutely requires the shooter to be no less than 500 yards away to even have the possibility of dodging. See Mythbusters can you dodge a bullet.

Not to mention that having the target do a reflex save is contrary to the skill and training needed to actually use a gun.

No I believe reflex is the closest thing we can get to touch and that it creates a weapon which feels very different from bows or crossbows which should be the goal if you are adding guns to your fantasy game otherwise what's the point?

Following your logic that it's hard to dodge bullets, I can assume that you think guns in PF1E should ignore both armor and Dex to AC cause bullets go through armor and it's too hard to dodge them. Meaning all guns just have to beat 10 +/- the size effect on AC in 1st edition.

....Objects still auto fail dont they? Or did they changed that and I never realized?

Also if you do use Reflex rule, a success should be a grading wound, aka 1d6 dmg.

I can't speak for objects but you're thinking of "basic saves" which follow the

Critical Success=No damage
Success=half damage
Failure=full damage
Critical Failure=double damage

Not all saves follow that formula and for balance reasons a gun shouldn't either because it means you're always dealing d6 worth of damage which is too strong.

Having guns be a reflex save doesn't make sense on a conceptual level.

Imagine this: You just got a gun and have never held one before, you decide to do target practice and see how it works. With Guns use Reflex: You always hit objects no matter how bad a shot you are. With Guns use regular attacks: You may hit sometimes, but definetly arent hitting all the time.

However, getting a feat to "Matrix Dodge" sounds really cool as a high level Rogue Feat (with an Evasion pre-req ofcourse).

In 1E maybe but just using one randomly would mean you are untrained so it would be 10+Dex. The most Dexterous person with a gun would have a 14 DC. A skeleton which is a -1 CR creature has a +8 to reflex. Meaning they only have to roll a 6 or higher and that's against someone with an 18 in Dex...

Seems pretty great to me since like I said on a success they don't take damage because you would have missed.

If you aren't happy with the numbers (cause you think it's not extreme enough or isn't in Celsius), then just use the descriptions as a baseline.

Your party is in Irrisen? Determine where they are and how much you want the cold to be a challenge. Maybe if they are in the southern part of Irrisen it's normal because you don't want survival to be a big part of the campaign so you only take minor cold in the most northern parts. Maybe you do in which case the southern part is minor cold and the farther north you go it gets colder.

It isn't rocket science. Truthfully though as someone who lives in a temperate area with cold winters and hot summers, this seems pretty accurate.

I like the idea of it being a reflex save to determine how much damage a gun does.

Critical success or success: No damage

Failure: 1d12 damage

Critical Failure: 2d12 damage.

Reflex DC is equal to 10+DEX+Proficiency with firearms. Gunslingers start off expert with guns. 3 round reload action.

I know devs said they were looking at them for being heritages. I'm okay with the elemental races and Dhampir being that...

But pleeeaaase don't do that to Aasimar and Tiefling! If they are heritages then they won't get heritages and you won't be able to choose what type you are. A kyton Tiefling and qlippoth Tiefling should be different just like an archon Aasimar and azata Aasimar should be. I know that any race can be them but reducing both to heritages would be so disappointing. If they want to make each possible fiend or celestial type a heritage I would be okay with that though but if you look at blood of fiends, most are so different looking from their parent race on the Tiefling side it would be weird for them to be just heritages

Wow, I guess my family and I have fire resistance in real life, because we must be taking fire damage every hour or every 10 minutes depending on the day and time of day during the summer here in Arizona. I just came in from 106 degree temperature just a few minutes ago and my adult kids work outside all day in this heat at their jobs.

So, um, yeah the temperature thing is better than what it used to be, but still not realistic. :)

I imagine it can be handwaved/knocked down a level if taking proper precautions (nice airy clothes, lots of water, staying in shade). You'd have probably something around 10-15 hp (human+class HP+Con) so if average is 3.5 damage without proper damage you could be outside for 30-40 minutes before suffering adverse effects. I don't live in Arizona but seems accurate to me. Especially since you don't drop dead but instead enter a dying state.

Rogue's favored skill boost can be Dex, Str or Cha. Happy it's based on your racket and not just always Dex. I hope we eventually see rackets for the other 3 stats. Something like a lookout for Wis, informant/intelligence agent for Int and a Con version which I don't have a name for but it seems silly to leave out a singular stat.

To me it looks like power attack doesn't make your attack take a -5 penalty but it means your second attack is getting a -10 (-8 if agile). That makes it way better but I don't know if that's the correct interpretation. I hope someone from Paizo can chime in and tell us.

I'd like a shifter where each path they can choose at level 1 is based on an archetype from 1st edition.

You'd have a shifter based on animals, based on plants, based on elementals and based on oozes

I imagine playing a champion could work very well. Ultimately, being solely defensive can make combat a little difficult, but being a combat medic using Lay on Hands and using a shield to defend allies could work very easily. Your milage may very

I think fighter gets a bonus to shields so redeemer champion for armor mutliclassed into Fighter for the best probably. You could boost con and dex too

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

On a semi-related note, I pre-ordered some books for 2E and I got an email telling me it was pending. That was 5 days ago. Will I get an email when it goes through or will it go through today cause it's finally July 8th?

You will get another e-mail saying the order is finalized and providing shipment information. It may or may not be today however depending on where in the shipping order you are.

The order says it will expire on July 10th (a week after I ordered it) is that normal or not?

On a semi-related note, I pre-ordered some books for 2E and I got an email telling me it was pending. That was 5 days ago. Will I get an email when it goes through or will it go through today cause it's finally July 8th?

tqomins has a pretty accurate list but I can't remember which thread it's in. I do know that the high seas section archetype is red mantis assassin

It might be terrible but it should be possible and it definetly was possible for the last 10+ years even before pathfinder and even through 5e.

It's still very possible. Complaining that getting bonuses to using a longbow also gives you bonuses to a certain type of melee weapon is like complaining you were given a free pizza. At worst just don't eat the pizza, at best make some room for that pizza.

It honestly seems like the person I was replying too wants their cake and to eat it too. "I want to be hyper-focused on 3 things but if I have viable options besides those 3 things I won't be happy" is such an odd complaint.

Lanathar wrote:

So what do you think a fighter should be able to do then? Because it sounds like if you take a big step back you want all the things a fighter gets to be not feat locked and available to all. Fine, but then what do fighters get instead? Or have I missed something somewhere

You can use the weapons much more effectively in this edition but fighters can do it better. And if you want to soon you have to be more like them...

I'm going to be as clear as I possibly can because it seems that I'm not getting my point across:

1. I want to be able to say I'm invested in a weapon. As a character in a roleplaying game, I feel that should always be an option, just as you can invest in different skills, or invest in different classes.

I can't remember who said it but this reminds me of a favorite quote I have. "Don't build a concept. Build a character". You can have a Elf who likes longbows and wildshape but that should be an afterthought, not the identity of the character. Focusing on hyper specific builds who do things A, B and C and only A, B and C is a terrible way to play RPG's. That's just my 2 cents anyway.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Davido1000 wrote:

It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.

And being venomous in golarion :-P

Tarantulas are venomous in real life, just not enough to cause problems to humans. That might change if they were the size of a large dog...

Though, actually the whole biology of a spider the size of a large dog would need to be so different from our spiders (the lungs don't work when sized up) that any similarities it had to normal sized spiders would be entirely superficial. Of course, that's true of Giants as well (the human body structure does poorly at those sizes). So really, all of this is magic, and we can ignore minor things like whether Giant Tarantulas should be venomous. :)

Oh I don’t mind them being venomous because it is an RPG thing.

But today I learnt they actually are

I am intrigued by this discussion of anatomy when sizes are factored in. So why is it that a giant doesn’t really work properly? Are they just too tall on too narrow a base?

I understand that dragons simply cannot work without unfeasibly large wings (and even then it is a stretch). But the giant humanoids and spider thing is not something I had heard

As far as Giants are concerned, human bones aren't strong enough for something that size and weight. Also I once got an RPG book about how fantasy races would deal with various illnesses and assuming everything is scaled up for 20 foot tall Giants, they would be prone to strokes cause the human heart wouldn't work efficiently enough at that size.

Back to the topic, Im not that well versed in the diety specific channels in 1e, what did they do exactly?

You can read them below

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/variant-channeling/

Some are definitely better than others but it was always a hard choice of do I want to heal/control undead or do I want this cool effect? I think making them class feats based on your deity where you could then channel your original energy and your variant version by spending a feat would be awesome.

I know we're 7 months from release for this book but I need to just throw this out there. I would love for variant channeling to make a comeback and this would be the perfect book to do it in. In case you aren't aware of what variant channeling was in 1E, at first level as a Cleric you could choose if you wanted to channel energy in the traditional sense or you could choose a different effect based on your dieties domain.

With an exhaustive list of Gods coming, I'd like to see this fun little option make a return but as a class feat you could take which would have the requirements of channel energy, worshipping a specific deity for each choice and level.

I'd like everyone else's thoughts on if this should make a return or not.

Loved the story, probably my favorite so far. Did I miss the typical world region preview that comes on Tuesdays though or did it just not release cause of the delay on the preview for 2E and the website being down for maintenance?

Speaking of the A&C spread, note "Dexterity or other" for the Rogue's key ability score.

This suggests that Rogues can choose from among at least 3 possible key ability scores (since many of the martials can choose Dex or Str, and those are listed out.)

We know Charisma from the spoiler cards , so I'm guessing it's Dex, Str, or Cha. As much as I'd love an Int Rogue, I'd be surprised if we got that as a key ability score for the class in core.

I took other as meaning you could choose any alignment to be boosted but Dex is the preferred for most Rogues.

Strength works for the Enforcer style Rogue, Dexterity for the thief, intelligence for the Rogue who can do anything, wisdom for the street smart/perceptive Rogue and charisma for the Rogue who is a face for his group. The only one I can't think of is Constitution but you could lump that in with enforcer, even if you don't maybe they realized Rogue can fit 5/6 and just shrugged and gave Rogue the option to boost any skill which would be neat for the Rogue to have

It's cool they added both gender and pronouns to the character sheet since I remember a lot of discussion over what was the correct choice to include and with this I hope it satisfies both groups of people.

(Still hoping against all odds that core rulebook uses they/them for all pronouns cause it's gender neutral and can include a group if being read aloud even if it's not grammatically correct)

I would like Dhampir to be a heritage that you can add to any ancestry. It would act similarly to half elf/orc where you could take any ancestry feat from your base ancestry or from the Dhampir which would have feats related to vampirism.

As far as Tiefling and Aasimar, it's a little complicated

They are half ancestries. You choose Aasimar or Tiefling first, then you choose a heritage which tells you what type of fiend or celestial you are related too. Each heritage gives you a specific ability tied to that parent outsider race as well as 1 stat getting +2 and another getting -2. Then you choose a second ancestry that is not an outsider race and a second heritage. You apply the stat bonuses and penalties of that ancestry. You don't get access to a first level ancestry feat however as a trade off. The next time you gain an ancestry feat you can choose from either ancestry. The Tiefling and Aasimar would both have feats related to just being a Tiefling of Aasimar as well as ones tied directly to the unique heritage you chose for them, preferably represented by a feat line.

CARBUNCLES

Kineticist is like the perfect class for PF2E progression system. 1st level you get 1 feat for each type of elemental blast. Feats afterwards offer utility or damage boosts. You gain a spell pool to spend and enhance you blasts to even higher levels

I can't read anything (though I have a basic idea of what is what). Gotta say, hate the colors. It almost hurts my eyes to look all the dark blue and brown. I would have much preferred the coloring of either 1e or the playtest.

That's assuming this is the official version and not just a recreation of what the official looks like in Portuguese. Which it could very well be.

If it is the official official version then I won't be too hurt cause I used the filter on my phone to see it in black and white and it looks decent in that color.

and also add it to Hero Point rerolls (we're not talking number of hero points here, just the rolls).

Now that's an idea I love! You get 1 hero point at least every session meaning it will always be useful but it's not way stronger than every other passive ability the other stats have.

I'm still a fan of thing Charisma to Hero Points. Everyone has a minimum of 1. But you get a bonus for each number you have. Charisma bonus of +1? You can have 2 Hero Points. +4? 5 hero points

oh yes i really want a occult race peharps a kind of Mind Flayer specialised in telepathic power. Perhaps wizard of the coast can join pathfinder to make her product made of this second edition and Illithid becoming a player race.

I don't think WOTC will ever let Paizo touch their special monsters. That said Munavri already fit this and aren't evil.

tqomins wrote:

Malckuss76 wrote:

I thought we were supposed to get a preview from one of the blogs today.

We are supposed to, yes. But Paizo's on Pacific time and the playtest blogs often came quite late in the day (4-7pm Pacific, I think?). So the window's not closed yet.

Thanks for this info. I was starting to get a bit nervous. I've been really looking forward to today's article, glad to see there's still a chance we get it.

Not gonna lie, I'm kinda nervous still

Three classes I'd like to see added into the game in a similar being to cavalier was in the playtest would be pirate, ninja and samurai

I'd like to think it was no accident that the 3 good champion abilities all work great together. Oh you are getting hit? Let's have an ally move closer. Now let's give them an attack of opportunity, give you an attack of opportunity and then make you take no damage or weaken the foe

I think that something James Jacobs said was interesting. Assuming eventually that there is an Orc ancestry, and one can always build NPCs with the PC rules or the monster creation rules, it's likely that "Bestiary Orcs" will be more fearsome than same (low) level PC orcs. Similarly PC Kobolds are going to be less pitiful than "Bestiary Kobolds".

In PF1 we gave Orcs +4 to strength and a penalty to every mental stat, because NPCs and PCs were supposed to line up an NPC orcs were supposed to be dangerous melee fighter. Considering how valuable +1s are in PF2, and how Goblins already went from a +4 Dex race to a +2 dex ancestry, we're not going to do that again. Likewise PF1 kobolds had pitiful stat mods, because kobolds were supposed to be pitiable. But in PF2 PC appropriate Orcs and Kobolds are probably going to do +2/+2/-2 with a mental and a physical stat for the +2s.

For Orcs it seems obvious that one of the +2s is going to be Strength, but what mental stat should they have a bonus in? Orcs had penalties to all mental stats in PF1, but that won't hold and Goblins already went from -2 Cha to +2 Cha. Since "Charisma" is already spoken for among the goblinoids, I would lean "Orcs are actually smart" makes them scarier than "Orcs are actually quite wise." So I would lean +2 Str/+2 Int/-2 Wis (which is what I have used in my homebrew for a while).

I would either flip it +2 STR, +2 WIS and -2 INT since I always figured wisdom was a sort of street smarts and the makes more sense for Orcs imo

Or you could get crazy and give Orcs +2 STR, +2 CON and -2 INT

Am I the only one here who likes the idea of magical +1's? I see it in 2 ways.

Scenario 1: As loot. Would you rather find an expert quality blade or a blade forged and then magically enchanted to become harder and always sharp? Second one sounds cooler imo

Scenario 2: Realism. Yeah yeah I know it's a fantasy game but a non-magical sword wouldn't retain it's +3 forever as it would slowly dull or weaken due to combat. With magic you can wave your hand and say it never decreases in quality

David knott 242 wrote:

Orcs probably will be in the Bestiary as foes, but you need a bunch of ancestry heritages and ancestry feats to complete a playable ancestry, and the Bestiary would not be the place for such information.

That's probably a downside of the new expanded ancestries. In PF1 a lot of monstrous races had a player characteristics entry in the bestiary.

That does stink but on the upside, we may get a monstrous races book that adds stuff like minotaurs and ogres but expanded to have various heritages and ancestry feats

My group actually just picked up a resin 3d printer too and I gotta say, I'd love for official Paizo STL files. There are plenty of goblin files out there but only a handful are the iconic bobble headed pyromaniacs I've come to love. Dragons too would be great since Paizo dragons all have different, unique, features on them that set them apart from others tabletop dragons

I touched on some of this on the other thread, but my main issue with that is that I feel you're thinking too small. Why stop at 9 subclasses? We had all kinds of paladins in PF1, and that was before the alignment floodgates opened (also, I imagine some of the PF1 cavalier stuff is going to wander championwards). For instance, like I say on the previous page, there could be causes that stretch to cover multiple alignments (antipaladins should rightfully be CE, and directly oppose LG paladins, but some kind of "Any evil" despoiler cause would be cool to have handy).

To be completely clear, I also think there can be more than one cause selectable by an alignment as well. There's multiple ways to play LG; why not have more than one cause to reflect those differences? An Asmodean dedicated to wiping out every untidy trace of Rovagug is just as LE as a Zun-Kothon that gleefully tortures prisoners and malcontents, although they'd select very different champion abilities.

Also, as I said on the other thread, I can absolutely see Evil champions picking up obviously good intended class feats. Evil champions have minio-, I mean alllies, too. And unlike their good fellow champions, they'd probably charge for their succor. Abadarans would charge interest as well. Actually the good Abadarans probably would too, so maybe not the best example.

I like the idea a lot actually and right off the bat I can think of an easy example. You could choose a neutral champion or if split into how I would prefer it an Arbiter and then decide if you want to focus on protecting nature or serving pharasma. Both fit a N champion/Arbiter very well and realistically would be VERY different from each other

Moving the discussion on Champions from the what classes do you want thread to this thread to make sure we didn't get too off topic on the old thread. I will restate my position here for ease of continuing said discussion.

Firstly, the name for neutral class would be Guardian. LN sub-class would be Gray Paladin. N sub-class would be Arbiter. CN sub-class would be Renegade. The name for the evil class would be conquerer. LE sub-class would be Tyrant. NE sub-class would be Defiler. CE sub-class would be Antipaladin.

Currently it seems the intent of the champion class is to add 6 more subclasses to the class. One for each alignment which is currently not represented in the CRB.

I think taking that route would be at best a missed opportunity and at worst an error that causes a lot of headache for future players and GM's.

Keeping the same core class means skills, HP and presumably proficiency will all remain the same across each class. Whether you are a CG liberator or a LE Tyrant (assuming that would be the name as it's the name of the LE Paladin in first edition) you'll have the same HP and skills as your opposite. This would make all champion subclasses feel similar. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you but right off the bat you are limiting future creativity. Assuming the sub-classes don't have all those core stats the same, then why even put them in the same umbrella in the first place as that could cause even more confusion?

Of course each sub-class in this case has a unique special ability. I expect non-good alignment sub-classes to also do the same. A problem arises with class feats however. Currently we only know 2 champion feats. Blade of Justice and Divine Reflexes. Blade of Justice is unique to the Paladin sub-class however divine reflexes can be taken by a LG, NG or, CG champion currently and when other alignment sub-classes are added they will gain access to the feat as well. Divine Reflexes being able to be taken by a LN, LE, CE or CN champion isn't a big deal. Mechanically it fits them each and the word divine isn't limited to good guys. However if there is another feat which has no limitations on which subclass can take it but is obviously meant for good aligned people, it could be used by CE Antipaladins. Since all 3 current champion sub-classes are linked by Good, I can safely bet there will be a good ability that isn't sub class orientated.

Finally, the page clutter. If the options for non-good champions are made in an Advanced Players Guide style book then abilities to create a full class will be presented alongside 5 other sub-classes info and may be presented alongside more if in said book they add more good champion abilities. Each book after would also see options for sub-classes paired alongside each other making people flip through extra pages when building a champion.

All this would be alleviated by simply having a neutral class with a LN, N and CN sub-class and an evil class with a LE, NE and CE class. I can't even see problems with this approach either. It would even keep class archetypes and dedications for the 3 classes simple as well.

TL:DR
Split the champion into 3 classes. One for good, one for neutal and, one for evil instead of having all 9 alignments under the same class. Do this because it will give you design freedom, less page flipping, no flavor fails and will make dedications and class archetypes simpler while not causing any problems I can see besides having 2 come up with 2 extra names but we already have names.

Is there a need for neutral champions? Like even if you are a divinely empowered representative of a neutral deity, all of the neutral deities allow for good or evil clerics.

I see it as fighting against the opposite alignment. LN gets bonuses against all chaotic creatures, CN gets bonuses against all Lawful creatures. If true N is represented, maybe they can choose to keep balance between law and chaos and get bonuses against them or good and evil and get bonuses against them? There bonuses would have to be weaker though since it covers a wider group then everyone else (or they have a stricter paladin code?)

"you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall."

I think the "You" at the start refer to the designers... Like, if there's "good-only" feats, they will have an alignment requirement or a specific cause, like the Blade of Justice that is Paladin cause only. Also relevent, the multiclass feat for the devotion spell (lay on hand for goods) is future proofed by saying "the devotion appropriate for your cause" with a list of the good ones that get Lay on hand.

Lay on hands is future proofed but is every current paladin class feature future proofed as well? If it is then it isn't a big deal but if it isn't then I think we need to split it up for simplicity

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

It's not that confusing, you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall. The rest either rely on Lay on Hands, or can have minor flavor tweaks to become evil (Divine Health and Divine Grace, just flavor it as "My god wishes me to cause more terror, therefore I will not fall!", and the Righteous Blade family can just deal evil damage instead of good).

It's easy to say "just pick the obvious good feats" but many people will choose what's optimal or what's cool. Your solution doesn't give any reason why it's a good idea to not split up the 3 alignments, it's just a messy solution you want for seemingly no reason. I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see why you wouldn't split it up into 3 classes

If you keep it as one giant chassis, it's less overall book keeping for Paizo and the GM. It unifies the way the class works (oh, class A B and C all have these proficiencies, and have mostly the same feats, and this thing is the same... and this... and this... VS. HEY! It's this the same super class, and all these special paths have exclusive feats because they're good/evil!). Plus what...

It's no extra bookkeeping than any other added class. Once you have the framework for the classes, you release feats just as easily as if it was all under champion.

Creating different classes for each let's you change up the proficiencies to make each more unique then if they were all mixed together.

The current champion doesn't have requirements based on alignment, meaning you would have to reprint the CRB to make sure all initial Champion abilities are tied to Good or release an addendum. Both of those would require extra bookkeeping. Or you can let any alignment take any feat in which case you may end up with CE antipaladin having the blade of Justice class feat which seems really odd.

Names are easy though

Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Arbiter for being N. Renegade for CN.

Conquerer for the evil class.
Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE.

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

The name of the Class is still Champion, but all these are very plausible as subclasses, which we know will work very differently mechanically (we know pretty much for sure that Lay on Hands is exclusive to Good alignments, for example).

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

It's not that confusing, you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall. The rest either rely on Lay on Hands, or can have minor flavor tweaks to become evil (Divine Health and Divine Grace, just flavor it as "My god wishes me to cause more terror, therefore I will not fall!", and the Righteous Blade family can just deal evil damage instead of good).

It's easy to say "just pick the obvious good feats" but many people will choose what's optimal or what's cool. Your solution doesn't give any reason why it's a good idea to not split up the 3 alignments, it's just a messy solution you want for seemingly no reason. I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see why you wouldn't split it up into 3 classes