Sapient's page

Wow, what was taking so long?

My experience has been that combat is faster across the board in 2e, and that's with several brand new players...

I can imagine a lot of rules referencing. I've found combat to be faster, and easier to understand, except...

We all have experience with P1E, and that has occasionally caused confusion. Our cleric might suddenly wonder if he can't hold on to his touch spell, and discharge it when he punches. The books and PDFs get opened and we try to find the relevant text. This can sometimes lead us down other rabbit holes, as we wonder if we are making other incorrect assumptions based on previous experience. We assume that touch attack spells that miss burn that spell slot, but is that justified by the text (Spoiler: Yes)? That can take time.

I think new players have an advantage in that they don't have to worry they are unknowingly holding on to outdated rules.

I absolutely love how healing is handled in P2E. The party in the one campaign I'm playing in has a Cleric, Alchemist, and Champion. Each kind of healing has its place. Each player feels useful when it comes to healing. Each has been vital at times.

Sapient wrote:

I'm all for Paizo's few paragraphs on making tables welcoming places of fun. It is a good trade-off if people who enjoy offending are replaced with people who were feeling marginalized. Everyone wins, except for people who make the game less pleasant.

What if the people who are feeling offended and marginalized are due to all the changes from PF1e?

Paizo is saying that different people have different levels of comfort and different boundaries, and it is the job of the GM and the players that everyone feel welcome. Paizo are saying that you should not be behaving in such a way that you drive away people based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, or other identities.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Paizo is talking about hostile, toxic tables where people who want to play P2E can't have fun because of the jerks sitting there.

You seem to be saying that the real victims are those who want to play a different game, but have chosen not to for no particular reason. If I may, I'll offer some advice. If you want to play first edition, play first edition. Don't feel "offended and marginalized" because there also exists a game you don't want to play. Life is too short for that.

For my groups, it is not a matter of First Edition vs. Second Edition. There are a massive number of systems that compete for our time. I'm currently involved with 1 P2e campaign, and I'm not personally aware of any P1e campaigns going on.

I'm all for Paizo's few paragraphs on making tables welcoming places of fun. It is a good trade-off if people who enjoy offending are replaced with people who were feeling marginalized. Everyone wins, except for people who make the game less pleasant.

I use the Plot Twist cards from first edition, giving one to each player per hero point. Each player gets one for showing up and a second for showing up on time and ready to play. More can be given out during the session if players and/or their characters do something helpful/awesome. Helpful would be a player reminding me about something I forgot (a recent example is that I forgot to play one enemy during a fight for one turn). Something awesome would be anything the character does that greatly enhances the story (often this involves the use of another card, so it basically can pay for itself).

They can be used as hero points, or used as the card describes (subject to my discretion since they were meant for first edition). The players really seem to like them, and use them more often than they used hero points in the playtest, even though they were given roughly the same amount. Hero points were hoarded (with many sessions having none used) whereas cards are used every single session by at least one player and sometimes all players.

Here is the relevant portion of my house rules document, in case anyone is interested:

Fumarole's House Rules wrote:

Plot Twists

One Plot Twist card will be given to each player at the start of each session, with a second being given to each player who arrives on time and ready to play. A third can be earned during play for exceptional roleplaying or especially cool/heroic activity, at the GM’s discretion.
-Players may suggest that the actions of a fellow player are worth a card if the GM doesn’t immediately award one.
-Cards may be awarded to players who help keep the GM honest

...

I quite like this, though I'm a little wary about rewards for impressing the GM. Depending on the group, some people may feel unappreciated or "less than". I tend to be very involved as a player, and I find that the RP and increased table time is reward enough for that. But rewarding people for showing up on-time and ready? LOVE that.

I wish there were more uses for Hero Points. As a player, I've yet to spend one, despite starting each session with 2. (I get an extra for keeping a game log.) I always like being able to spend such things for minor narrative effects in RPGs. The bartender is actually an old family friend. The long sword we found was actually a rapier. That sort of thing.

I like the tactile experience of rolling dice. It helps me stay engaged. I like the little dopamine burst my brain gives me when I roll something big.

The person I asked the question for feels even more strongly. She has a jail for "naughty" dice. She'll stand and cheer for a good roll.

If6 course it is all random, but I'd rather feel like I'm responsible for the result in some way.

It's almost exactly a 10% bump in effectiveness, which is actually pretty big in Pathfinder terms. You could have saves be save+12 to keep the math the same, or just be okay with more powerful spells.

save+11 is a good small bump if you play with a group who doesn't want to be really tactical about spells, and most importantly: Rolling is fun.

That's helpful. Thanks.

I lack the experience to have any real opinion on the relative strength and usefulness of casters. I do wonder about the level of fun a caster has when using certain spells and cantrips in combat.

Our party has a Storm Druid, who will typically use Electric Arc for half her combat turns. Since Electric Arc targets the saves of a creature or two, she doesn't even roll her dice. And that doesn't seem fun. Would it make any statistical difference if she rolled against the creature's save+10?

Resistances apply before you choose to shield block or not because of the timing specified for the trigger of shield block.

And though the phrasing of the triggers on champion reactions puts the timing at a similar point, they are creating an effect which happens at step 3 of making a damage roll (p. 450 for reference) while shield block triggers at step 4.

Thank you. We've been doing this wrong.

Can you build the class for damage output, or is it just as damage prevention that you can use them?

A standard build for more damage will use the Paladin reaction,the weapon Divine Ally, and a 2-handed weapon. A Champion will never fight as well as a Fighter, but can be a reliable source of damage.

YOU THERE, SPORKEDUP! YOU SEEM NICE!

Consider yourself duly shouted at.

I like RicoTheBold. I respect him. But I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE JUST SAID.

Sapient wrote:

Being disagreed with, even being disliked, is not the same as being unwelcome.

The first one makes sense. The second one is far more contentious, when we consider that things we dislike are generally things people try to avoid or keep out of things they want to enjoy. It might be a reason a character stands against something. In fact, it's largely the way houserules and such arise.

Even if it's not an active statement of "You're not welcome here," the behaviors and syntaxes of users can still emulate that attitude, whether they mean to or not. All sides are guilty of this.

I may avoid certain posters. Certain posters may avoid me. But we are so welcome to make our points, state or ideas, etc.

I also don't think of the discussions here, heated or not, as being about "sides". People have their ideas, which other people will agree with or not.

You may disagree with all of this. Maybe everyone disagrees with it. Maybe people will stop reading my posts, thinking my ideas are beyond hope. That doesn't mean the place is toxic.

Being disagreed with, even being disliked, is not the same as being unwelcome.

People disagree here all the time. I've been told I'm wrong. I've been very wrong. I've never felt unwelcome.

I agree with your feelings on Instrument of Zeal, and complained about it when the Errata came out.

I don't think the intent of Shield of Reckoning is to exclude any Champion reactions. "Against the foe" is vague, and I don't think it was meant to be read in a narrow sense.

I'll also argue that the Paladin reaction DOES target the foe, even if it also targets the ally. If we are going to take a narrow reading, it would still apply, just without the DR effect.

I think " also use your champion’s reaction against the foe that attacked your ally" is just typical Paizo loose language, and that Shield of Reckoning is meant to apply to all three currently existing Champion Reactions. Both the Redeemer and Paladin use their reaction against a foe directly. The Liberator's reaction does work against the foe, at least indirectly.

Or maybe I'm not understanding your concern correctly.

I rather like Junk for uncommon or semi rare stuff?

like shurikens you can't buy 'em all over the place but you can spend a few weeks making quite a few cheap scrap-shards that you can use, abuse, and don't w orry about losing much.

Also could make a stock of junk shields to break and toss depending on bulk status.

I think those area all lv 0 anyway.

I do wish the restriction was "your level" not level 0.

In that sense, JT can be a fun and flavorful solution to certain issues a given build might have.

But thinking more about shields: If you are planning to craft lots of shields, you re likely planning to be a reasonably good crafter. And if you are, it is just going to be easier to fix shields between fights than cart around large numbers of them, especially as you get out of the initial levels and are wanting better shields.

Ignore the last sentence in my last post. Of course Junk Tinker is a feat, not a heritage.

Junk Tinker does two things. The first allows you to craft level 0 items very cheaply, but they are only useful for your own use. Unfortunately,crafting takes at least 4 days, and there are not a lot of level 0 items where you can save much money using Junk Tinker over simply Earning Income. Yes, crafting a Tower Shield or a Spyglass would save you some cash, but how often will you need to do that?

The other benefit is that it can cut one day off of crafting. If you are planning to so a lot of crafting, this can save you money over time. It basically gives you one free day to Earn Income after each crafting session.

In general, I think the feat is more thematic than it is mechanically useful. I love the idea of a Goblin carrying around all sorts of stuff re-purposed into sketchy tools. But for utility, I don't think the typical fighter will get a lot out of it.

Fire Resistance from the Charhide heritage is probably better mechanically. I chose Tailed Goblin from the Lost Omens Character Guide for my Champion, for the climbing and tripping.

The thread title mentions Smite Evil, so I thought I'd add that Blade of Justice and Smite Evil can be used together. So for 3 actions against an evil creature, you get +2 damage dice, +4/6 good damage, and +CHAmod persistent.

Gorbacz wrote:

Let the past die.

Kill it, if you have to.

*sets his PF1 PDFs on fire*

How's your grandmother doing these days?

Some things from the past are good and cherished and welcome in our lives. This sort of obsessive cheerleaderism is kind of revolting, really.

If you want to espouse the merits of a thing, by all means do so. But "it's from the past" isn't grounds for "killing it". Star Wars IV. Alien. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. All gone under your regime, because sequels, remakes, and newer adaptations exist. Not cool.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to" is a Star Wars quote. The post was clearly tongue in cheek.

I don't understand why people argue about games. *Starts thread to argue about games.*

How viable is it for a martial to MC into a caster and use the Shield cantrip and a 2-handed weapon? You get half the AC boost, and only one block per combat. But you don't have to fix it and it heightens for greater hardness.

With the change to Instrument of Zeal (table at end of Errata), it now only has any effect on Paladin abilities. The Prerequisites should change from "divine ally (blade), tenets of good" to "divine ally (blade), paladin cause"

Which feat got moved not seeing anything about that in the errata?

Instrument of zeal in the table at the end. It now only works with Paladin abilities.

I happened to make half of the first as a Redeemer, even if I was more a lawful ( because of bg, and attitude ), and then my dm allowed me to move to paladin.

Best choice ever.
It is what a champion should be ( consider to try it, if you can ).

After the Errata today moved one more feat to the Paladins only, I'm reconsidering Redeemer. We've had some liberty to change, but we just hit level 2, and we are locked into what we bring to the next game.

It seems that to really hit evil creatures hard, you have to go Paladin. And the different is significant. Liberator and Redeemer just don't get equivalently powerful or interesting options.

If you don't believe this is the way the world works, then simply take a closer look at world religions. Christians have adopted a 2,000 year old method of execution as their religious symbol; Muslims cite the crescent moon from its appearance over important battles. In that context look at art depicting the Crusades - the straight longsword depicting the cross, the scimitar as the crescent. The differences in sword styles evolved with the differences in fighting styles, and the fighting styles evolved with the sword styles - all against the background of...

No one here has argued against carrying symbolic representations of their religions.

Yes, the cross is important to Christians. No, Christians are not expected to carry around, and maintain, actual full sized crucifixion crosses. No, Christian soldiers do not generally choose the most cross-like weapons for fighting, nor has that ever been a primary consideration when choosing weapons.

Sapient wrote:

No one here has expressed a desire for permission to murderhobo. What a silly accusation.

Murderhobo is a figurative term, not a literal one. It's a designation for characters who are mechanically efficient but lack depth of character.

....which typically results in a character which just fights and loots.

Look at your argument above. Certain painters from a specific time period noticed a coincidental relationship between the shapes of certain weapons and certain religious symbols. Therefore religious people actually fight with the symbols of their religions, regardless of efficacy.

That is just plain silliness. I like my characters to have real depth to them. I like them to be thoughtful in their decisions. Your logic is simply not compatible with such character building.

But, and this is important, I would never say that you shouldn't play Champions or Clerics. If medieval paintings-->crosses-->swords-->all religions fight with holy symbols is fun for you and your table, then that is what you should do. I like to think about the nature of a given deity, and what would likely matter to them.

It's not out of discussion, but I'll agree it's impractical.

All symbols of devotion are rather impractical. While the rules allow a character to be a nominal follower, if you want a thematically appropriate character, there has to be some sort of personal sacrifice. These gods give their followers the ability to rain fire from the sky or summon angels/demons or raise the dead to life, I can't imagine them being okay with a religious symbol rusting in a box under someone's bed.

But yeah, I completely agree that mechanically, having 2 less Bulk or 4 fewer downtime days/month or burning a feat/skill on something "useless" does mean that your character can't be a fully optimized murderhobo. I think it's a feature, not a bug, of being a champion or cleric.

No one here has expressed a desire for permission to murderhobo. What a silly accusation. Champions have a Code. The only complete Codes we have so far are for Good deities. If people were looking for excuses to be murderhobo, they'd be arguing against the Champion's Code. In fact, the very first Tenet of Good forbids murder or committing an evil act. I know that my Champion I know my Redeemer enters each encounter with the goal of peaceful interactions and the spreading of his deity's philosophies.

And that really is what the discussion is about. Is there a mechanical requirement to use favored weapons in battle? I think we all agree there is not. Does Champion or Cleric have a lore-based requirement to use, keep, display, etc their deity's weapon?

Well, when I look at my character's deity, the answer seems to be no. Champion's codes begin with the tenet of their alignment. There is nothing there about favored weapons. What about my Chamion's Cause? Nothing there either. But maybe in my Deity's Edicts? "Be peaceful, choose and perfect an art, lead by example, see beauty in all things." Surely there is something about weapons in her Anathema. "Destroy art or allow it to be destroyed, unless saving a life or pursuing greater art; refuse to accept surrender".

There is simply nothing in her nature that indicates she would care about any display or use of a glave. She is a god of love and beauty and art. Yes, she would want her subjects to show devotion through symbols, but if she actually cared about carrying around a glave, it would appear in Edicts.

Now Clerics have some significant fluff, stating that in-universe Clerics do normally fight with favored weapons, and there are more mechanics based around the idea. Every deity's favorite weapon gets a boost. Simple weapons get a damage die step, and martial weapons become trained. But for Champions, there is a single line of fluff about "bearing" a weapon, with no mechanical effects for most deities.

What I mean is that it is not raised.

So it is down.

And how a downed shield is supposed to slow enemies?

Oh, I see. Sorry I misunderstood you. I think "Raise Shield" really means you are raising it to serve as an active piece of armor. If you are using Divine Wall, you would have it up, without using it to defend yourself.

I was thinking about using a 2h weapon to perform 2x attack, and then release the hand with thr buckler.

Then at the start of my turn redo the same, 1 action to grip, 2 attacks. Release. Repeat.

Dunno, seems extremely stupid.

I think that is totally fine narratively, mechanically, and in terms of balance.

Yeah that must be the right interpretation.

What still bothers me is the you could be able to slow enemies without using your shield. Like having a dead arm with a shield attached to it.

Since Divine Wall requires a wielded shield, I'd argue that Divine Wall would not work, as a dead arm can't wield (effectively use) a shield.

Cool didn't know about the app! Could you link me where I can get it from?

There is Pathbuilder 2e. It is only for Android, and is not official. It is fantastic (and well worth supporting financially), but I'd still ask your GM about anything questionable.

Buckler does not require a hand since it is strapped on your forearm.

You could eventually use a torch, which is L bulk, and still be able to rais your shield.

So you can wield a shield either with a free hand or not.

Well, The game says

Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a

weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it
around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might
require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply
as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t
have to wield it.

I'd argue that if you are wielding a 2-handed weapon, your buckler is not ready to use. What does it mean to "use" a buckler? We are given some examples. You can "Raise Shield", but you can't do that with a buckler if the hand is holding another weapon. You can Shield Bash, but you can't do that if the hand is holding another weapon.

Even if Divine Wall does not specifically say that wielded bucklers must be in a free hand, or in one carrying one Bulk L item, I think it is pretty clear that this is what is intended. How could you "effectively" "use" a buckler to "harry your enemies" with a buckler that is not free to move around? I think it is clear that you are not "wielding" a shield when your buckler hand is gripping a 2-handed weapon.

I think wielding is an issue here. "Your character must be wielding a shield in one hand to make use of it" (CRB 277). Divine Wall requires that you are wielding a shield. I don't there are any examples of "wielding" a shield without actually dedicating at least one hand to it.

Sapient wrote:

Everstand Stance also increases trained Athletics to Expert, so at level 3 you could be an expert in Athletics and Intimidation.

Huh? I'm not seeing that mentioned anywhere in the feat.

Sorry, I meant Sentry Dedication, not Everstand Stance. Edited my post to reflect that.

A champion who goes all in on shields, with Everstand Stance at level 1, Sentry Dedication at level 2 (for Reactive Shield), and Divine Ally Shield at Level 3 would be hard to hurt.

Sentry Dedication also increases trained Athletics to Expert, so at level 3 you could be an expert in Athletics and Intimidation.

I imagine a Tailed Goblin Redeemer, hiding behind a tower shield, tripping opponents, and screaming about the redeeming love of Shelyn. Or just crawling up a wall with athletics and the bonuses from Tailed Goblin, and turtling.

In addition to what K1 said, Shield Block is not like Retributive Strike. It is like Orc Ferocity. If you save you reaction, both OF and SB can be life savers. One or the other might be better in any given circumstance, of course.

Consider this. You have 20 HP left. You get hit for 22, and have both SB and OF available. If you choose SB, you have 3 HP left but lose your shield. If you choose OF, you save your shield, but are down to 1 HP and have a Wound. Either way, it is good you didn't use your reaction.

But wait. The GM made OF a free action. I'll leave my shield on my back. I'll use my Bastard Sword with 2 hands for the extra damage. I'll use my Retributive Strike every time I can. Why? Because I don't have to worry until someone brings my HPs down to zero. Then I use Orc Ferocity, back off, heal myself, and grab my shield. This is great. There is little trade-off for using a d12 weapon. I don't have to assess the battle to decide how to use my reaction. OF is an insurance policy that is freely available once per day.

I think I just disagree with the notion that this is a question of skill rather than the efficacy of the ability itself. A rarely used ability (particularly one like orc ferocity) conflicting with commonly used ones for a reaction in gamey ways that hurt the narrative is not particularly good design in a roleplaying game.

The rest of the "player skill" stuff is nonsense to me. This "try harder" stuff is generally patronizing and adversarial when it reaches a certain point. Telling a player he cant use his once a day ability because he fricken blocked with his shield or protected an ally reaches that point for me.

You disagree, thats fine. But I still feel thats bad DMing.

No one has said "try harder". Managing actions and reactions is a central part of the game. It is something any GM should be explaining to the table within the first hour. If you find yourself needed to explain to a player that he can't use Orc Ferocity because he used another reaction, you have larger issues as a GM. Take a step back and go over the fundamentals. Understanding the basics will allow your players to increase their enjoyment of combat and character creation.

Surely you tell your players they can't shield block if they used their reaction for some other purpose already. Surely you tell them that they can't use other reactions if they've already used shield block? How is this different? Orc Ferocity is once per day because it is powerful.

Yes, players have regrets. I wish I would have prepared Spell A instead of Spell B. I wish I would have saved that potion. I wish I would have saved my reaction. You make choices. You play the odds as best you can. Why should Orc Ferocity be any different?

I am not saying the shield block should be a free action. That comes up often enough to matter and the player has a real choice as to which hit to block or whether to use another often used reaction in its stead.

I am talking about orc ferocity specifically.

To have the player choose between shield block and orc ferocity (a once a day ability that comes up hyper infrequently) seems off as the mechanics deeply conflict the narrative. What, a warrior should maybe LET AN ENEMY HIT HIM so that maybe he could come up from zero if it drops him? That makes little sense. Add in how infrequently ferocity is likely to come up (and the fact that the pc still gets wounded).. I dunno. Doesn't add up.

You do you but I play these games to have fun not to find ways to screw my players or to make them feel crapped on for their character choices.

If a half-orc at my table used his reaction and then gets smacked to zero later on that same round, I will still let him use his once a day ability to stay on his feet while taking his wound. To do otherwise would be my definition of bad DMing. Your definition is different and thats fine.

K1 is correct. Managing reactions is an important part of the game. Sure, Orc Ferocity isn't going to be used as often as some other options. But it is an extremely powerful ability when it is used. Giving it as a free action removes some of the tactics of combat.

If a GM gave me a daily Get Out of Death card as a free action, it would utterly change my game play. Right now, a low level Champion has to decide whether to use their Champion reaction or save their reaction for a Shield Block. A low level Fighter has to choose whether use an Attack of Opportunity or save that reaction for a Shield Block. With Orc Ferocity as a daily free action, that choice becomes easy. Offense until Orc Ferocity, then defense.

Orc Ferocity is meant to increase your options. A big hit might break your shield and leave you with few or no HP. That is when you choose Orc Ferocity. It is a strong ability, with the downside of other abilities in that you have to know when to have it available. Or maybe it just gives you enough peace of mind to use a 2-handed weapon, or make other higher risk choices.

I reject the idea that it isn't "fun" to manage tactical options. I reject that having to think about my play is me being 'screwed" by my GM.

Certainly it gets complex. An 18 Str character is probably going to be in full plate, so moving towards Dex isn't going to increase AC.

Of course there are many, many viable builds. But the original claim that player choices don't matter is obviously false.

Assuming that there is a meaningful difference between a success and critical success and that the str 18 char would critical succeed on a 19 at worst, 29 str related rolls for a 95% chance of at least one result being different between the two characters.

Just in combat, assuming a char makes 2 attacks per round, 4 round combats, that's 4 combats to have a 95% chance that str 18 char did at least one attack noticeably better (obviously not counting damage rolls, and that could be a crit on a target with 1 hp left which isn'tactually meaningful).

Thanks! So across a campaign, it is extremely likely that a 18 Str fighter is going to do significantlu more damage than a 16 Str character.

I mean, they do. That information is largely collected in the splatbooks that are specifically about faiths and deities. The Core Rule Book doesn't need to spend ink on telling you that Shelyn is closely associated with songbirds because that doesn't have any major mechanical implications unless there's a feat for it (which again, is most appropriate for a Deities-themed book).

But that's the point, and why it feels silly. The mechanics don't reflect the actual individual gods. Shelyn may really love some specific species of songbird, and surely loves songbirds more than weapons, but her mechanics talk about a favorite weapon.

Anyway, regarding OP's question: I'd say that a Champion that does not bear their deity's weapon breaks a very narrow reading of lore, but would generally not violate a more broad understanding. I'd talk to your GM about whether your specific god would care very much.

Shelyn grants her favor bot just for weilding a glaive, but because a cleric etc. is doing so with the intent to honor what it represents to her.

For many gods I would look at it more like that.

Or, because its coon among the faithful they pass down experience and techniques with it.

I get that. Gods like to be honored. But why favorite weapons? Why not "favorite ways to be honored"? Clerics and Champions will train in a god's beloved skill. That makes more sense to me. Serenrae cares about healing people, and her adherents naturally learn about medicine. But they don't get a medicine boost from Serenrae.

I think lore-wise, listing out favored weapons it is silly. I don't think the mechanical benefits are interesting, and are potentially limiting. I'd hate for a character concept to be undermined by an unwanted favored weapon.

Probably the same reasons that real world religions have prohibitions against eating pork, mixing meat with milk, what kind of underwear you use, how you bathe, requirements for getting dunked in a body of water, and a countless list of other things that one might consider beneath the worries of a God.

What I'm trying to convey isn't that it is silly for gods to care about seemingly minor things. It is that the seemingly minor thing that every god cares about is a weapon.

Not every real world religion has a prohibition against one specific singular food item. Not every religion has a single specific dunking liquid.

I don't think it is weird that Shelyn has a favorite weapon. I don't think it weird that Shelyn's favorite weapon is a glave (given her history). I think it is weird that the one favorite thing of Shelyn's that gets listed is a weapon. Shelyn may well have a favorite weapon, drink, time of day, species of tree, and major road network. But what Shelyn really loves is beauty and art. While Shelyn's favorite weapon may be the glave, it is hard to imagine that what her followers use as a weapon would matter to her. It isn't really in her scope of major concerns.

"Zealously" doesn't necessarily mean "all the time" or "to the exclusion of all else" just, when you wield it, you wield it zealously.

It doesn't even say "wield". It says you zealously BEAR your deity's favorite weapon. You carry it with great enthusiasm. I don't take this to mean you always, or necessarily ever, carry it. Just that if you have one on you, you are pretty darn proud of what it represents.

Mostly I think the whole "favored weapon" concept is silly, and paying it much attention makes the game worse. The gods concern themselves with big, philosophical issues. What is so special about weapons (as opposed to food or poems or buildings) that each god cares so much about one specific, unique type? Why would a Champion of Shelyn carry her favorite weapon, and not sing her favorite song? Why would Norgorber have a favorite weapon instead of a favorite poison?

If some specific god really does care about some specific weapon, it's use should be part of the Edict.

My post supports that the difference is too small. Since you don't roll an infinite number of times, then you need to take into account dice variance, which makes the +1 not relevant

Someone want to do the math to determine how many d20 rolls it would take for a 95% chance of more damage with an 18 Str compared to a 16 Str? I'm sure it isn't infinite.

I'd argue that the Champion is having to use a feat. A Champion gets one shot at getting a weapon crit benefit and it comes at the cost of a Steed Ally or a Shield Ally. The Champion doesn't get to go back and pick it up at a later level.

That's mostly true. The Champion can take Second Ally at level 8 to pick up Blade Ally.

That heritage is awesome.

Not only let you save 1 action, but even 1 turn ( because of the map on 2 Normal trio attacks ).

Really Impressive.

I don't really know how the math will turn out for tripping, but I think for weaker opponents, Trip via Athletics with the Assurance feat should be an OK way to use a third action, as MAP would not apply (as Assurance does not apply any bonuses or penalties).

The Heritage also allows you to climb and trip without the use of hands. Again, I don't know how much climb-fighting will happen, but I like the idea of hanging there swinging a 2-handed weapon.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Sapient.
It is good to know that I am not alone.

I also understand that sometimes it is a pain to read me, because I tend to put my thoughts more in a complaint form than a constructive dialogue. Ahah.

I can't find the goblin Tailed heritage on nethys, nor on the p2e app.

Can you tell me someting more about it?

However a Goblin is cool. You could eventually have the Wolf as companion.

Do you consider to take it?
I definitely would!

I happened to make half of the first as a Redeemer, even if I was more a lawful ( because of bg, and attitude ), and then my dm allowed me to move to paladin.

Best choice ever.
It is what a champion should be ( consider to try it, if you can ).

As a paladin, things are slightly different than a Redeemer. This path works better with reach weapons,to use the reaction in the most efficient way.

The Tailed Goblin Heritage is from the Lost Omens Character Guide. It has a level 4(?) feat that allows you to target up to two creatures for Trip, and successes become Critical Successes. There is another Reach polearm in that book you may want to consider. I think it is a 1d8, deadly d8, reach, sweep, trip. I don't have access to the book right now.

I do like the idea of riding a wolf, but my character will be taking Divine Ally Blade, and I don't think there will be room for a second Divine Ally. But I'm remaining flexible, so who knows?

I do think the Paladin is better mechanically (at least in general), and yes, go for the reach weapons as a Paladin. Redeemer fits my character better, and the reaction ability is still pretty good. Plus, it helps puts the breaks on any murderhoboing the group may want to do.

K1, I follow your posts on Champions closely. I've completed one session of AoA with my Champion, and I find my questions frequently mirror yours.

My Champion is a Goblin Redeemer, planning to take the Bard dedication. I'm most interested in the Bard spells, but will likely take Inspire Courage eventually.

I gave up stressing about weapons, and settled on a Maul. My Goblin has the Tailed heritage, and the Farmer background. The latter gives him Athletics Assurance, and the former some nice tripping abilities (after a couple feats).

Maul shoves. Tail trips. Bard spells protect/buff. But mostly maul hits hard. (Champion Stats S18, D12, C14, I10, W10, CH14).