So a pf game I am in is wrapping up. The dm did a great job, it was his first time and there has been much rejoicing.
I have an idea for my next character, I haven't heard of it being done, and I would like to get just a bit of advice of if it can work.
Simply, it will be a pally relying on improved feint and possibly power attack. I like the idea of a cunning swordsman in medium armour, that doesn't push his Ac high, but tries to with cunning and technique open up the defences of his opponents. Very simple build, strength + charisma, just a few feats to get it started (not sure what I will take later) and I am prepared to have a great bluff, but be unable to lie and use bluff for dishonourable ends.
So the code of conduct reads:
"(not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)"
Can I have a feinting paladin? Is it possible by the rules, or will I fall when I do that first feint?
Thinking of just a touch of Rogue, then Paladin? Rogaladin. Otherwise he will be totally committed to LG, and the code, just wanting to know if feint is on the cards, or will I fall quicker than killing kindly barmaids in the first bar we start in?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM who would make a Paladin fall for utilizing the feinting mechanics may need to have a long discussion with my good friend, comically oversized hammer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
You may be best suited for an Iroran Paladin.
Iroran paladins meditate on self-perfection and train relentlessly, knowing that their example can inspire others to excel. Irori offers no universal paladin code— each paladin in his service creates his own code as part of his spiritual journey, seeing the adherence to such a self-formulated creed as one of the many tests one must face to reach perfection.
The archetype can fit mechanically, and the loose "own code" basically makes arguing if you can feint a moot point.
|
|
Hey I've heard of GM with such a restriction on Paladin code of conduct that a paladin can fall for flirting. Can't take flank but only provide it. You basically have to play completely stupid good and if anything seems questionable bye bye powers. I can't play a paladin in my home games because of it.
Hey I've heard of GM with such a restriction on Paladin code of conduct that a paladin can fall for flirting. Can't take flank but only provide it. You basically have to play completely stupid good and if anything seems questionable bye bye powers. I can't play a paladin in my home games because of it.
I really feel for you. *pat pat*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played a 3.5 Knight who would never do such a thing, but then again anything even resembling underhanded fighting was a violation of their code of conduct. Didn't matter if they were good or evil. I never even once took a 5-ft step to allow the party rogue to flank, which I heard about for years afterwards.
A paladin has no such restrictions.
Yeah I remember the knight, but then you could actually use poison, and take the hit to your challenges, whereas the paladin would immediately fall.
Found a thread on this, from a few years ago. Good read.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oahc?Can-a-Paladin-use-Bluff
So far the dm is a bit against it, but we shall see when I ask him for a definitive yes or no.
Talk to him about flavor of the bluff versus the feint.
1-I had a bard that used to bluff weakness or blatant distraction. Definately not all that honorable.
2-A pally who feints is subtly using his skill to drive his opponent up so he can strike low, or lead with his shield to cover his blade. In other words he is a nuanced honorable fighter as opposed to the sherman tank honorable fighter.
Yeah, that is how I am seeing it. Fine swordwork and the many feints, redoubles and appels that a skilled swordsman utilises to gain the advantage. It is all movement to lure out the opponent, not lies as such.
A further question, can my Rogalin bring out the old backstab/sneak attack from behind? Definitely want to add smite to that where possible.
Want this paladin to be effective and fun to play for the many combats ahead.
I'd say you'd be best using your sneak attack from feints & flanks. Sticking your sword through someone's back might be considered dishonorable..
Kills the big bad with a sword through the back, at speed.
Falls.
Paladin: worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say you'd be best using your sneak attack from feints & flanks. Sticking your sword through someone's back might be considered dishonorable..
Well, you could just be stabbing their kidneys.
Plus, having your back exposed because you were drawn from battle (the fight seemed to be called off, for example) and having your back exposed because you misapplied force, missed, and went stumbling forward are rather different things.
Anyway, I generally think feints are different from lies because you are not using words in order to deceive people. You are not Iago causing Othello to kill his wife because of a supposed affair here, you are just letting them think your sword is going for their liver rather than their left kidney. You never gave any promises where you would stab them (well, hopefully not). You are not betraying anyone's trust by stabbing a different organ.
Now, another way for a GM to nip this in the bud would be asking how you trained up bluff in the first place (since you can't lie). Personally, I say that if you have to lie in order to lie, then you need to not be doing anything more complicated than confusing a guard. No, the best lies are the ones where you set out a selected array of facts and allow the target to draw their own conclusion. Never speak in absolutes or affirmatives. Hypotheticals and 'possibly's are you best friend. Allow your own lack of concrete info (even though you are fairly sure of the facts) be your greatest weapon.
"He could possibly be planning to mount an assault on you by raising this army. (Well, for all I know, he could; I don't know how far this 'blood brother' thing runs on his side)".
I like that line on betrayal and organs.
How is the non-lying paladin great at bluff? Well he will start the game at or very near middle age, and he has lived a full life engaging in lawful and unlawful pursuits, before finding his calling fighting evil. Started a militiaman, then treasure hunter, dungeon delver, then more standard hero to support his family and community, and finally arrived at paladin (we will be starting a few levels in). Now he is on the divine crusader path, but his paladin education was after so very much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feinting is more shifting to one side and then striking from the other (and other, similar tactics) than outright lying and deceit. It's just a battle tactic, just like dirty tricks are battle tactics (clocking someone in the ear with your gauntlet to deafen them doesn't seem any more dishonorable than shoving a sword through aforementioned ear).
Generally, fighting styles should be divorced from a Paladin's code, I feel. Specifically, there may be instances (poison is specifically prohibited), but otherwise the Paladin shouldn't be gimped any more than a LG Fighter. If you feel like your character wouldn't feint, that's fine and your decision, but nothing in the mechanics say you can't feint in combat because it's "dishonest."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whats the problem of having skills with the sword, if it is used for righteousness, then may it be.
Dm allowed it!
There was much rejoicing.
Honestly, I really could see no sane DM making a Paladin fall for Feinting.
I had a GM who considered laying traps or using Stealth to be implicitly lying to your opponent.
Not being able to Feint isn't that much of a stretch.
Hmm.
You may be best suited for an Iroran Paladin.
Iroran paladins meditate on self-perfection and train relentlessly, knowing that their example can inspire others to excel. Irori offers no universal paladin code— each paladin in his service creates his own code as part of his spiritual journey, seeing the adherence to such a self-formulated creed as one of the many tests one must face to reach perfection.The archetype can fit mechanically, and the loose "own code" basically makes arguing if you can feint a moot point.
Quite honestly I don't see much of a difference between playing an Iroran Paladin and just a regular Paladin who falls. You've lost all of your Paladin abilities either way.
There will be no falling. This has been a public service announcement.
Quite honestly I don't see much of a difference between playing an Iroran Paladin and just a regular Paladin who falls. You've lost all of your Paladin abilities either way.
What, a diss on the Iroran Paladin?
It is not that bad. While some of its abilities are...meh... (sensing ki? well, suppose sensing evil is less of a mechanical concern without smite), but it still keeps a lot of good stuff and trades in some other interesting stuff.
Its replacement for smite is decent with this 'personal challenge' mechanic, using something closer to an Inquisitor's judgments in terms of bonuses to attack and damage (+1-+6) as well as flexibility on what you can use it on. The archetype also adds ki, and interestingly you can use your ki to get past the DR of your 'smite' target. While normal paladins get that automatically anyway, the fact that 'personal challenge' can be used on anything means that wayward angels and golems are chumps to you. So not bad overall.
Getting CHA on top of DEX while in light armor is also pretty good, and depending on how you deal with armor vs. max dex, you can get similar AC to heavy armor. And you still retain divine health and lay on hands. That means you can still be a powerful tank.
The only troublesome thing is that your divine bond is with your unarmed strike (which the archetype doesn't support too well, I'll admit; no flurry or bonus feats to grab TWF). Nothing other than that one restriction on divine bond really ties your to unarmed strikes though. And even with that, you could take the Oath against fiends to switch it to your armor (So it isn't completely wasted) and just grab a greatsword like 'normal'.
So while this archetype is not going to quite the same powerhouse in campaigns like wrath of the righteous (where you predominantly fight evil), it is better against neutral targets, and the fact that it can write its own code means that you are not too much danger of any of 'those' type of GM's that you see on a lot of paladin threads (Well, everyone is in danger when 'those' GM's are involved, but normal paladins are easy targets). It provide a different flavor of holy martial character, basically.
Eh. I just don't see any reason why I'd use it over the aforementioned Inquisitor.
Be an Inquisitor of Irori, punch things, have Judgement and Bane which are better than that "Personal Trial" thing overall.
It's just so much wasted potential IMO.
Lol, well I won't get to finally try a pally, if I play an inquisitor.
Lol, well I won't get to finally try a pally, if I play an inquisitor.
My point was that if you go for the Iroran Paladin, you won't really be playing a Paladin anyway, and at that point the Inquisitor is probably better.
Yeah, thanks for the suggestions guys, but I won't play the Iroran paladin, prob just a vanilla pally. The dm also is unlikely to go for the "make up your own code as you go" idea. Lol.