Personally I really, really hope the alternate alignment paladin's are in the book.
They are not. James stated a while back they were cut. Your paladins are LG and your anti-paladins are CE and that is all ya get. Which is fine as we already have a holy warrior for every Alignment and faith. It's called a cleric :)
Why is it that you people assume that any option that allows customization is "ripe for abuse?" Some of us just want the ability to create our character concept without taking 5 classes and three prestige classes. Cherry picking would help with that.Don't get me wrong, I like the packages, but at the same time, I don't see how individual class features would be "ripe for abuse" as long as said features themselves weren't broken. It really irks me that designers always assume someone is trying to break the game. >.<
There are certainly players who will make "reasonable" exchanges in pursuit of building their concept. There are also players who will make "unreasonable" exchanges in pursuit not of concept, but of inflating what they believe to be an advantageous mechanic. Cherry-picking allows such players to create characters that can unbalance a party in which others are either not so skilled, or are not so interested, in super-charging one aspect.
My favorite example of this kind of thinking was someone who played a 3.5 character created as a Monk 1/Bard 1/Sorcerer 1/Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Dragon Disciple 1 .. he could *do* almost nothing against a party-appropriate enemy, but was protected from almost any harm by his super-saves.
"Bundled" exchanges work better, at least in my view, because they encourage players to think toward "familiar types" instead of "builds" (a matter of style preference for me, obviously). I included my "no offense" comment because I recognize that not everyone shares my opinions or my preferences.
Personally I really, really hope the alternate alignment paladin's are in the book.They are not. James stated a while back they were cut. Your paladins are LG and your anti-paladins are CE and that is all ya get. Which is fine as we already have a holy warrior for every Alignment and faith. It's called a cleric :)
Blegh! A million times, Blegh!
I'mma make a LG paladin of Rovagug for society play. That'll teach em.
I'll just be bumblin' along doing my goodness in the name of Rovagug. But I won't KNOW he's an evil, malevolent world breaking cloverfield monster. Nope. Nuu ne nuuuuuu...
Edit -- I wonder in the rationale remains the same for the anti-paladin... maybe they can serve good gods! Anti-Paladin of Sarenrae to find and smite that do-gooding pally of Rovagug!
Personally I really, really hope the alternate alignment paladin's are in the book.They are not. James stated a while back they were cut. Your paladins are LG and your anti-paladins are CE and that is all ya get. Which is fine as we already have a holy warrior for every Alignment and faith. It's called a cleric :)Blegh! A million times, Blegh!
I'mma make a LG paladin of Rovagug for society play. That'll teach em.
I'll just be bumblin' along doing my goodness in the name of Rovagug. But I won't KNOW he's an evil, malevolent world breaking cloverfield monster. Nope. Nuu ne nuuuuuu...
Edit -- I wonder in the rationale remains the same for the anti-paladin... maybe they can serve good gods! Anti-Paladin of Sarenrae to find and smite that do-gooding pally of Rovagug!
You missed this above (?):
Paladin: Divine Defender, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant, Shining Knight, Undead Scourge, Warrior of the Holy Light OR Antipaladin
These were listed in the page posted. No saying if the alignment varies, but the abilities do... the alignments might.
Blegh! A million times, Blegh!I'mma make a LG paladin of Rovagug for society play. That'll teach em.
Ya can't. pretty sure Paladins in golarion have to be with in one step of their gods AL, just like a cleric.
Ya can't. pretty sure Paladins in golarion have to be with in one step of their gods AL, just like a cleric.
Blegh! A million times, Blegh!I'mma make a LG paladin of Rovagug for society play. That'll teach em.
Negative, good sir, Lawful good paladin of Asmodeus (two steps, right?)
Dear, Sweat Baby Rovagug. 900 ibs, 7 and 3/4 ounces, playing with your baby hitler destructo blocks, tiny yet still omnipotent.... Bless us Big daddy Rov, Bless us.
Ooooh and he'll look like elvis, and wear sequined armor. Yeahhhhh.
Yeah pretty sure they are not legal as they pretty much have to fall if they take part in any of his religious rites.
Yeah pretty sure they are not legal as they pretty much have to fall if they take part in any of his religious rites.
Nah they're definitely legal, go read the Council of Thieves AP, it was in one of the later books.
Which one? if they are in there it might be an oversight like the "godless" clerics of one of the recent books as it has been stated a few times they would fall.
But eh, not the thread for that debate yet again.
|
Which one? if they are in there it might be an oversight like the "godless" clerics of one of the recent books as it has been stated a few times they would fall.
But eh, not the thread for that debate yet again.
29: Mother of Flies. Goes into saying that such paladins seem themselves as refomers, convincing others that you are able to serve law and still being good.
Pretty much the paladin is a "champion of contracts and law, who happens to be good"
Legal in a game sense... up each individual GM. Legal in society play doubtful (I would say no). Very very doubtful.
Which one? if they are in there it might be an oversight like the "godless" clerics of one of the recent books as it has been stated a few times they would fall.
But eh, not the thread for that debate yet again.
It's in the Asmodeus writeup in "Mother of Flies" - and the article comes right out and says, "only the ones lucky enough to die young don't fall from grace." Asmodeus is a lawful god, however, so it's not completely insane - just, y'know, mostly.
|
You missed this above (?):
Paladin: Divine Defender, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant, Shining Knight, Undead Scourge, Warrior of the Holy Light OR Antipaladin
These were listed in the page posted. No saying if the alignment varies, but the abilities do... the alignments might.
Those are nothing more than the new optional archetypes for the Paladin class, not new alternate full classes. They're all basically the Pathfinder-ization of the 2e Paladin kits.
It's in the Asmodeus writeup in "Mother of Flies" - and the article comes right out and says, "only the ones lucky enough to die young don't fall from grace." Asmodeus is a lawful god, however, so it's not completely insane - just, y'know, mostly.Which one? if they are in there it might be an oversight like the "godless" clerics of one of the recent books as it has been stated a few times they would fall.
But eh, not the thread for that debate yet again.
Off topic but this is funny. So Cayden Caileaan who is a good god still can not have paladins but Asmodeus who is evil can :) That is just..odd to say the lest.
Those are nothing more than the new optional archetypes for the Paladin class, not new alternate full classes. They're all basically the Pathfinder-ization of the 2e Paladin kits.You missed this above (?):
Paladin: Divine Defender, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant, Shining Knight, Undead Scourge, Warrior of the Holy Light OR Antipaladin
These were listed in the page posted. No saying if the alignment varies, but the abilities do... the alignments might.
And the Antipaladin doesn't vary in alignment? I'm not saying thy do btw, just that they might. *shrug*
More a Chaotic god who can't and a Lawful god who can. :P And there are plenty of 'odd' things in the game. :)
Yeah, I am putting this one down as an oversight. I can't see how a LG paladin can't follow a mortal who sacrifices slaves to devils but may a god who does the same. Yet can not follow a good god because he is a bit chaotic.
And the Antipaladin doesn't vary in alignment? I'm not saying thy do btw, just that they might. *shrug*
It's been stated they are CE the other side of the LG coin so to speak.
It's been stated they are CE the other side of the LG coin so to speak.And the Antipaladin doesn't vary in alignment? I'm not saying thy do btw, just that they might. *shrug*
I know. The question is are all the others LG or not.
From the thread where it was talked about the cutting of he Templar, I would say yes. It was made pretty clear that their were only 2 versions.
From the thread where it was talked about the cutting of he Templar, I would say yes. It was made pretty clear that their where only 2 versions.
*sigh* And I missed it. Any chance of a link or do I need to test their thread searches? :)
From the thread where it was talked about the cutting of he Templar, I would say yes. It was made pretty clear that their where only 2 versions.*sigh* And I missed it. Any chance of a link or do I need to test their thread searches? :)
I do not recall, it was not the topic of the thread, something that kinda popped up on page 2 or 3 or 5 for all I recall, but James went into detail as way it was cut, mostly space but also it just diluted the paladin to much and made it into more or less a fighter with an odd code. More or less.
Director of Games
|
I do not recall, it was not the topic of the thread, something that kinda popped up on page 2 or 3 or 5 for all I recall, but James went into detail as way it was cut, mostly space but also it just diluted the paladin to much and made it into more or less a fighter with an odd code. More or less.
Allow me to clarify real quick.
The Templar was an interesting concept, but in the end, its implementation was far too unwieldy. Many of the paladin powers do not translate well to a more neutral middle ground between the alignment extremes. In addition, its footprint in the book would have been far to large for a relatively limited payout.
In the end, it was better to include the paladin archtypes than the Templar.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I do not recall, it was not the topic of the thread, something that kinda popped up on page 2 or 3 or 5 for all I recall, but James went into detail as way it was cut, mostly space but also it just diluted the paladin to much and made it into more or less a fighter with an odd code. More or less.Allow me to clarify real quick.
The Templar was an interesting concept, but in the end, its implementation was far too unwieldy. Many of the paladin powers do not translate well to a more neutral middle ground between the alignment extremes. In addition, its footprint in the book would have been far to large for a relatively limited payout.
In the end, it was better to include the paladin archtypes than the Templar.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks for the answer. Too bad about it. It would have been interesting. I've done variants for my game (to fit specific deities), and I wanted to compare / improve. I'm busy moving my game over to PF (thanks for keeping it compatible unlike others btw). And thanks seeker, appreciate the tip.
Thanks for the clarification
If those spells actually stacked with wildshape, that might be a threat. As it stands, they don't in Pathfinder. Greater Magic Fang would help, but the enhancement bonuses to stats that the Wildshape class feature gives simply don't stack with the spells or magic items that that enhance stats. That was part of what created CoDzilla. As it stands, what you will have is a powerful warrior class who could get close (or possibly surpass a little) to doing the damage totals the Fighter can - if they don't reduce it's BAB to medium for undertaking study to learn how to be a shapeshifter instead of being a warrior.
Polymorph gives you a size bonus to stats, which stacks with enhancement bonuses to stats. Most magic items that provide a continuous, non-activated bonus, such as most rings, belts, headbands or amulets also continue to provide their bonus in wild shape form.
Yeap.
It's wasn't magical items or magic stacking change, it was the fact that you no longer replaced your scores, but simply add to them.
In other words:
In 3.5e, you could become a grizzly bear and go from 6 Str to 20+ str, gaining a ridiculous amount of stats bonus from this ability. This made the ability highly variable, and out of control in some cases when new animals came out, or were a possibility.
In Pathfinder, you gain the appropriate size bonus from the change as listed in the Beastshape spells.
You could, and still can wear a Belt of Physical Perfection and keep the bonuses. Or cast Bull's Strength.
You just can't get a 20+ bonus to a stat from this effect anymore. Far more balanced, but it does create "animal" forms where carrying your own weight might be hard (imagine a Huge sized animal with a Strength in the teens, etc).
*shrug*
I really like the way these class ability swaps are being handled. I'm seeing a lot of 3.5e Complete-series PrCs being made obsolete by this design, and quite frankly, that makes me a happy DM.
I've always approached the game with "swapping" as an option, and hated that most game developers had latched onto the PrC mechanic as a way to give new options.
I can't find it in the 3.5e DMG, but in the 3.0e DMG there was even a section (right before PrCs) that talked about swapping class abilities to give players alternatives to multiclassing like crazy.
This preview makes me very happy with the direction of Pathfinder.
|
I do not recall, it was not the topic of the thread, something that kinda popped up on page 2 or 3 or 5 for all I recall, but James went into detail as way it was cut, mostly space but also it just diluted the paladin to much and made it into more or less a fighter with an odd code. More or less.Allow me to clarify real quick.
The Templar was an interesting concept, but in the end, its implementation was far too unwieldy. Many of the paladin powers do not translate well to a more neutral middle ground between the alignment extremes. In addition, its footprint in the book would have been far to large for a relatively limited payout.
In the end, it was better to include the paladin archtypes than the Templar.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
And I thought the Inquisitor was the proposed 'all-alignment templar' class?
And I thought the Inquisitor was the proposed 'all-alignment templar' class?
Does kinda fill that role don't he.
Why is it that you people assume that any option that allows customization is "ripe for abuse?" Some of us just want the ability to create our character concept without taking 5 classes and three prestige classes. Cherry picking would help with that.Don't get me wrong, I like the packages, but at the same time, I don't see how individual class features would be "ripe for abuse" as long as said features themselves weren't broken. It really irks me that designers always assume someone is trying to break the game. >.<
They do because someone is always trying to break the game. And that someone then mocks the designers for designing "broken" games.
If you were lucky to never play with someone like that or meet someone like that on the Internet, then you are very lucky.
|
I guess, yet, another APG house rule of mine. I am going to allow cherry picking. You are sacrificing the original class feature, I don't see the abuse. It's no different than combing through spells and feats for some sort of "abusive play".
The problem I see is that they can use the bundles to keep it more balanced. I imagine that in most of them, you have to give up more than 1 thing in order to gain replacements for it. It might require that you give up 1 good class feature and 1 'meh' one in order to gain to medium-strength features, in which case it really needs to be taken as a whole to remain balanced.
Doing this lets them get a bit more creative in the new archetypes, because they can strip away a few condition, weak features to replace them with one solid feature, or vice versa. More possibilities.
|
|
Which one? if they are in there it might be an oversight like the "godless" clerics of one of the recent books as it has been stated a few times they would fall.
But eh, not the thread for that debate yet again.
29: Mother of Flies. Goes into saying that such paladins seem themselves as refomers, convincing others that you are able to serve law and still being good.
Pretty much the paladin is a "champion of contracts and law, who happens to be good"
Yes it is in there I also believe James Jacobs said that if they were to write it again they would remove that part entirly
More a Chaotic god who can't and a Lawful god who can. :P And there are plenty of 'odd' things in the game. :)Yeah, I am putting this one down as an oversight. I can't see how a LG paladin can't follow a mortal who sacrifices slaves to devils but may a god who does the same. Yet can not follow a good god because he is a bit chaotic.
This is wrong, unlike the cleric, there is no rule that requires a paladin to be within 1 step of alignment of their god. There is only a rule that paladins need to be LG.
Being a paladin of Caiden Caylean is perfectly possible; the same way that being a paladin of Asmodeus is possible. In theory there is no problem with a paladin of Rovagug - except the bit that it would be exceedingly hard to maintain LG alignment that way.
But staying LG when following Asmodeus or Caiden Caylean is certainly not unfeasable.
I find this interesting, as proteans are snaky, anyway. And they seem to be the only other outsider race that get one, while the order-loving creeps or daemons don't. I guess it makes sense for the lawfuls, they're all so right and proper about anything, they want to keep the races segregated.It's a rare thing to catch inevitables sleeping around.
Axiomites, on the other hand.
It's funny, all the nerdy math pick up lines work with them:
"I wish I was your derivative so I could lie tangent to your curves."
"How can I know so many hundreds of digits of pi and not the 7 digits of your phone number?"
"I need a little help with my Calculus, can you integrate my natural log?"
And so on.
Wow. D&D done right - I must be dreaming.
You must be in a coma. Paizo has been doing things right for quite a while now.
The Protean Bloodline looks FUN. Nothing like the ability to tear reality a new one. And that's all I'm gonna say about that.I find this interesting, as proteans are snaky, anyway. And they seem to be the only other outsider race that get one, while the order-loving creeps or daemons don't. I guess it makes sense for the lawfuls, they're all so right and proper about anything, they want to keep the races segregated.Protean Bloodline, Serpentine Bloodline
Of course it's fun, it's Protean! And reality had it coming, anyway.
Anything more you want to tell us about this bloodline?
Umm Celestial, abyssal, fiendish... maybe not specific races but proteans aren't really a single race either.I find this interesting, as proteans are snaky, anyway. And they seem to be the only other outsider race that get one, while the order-loving creeps or daemons don't. I guess it makes sense for the lawfuls, they're all so right and proper about anything, they want to keep the races segregated.Protean Bloodline, Serpentine Bloodline
Celeastial, abyssal, fiendish are old. Proteans are the only ones who get a new bloodline, and the only "non-core" outsider type that gets one (celestials, demons and devils are in Bestiary I, but Proteans aren't. Neither are inevitables, daemons, aeons, and so on. But they don't get bloodlines).
Which is cool, of course, you can point a finger at them and shout "IN YOUR FACE!" :)
The Dreamspun Sorcerer bloodline interests me.
That happens when arcanists have wet dreams!
Hmm, interesting. I guess I'll know more when I get this book.
One question, however.
I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick. Which is not what I hoped to see originally.
Are there SOLO alternate features to choose from? For example, the Monk of the Four Winds sounds as if it's a solo feature replacement.
If not, would it be bad to simply pick one or two features from one "package", and some from another, etc., without needing to take everything a "package" offers?
I was about to give you a possible solution, but it seems you already found it, in the last paragraph.
I guess that most of the time, there won't be anything bad about replacing abilities piecemeal.
I kind of wish there'd been a wizard archetype for item craftsman types. Of all the spellcasters, that class seems like it'd be the most appropriate to have that archetype included.
I'd say they're already pretty good at that: They'll have great spellcraft check bonuses (because they're so smart), meaning they can get most items done, even if they lack a spell or two or want to work fast. The archetype is simply taking the item creation feats, maybe Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and you're done.
Ya can't. pretty sure Paladins in golarion have to be with in one step of their gods AL, just like a cleric.
Blegh! A million times, Blegh!I'mma make a LG paladin of Rovagug for society play. That'll teach em.
Negative, good sir, Lawful good paladin of Asmodeus (two steps, right?)
Dear, Sweat Baby Rovagug. 900 ibs, 7 and 3/4 ounces, playing with your baby hitler destructo blocks, tiny yet still omnipotent.... Bless us Big daddy Rov, Bless us.
Ooooh and he'll look like elvis, and wear sequined armor. Yeahhhhh.
Isn't it way too early to godwin this thread?
Am I the only one who thinks fighters are plenty good as archers already and don't particularly need an archetype to make them even better?
No, I'm pretty worried as well. I'm happy to see the Crossbowman, though.
I am really interested in seeing what kind of bonuses these archetypes get. Like I said earlier, I'll be disappointed if it's just + to damage and hit with said fighting style, we've got plenty of that with the core class.
Axiomites, on the other hand.
It's funny, all the nerdy math pick up lines work with them:
"I wish I was your derivative so I could lie tangent to your curves."
"How can I know so many hundreds of digits of pi and not the 7 digits of your phone number?"
"I need a little help with my Calculus, can you integrate my natural log?"
And so on.
This also explains why there is no axiomite bloodline!
Un-pathed Arc-finder!
Alternative class features are great! Break the mold without breaking the game, yay!
I hope that they replace class features like bravery, armor training, weapon training etc with more interesting features. (I don’t dislike them, but they are somewhat bland). Now I am also somewhat afraid for the archer…… but interested in the Crossbowman.
I also just realized that a party consisting of
a ranger
a barbarian
a thief
a magician
a cavalier
and an acrobat
is now possible.