Saw that the Champion was different (in a good way) from the playtest and was looking to ask about how the offensive options look for the Champion. Mainly, are the Litanies at useful compared to similar feat, Smite Evil worth passing up AoO, etc.
And yes, at this point most know the default "Choose flickmace" let's pass on that one.
To me so far, Smite Evil is only reliable for 4 damage. Foes can have some wild "Non-attack" options at their disposal. Litany of Righteousness seems good but s later levels, until it is seen to be competing with Divine Reflexes and some pretty awesome flavor auras.
Of course this is my first impression, just started playing at level one and wanted to see where I could go with Champion.
(Topic I came up with late in my previous thread which devolved from the main ideas of the initial thread)
So playing Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Pathfinder Tabletop, Dnd 5e, Dnd 4e, and 3.5, I think I have discovered my biggest issue with the Paladin other than no smite and retributive strike.
That is a loss of what we could call reliability, "old faithful", as it were.
In all of these edition the Paladins are usually smoked by the fighter in terms of raw build potential, but when a player chose a Paladin, they knew that they were ment to stick it through tough times and reliably do what they always have. Fighter fells to Will saves, wizards to focus and fortitude, rouges dodged, but Paladins stuck it out through thick and thin. Editions gave immunity to diseases, divince grace, lay on hands, smite evil all to emphasize no matter the enemy Paladins could be useful. That is lacking here for several core reasons.
This is best shown by comparing PF1 to PF2's allowance of abilities. Smite evil first was not tied to a trigger effect, and made sure that when faced with evil, Paladins could support the damage being done. Free, easy to use, reliable.
Second, Divine Grace. Charisma saves versus EVERYTHING, always active, NOT a reaction, reliable.
Third, Lay on Hands, SWIFT action on self, good heal, not encumbered by actions, reliable.
Forth, Regular feats such as Power Attack, gave plenty of options and versatility of build, reliable.
And finally Fear Immunity and Disease resistance and mercies built in seperately from feats.
All of these things added up to not make the class the best damage dealer per say in most groups, but the reliable frontline who could challenge evil and last through where others would falter, to make sure thier allies stayed alive. It was easier to be a defender in first edition with Attacks of Oppertunity, feats and healing even.
Does it need to be as strong as 1e? No, but design choices that don't interfere with eachother (limited reactions, no AoO default, lay on hands action economy and power) need to be looked at from 1e. Where there reliability was, where there purpose of design was.
I want to smite evil because of the reliable RP aspect in the face of such. The Paladin see's the lich and unwavering declares it a true enemy to good, bringing his dieties dogma upon them. Aura of Justice got out of hand, smite never was a huge bother, especially when 1 BBEG to burst was never a good idea later in the parties life. Do not insinuate people just want damage, read the post above about reliable options.
Wow this way more response than I expected! Clearly a contentious issue!
I think one of the biggest points talked about is being a defender rather than striker as compared to 1E, and I feel it is a missed point. They could easily be a defender in 1E as they were reliable and feat buildable. This edition they are not reliable as they were.
Now, let us discuss the Paladin as a defender and striker from 1E to 2E. I think the biggest point that can be made about such roles is Smite Evil, Feats like Step-Up, Divine Grace, Lay on hands and SPELLS
In Pathfinder 1, Paladins smote as an offensive option of reliability, and defensive option of divine grace, they were RELIABLE. Far beyond fighters Paladins were reliable. They warded against magic, and resisted such attempts to control so they could do what needs to be done. Lay on hands was reliable, a swift action to tank for oneself or a single action for others. If you wanted to be a reliable defender feats like Step Up were available and AoO were DEFAULT. Last but definitely not least was spell options. Far beyond this a paladin could be a defender with these alone, taking half damage for an ally and having wards and control effects!
So here is why I am disappointed with Retributive strike, lay on hands, and the actions paladins have as is in 2E. First of all the action economy of Lay on Hands and having a Somatic Component completely changes it from a reliable, defender, in combat heal to a ineffective action cost. Smite is no longer reliable way to support your damage necessities. Retributive strike is not a reliable way to reduce ally damage or protect them. Divine Grace is not a reliable way for the Paladin to pull through the effects that would falter others. They have 1 reaction folks, They can only chose between Grace and Retributive when that wizard throws a fireball or control spell. They can only smite in "defense." Part of a defender is also being able to look at the enemy needing killing and chosing to face it head on while it runs and avoids you, taking it's actions away.
TLDR: Pathfinder 1E had the options intrinsic to a defender, People have always accepted the Paladin as a protector. The problems are the action economy of their defense, the re-activeness rather than proactive spell casts and other abilities, and the loss of reliability you expect the the faithful good hero archetype they once retained. A weapon master did more damage, but a paladin was always there by your side ready to do what needed to be done.
The trick to PF1 was options and reliability to use them, PF2 does not have such intrinsic flavor or usable options to the Paladin.
(Also there needs to be more use for Charisma over Dexterity, Charisma is core and fairly ineffective here)
Barring the negative typo from a not when I meant yes they are, I thank all for the discussions. I hadn't realized how it does put the Paladin into a strict role, no archery whatsoever! The roleplay of smite is also awkward that when you meat a slaughterer of a Tyrant you can point to him and proclaim his evil and your god's smite, but he has to be SUPER evil and dare not attack the Paladin!
Other class mechanics such as the Lay on Hand super nerf hammer (Just let Paladin's use it while wielding things already, everyone always hates the semantics of Lay on hands) and the shame that Divine grace has become (Charisma to saves? You have to spend the reaction you use on your core class feature for!). Paladins should just get Divine grace guys, the point is they have the defense on saves fighters don't, not that they are ALWAYS more defensive.
I think the Paladin really needs a core rework other than their holy weapon being part of level progression, that was always a great idea giving a player milestones rather than a 4th level spells sudden point of might. Also the flavor you continue to use your weapon through the adventure as a testament of faith and skill.
Also full plate is just bad guys, just rework it or get rid of it because the movement penalty and AC from other sources outclasses it in every way.
I have a huge problem with Paladins in this edition after my love for them in 1E, and that is the focus around Retrebutive Strike.
For many paladin feats, and enemy must not A) Be adjacent to the Paladin when committing this act (looking at you evil wizards and rangers) AND hit someone other than the paladin. Not only then is this tactically avoidable to not be smited, now that smite is, imo, pathetically attached to this feat which the paladin has no choice over using. Smiting is no longer an event, but a tag on.
All in all, designing around a trigger that paladin can not be proactive about and is avoided by a gm playing smart is a failing for this class. A paladin can no longer search out evil alone, and must bring people to get his full effectiveness. Yes rpg's are team games a lot of the time, but this is not team coordination for cool effects and strategies, but team coordination to bring out usefulness that was packed into the class, rather than real tools of unique divine power.
Any other opinions? Often when you hear about class builds and suggestions, anything that is based on triggers out of your control is often avoided. Instead of pointing to that evil lich proclaiming your smite, you have to wait for him to actually do evil in the present to do so.
The Skewering Weapon Enhancement for some reason posts that it uses craft wondrous item, rather than craft magic arms and armor like there rest, is this wrong or is it really Craft Wondrous item? Hers the d20pfsrd as a quick reference (Which may be wrong but I do not have the book at the moment)
Also is this the Rule as intended or is errata then necessary?
In order of the book for the confusion about armor on phantoms.
Page 73 PDF
[Fully manifested phantoms can wear armor and use
In the PHANTOMS section pg 78
[Armor Bonus: The number noted here is the increase
YET the only 2 forms of full manifestation are those two. As pointed out here.
[Full Manifestation Forms
So I am assuming you can't equip armor ever to the phantom.
Yeah I tried to be accurate and give them the doubt. Sometimes it did make sense in character but knowing that the CN will throw a bomb at me any time he disagrees is just fustrating.....(Ironically the main problem players I have had have always have been Alchemist)
Forgot to mention that the group I GM at my college has no issues and clearly understands this as a team game more than my friends from home. Though they are inexperienced they have a much better time playing together it seems. I feel that this is also part of the GMing. as a GM I don't allow players to be Chatic Neutral without a clear uinderstanding they need to work with and be a party member, and I have banned evil all together in my campaign as they needed to be heroes. However these p[layers disagree with these desitions saying they will make it work, which clearly they mean everypone else has to make it work for them in my mind.
I am a player in a group of close friends in pathfinder, however I seem to be the only "Normal" person when it comes to creating characters and choosing races. Also I feel as though I am the only one that realizes there is such thing as going too far by being "in character." We are playing Shattered STar and are level 5, but constantly my party members make it so I have to avoid pissing them off even with the best intentions. Every time I disagree and try to reason with them the Chaotic Neutral is "in Character" and thinks it is dumb where our half-orc (who claims he is "intelligent" but acts like a 5 year old and the minute he mistrusts me or I take something shiny he wanted (Usually to identify or sell for the party)) in character he'll mistrust and even attack me. As a custom point our party seperated and my character had to make it look like I betrayed them (GM created story) the minute I got back I said "It was a ruse/The leader planned this" I got an axe thrown at me, then the half-orc who is good btw talked to the CN and the CN then publically embarrassed my character with sneezing powder. 24/7 I am treying not to get attack but be a good party member. Now I feel sometimes they are "in character" but I still feel that that is an excuse. How should I feel about this? Am I right in being fustrated? It took me a long time of thinking and I wanted to see what others thought. (I may have added an excuse when I used ghost sound as someone on the other side of the door because the hald-orc CONSTANTLY knocked on every door to see if someone was there even when I reasoned for him ot too and was still being threatened with a bomb to my face by the alchemist who was clearly insane. These guys roll d100 to see how they react too which I feel is dumb)
In summary, were they justified in having reason to attack me by being "in character" though I wasn't evil and has anyone else had any experiences where they tried to be helpful but felt like the party hated them? What would you do? This arguement has been on going and fustrating me to try and not have my character die ot be in constant fear of getting on the bad side of them.
The result of all this was me leaving the table saying "In Character" I would NEVER want to work with them again after there constant misunderstandings at feeling as though I would be stabbed byt them. And the Orc is supposed to be a good guy mind you. He likes helping but easily acts like this.
PS: My friends don't dislike me and I don't hate them for this to have started. We all hang out and were in orchestra together. We still play football outside of pathfinder before I showerd them it etc.
I know about the FAQ but the post was about whether there were RAW work around such as those feats and the blade.
Ok, thanks for the domain idea. Yeah, my character would worship Shizuru. I may do Unchained Monk but the Kata master idea is intriguing. Crane Style was my second choice too! I'll also discuss this more with my GM but a solid ruling from someone or and FAQ would be awesome. The Blade itself is also hard to decipher whether it is in fact an unarmed strike when it comes to rulings that it can act as a Ki Strike/Unarmed.
(I am Spencer forgot to change my forum title until now XD)