Broken Paladin ruling


Rules Questions


In my PFS games, one of my players wants to multiclass his first level paladin to get rage. Luckily the Barbarian is not viable. However, he saw that the bloodrager got rage, and the celestial bloodline. Therefore my question is, is there a ruling or errata barring the bloodrager and paladin? If not, I think there should be because it seems like there is too much that can be done.

PFS rulings only.

Thanks,
cronjewel08

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
cronjewel08 wrote:
PFS rulings only.

Unless you see something to the contrary in either the Additional Resources document or the Guide to Organized Play, both the paladin and the bloodrager function as written in PFS.

Now I don't have the bloodrager in front of me, but I don't recall seeing an alignment restriction, or any other sort of restriction that would prevent multiclassing with a paladin.


There is nothing stopping a zealot paladin from raging for his/her god! ARRRRGH Charge without caring for anything i say! LAWFUL STUPEED all the way!


It doesn't seem that bad, he delays his paladin spellcasting for some bloodrager abilities. It's not broken, and since he took the celestial bloodline it could actually be fun to roleplay.

Why are you looking for rule blocking this? Because unless you got a good reason I would hesitate to help someone that seem to just want to be mean to his player.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

@Zilfrel Findadur — I resent your erroneous and unsupported assertion that being able to summon forth extra reserves of courage and ferocity in order to preserve the life and health of oneself and one's friends could in some way be correlated with stupidity or lack of caring.

Grand Lodge

Sadly, I am going to give your friend an even better solution that lets him be a barbarian paladin.

Since this is for pfs, he can rebuild for free any time before level 2.

so rebuild as a neutral good barbarian level 1.

then change alignment to lawful good, and take your levels of paladin. Becoming lawful means he can't take any more levels of barbarian, but his existing level still works.

may require an attonement.


FLite wrote:

Sadly, I am going to give your friend an even better solution that lets him be a barbarian paladin.

Since this is for pfs, he can rebuild for free any time before level 2.

so rebuild as a neutral good barbarian level 1.

then change alignment to lawful good, and take your levels of paladin. Becoming lawful means he can't take any more levels of barbarian, but his existing level still works.

may require an attonement.

A lawful barbarian cannot rage

Quote:
A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class.

Since this is the paladin's whole goal of dipping barbarian, it would serve no purpose.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
FLite wrote:

Sadly, I am going to give your friend an even better solution that lets him be a barbarian paladin.

Since this is for pfs, he can rebuild for free any time before level 2.

so rebuild as a neutral good barbarian level 1.

then change alignment to lawful good, and take your levels of paladin. Becoming lawful means he can't take any more levels of barbarian, but his existing level still works.

may require an attonement.

PRD wrote:

Ex-Barbarians

A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class.


I gotta say love the flavor and mechanics of the Celestial Bloodrager Paladin. Oath of vengeance, Bond with weapon. Man nearly any combination of levels between the two would be awesome.


Also remember, a raging paladin can't cast his paladin spells. All those great swift action litanies (among other things) will be lost.

To me, the inability to use Hero's Defiance alone is enough reason to say he'd be better off as a straight paladin. There's definitely nothing broken about the paladin/bloodrager build considering he's giving up all of his paladin casting while raging.


Could always just take a non-casting archetype, I'm sure there's one somewhere.

Silver Crusade

My paladin in PFS is possibly going to have a level of ABYSSAL Bloodrager as his newly-earned 9th level.


Expiate the sin within your blood.

Dark Archive

Just sayin', a Sacred Servant Paladin of Ragathiel can get Rage all on his own. At 8th level, yeah, but it can be done. Pair it with Oath of Vengeance and you are the ragin' smiter.

Grand Lodge

Necroing this thread.

I heard from somewhere that Barbarian/Cleric multiclasser can Channel Energy while raging. Does that mean that Bloodrager/Paladin multiclasser could use Lay on Hands while bloodraging?


Quote:
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Quote:
While bloodraging, a bloodrager cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

The question becomes does channel energy or lay on hands require "patience or concentration".

I'm not sure there is a clear cut answer, but I lean towards yes you can use them.


Can't see a reason why not.


Claxon wrote:
Quote:
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Quote:
While bloodraging, a bloodrager cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

The question becomes does channel energy or lay on hands require "patience or concentration".

I'm not sure there is a clear cut answer, but I lean towards yes you can use them.

Doesn't seem like they require any kind of concentration to do. I've always imagined channeling as a sort of explosion of your presence.

An actual cleric/barb combo may have difficulty though.

CRB, Cleric, Channel Energy class feature wrote:

Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.

...

A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.

Whereas an oracle of life with the channel energy revelation can do it without a symbol.

At the same time I see no reason why a weapon can't be a holy symbol, especially if it's one of your deities favored weapons.


So this feat is otherwise generally not that useful, but it does let you turn any magic weapon, armor, or shield into a holy symbol (with explicit rules to do so). It's certainly thematic for Iomedae (longsword) and Gorum (anything metal), probably a few others I'm sure. Torag with a hammer? Calistria with a whip?


Channeling foci always count as holy symbols. One of them is a weapon and another one a shield.


To me Oath of Vengeance seems like a bigger deal for Paladins than "I can be a Bloodrager too!" With the Oath and 4 levels of Paladin you can smite a lot, and you're free to multiclass into pretty much anything without alignment restrictions. I'd imagine that Oath of Vengeance probably even better in a game like PFS where the DM can't easily just say "Uh, this is a Neutral devil. He's like, partially reformed and stuff" or "Sure, they're demon worshipping cannibals who mate with animals for the glory of Lamashtu, but I wouldn't call them Evil, at least not while there's a Paladin around."


Devilkiller wrote:
"Sure, they're demon worshipping cannibals who mate with animals for the glory of Lamashtu, but I wouldn't call them Evil, at least not while there's a Paladin around."

This raises some questions.

Would a wildshaped druid mating with animals be considered an evil act? What about if the animal isn't exactly opposed to it? (If you've ever heard of 'mr hands' you'll know what I'm talking about)

Cannibalism could be seen as efficient too. What if that's their culture? Who is deciding this is evil?

So many issues.

Grand Lodge

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
So this feat is otherwise generally not that useful, but it does let you turn any magic weapon, armor, or shield into a holy symbol (with explicit rules to do so). It's certainly thematic for Iomedae (longsword) and Gorum (anything metal), probably a few others I'm sure. Torag with a hammer? Calistria with a whip?

Not PFS legal.


Hydromancer wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
"Sure, they're demon worshipping cannibals who mate with animals for the glory of Lamashtu, but I wouldn't call them Evil, at least not while there's a Paladin around."

This raises some questions.

Would a wildshaped druid mating with animals be considered an evil act? What about if the animal isn't exactly opposed to it? (If you've ever heard of 'mr hands' you'll know what I'm talking about)

Cannibalism could be seen as efficient too. What if that's their culture? Who is deciding this is evil?

So many issues.

the former would still be bestiality (since theres a sentient person inside the tiger who's going at it with a not-so-sentient normal tiger) and therefore 'taking advantage' of that animal, so pretty evil unless you're in a weirdass society in-game.

if it's TWO druids doing that with each other, then it's just two consenting adults spicing things up in bed, which i won't judge.

the latter depends--some areas might do it for survival, others might willingly 'donate' their flesh for religious rites or are solely religious (the aztecs i think? gotta appease that sun-god), some might do it as a preventative measure (iirc wood elves in TES lore did that to keep people from messing around with their forest homes). any of which might have some possible non-evil motivations/grounding.

then again as a paladin you dont follow ALL laws--you follow those you deem WORTH following under the code of ethics handed down by your deity. you are not forced to partake in cannibalism in a cannibalistic country for fear of falling, or own a slave in a slavery-riddled country. in fact, you can actively seek to put a stop to them--yes it appears as a CN or even CE action to that society, but it is very obviously LG in both your eyes and the eyes of your god (which is the only TRUE thing you answer to and are held directly accountable by, though you can certainly acquiesce to mundane laws that align with your creed for expedience, naturally)


Perhaps it would have been better if I had said, "DMs will sometimes make enemies Neutral to avoid Smite Evil even if it seems like those enemies would usually be considered Evil."

The discussion here makes me think it might be interesting to check out the alternate alignment rules in Unchained though. Arguments over how absolute the alignment system should be aren't uncommon, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
the former would still be bestiality (since theres a sentient person inside the tiger who's going at it with a not-so-sentient normal tiger) and therefore 'taking advantage' of that animal, so pretty evil unless you're in a weirdass society in-game.

What if the animal was awakened?

Asking for a friend...


haremlord wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
the former would still be bestiality (since theres a sentient person inside the tiger who's going at it with a not-so-sentient normal tiger) and therefore 'taking advantage' of that animal, so pretty evil unless you're in a weirdass society in-game.

What if the animal was awakened?

Asking for a friend...

if they're awakened they've been granted intelligence/sentience, and can therefore give consent (though the thing about awakening pets is that it makes consent fuzzy under the master/owner umbrella). still squicky, but i wouldnt start smiting over it.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

An alternative approach would be a Skald - a bit more casting, but somewhat delayed raging (and it takes a standard action to initiate but does also effect your allies). One plus is that since the Skald can still do anything they want while maintaining the raging song, you can still cast spells etc (but the effects are half of regular rage)

a Skald / Paladin should really look at the Lesser Celestial Totem rage power.

Quote:
Whenever she is subject to a spell that cures hit point damage, she heals 1 additional point of damage per caster level. In the case of non-spell healing effects (such as channeled energy or lay on hands), she heals a number of additional points equal to the class level of the character performing the magical healing. This does not affect fast healing or regeneration.

Really, really good for a Paladin.

[or you could even take Bloodrager / Skald & Paladin - note that if you do, your bonus while using your Skald rage would be your Bloodrager's bonuses though I don't think you would also get your bloodline powers] The Celestial bloodline's 1st level power is quite good however the 4th level bloodline power isn't nearly as good because it only grants you resistances while you are bloodraging which means it only helps against attacks the few rounds a day you are raging.

And consider taking the Mad Magic feat which allows you to cast spells from any class while in a bloodrage (seems tailor made for multi classed bloodragers) when you are high enough level to have Paladin spells.

A bloodrager / paladin would be a pretty MAD class (you need a high CHA and a high CON and a good STR would be helpful).

A Skald / Paladin could actually also become a Dragon Disciple if you wanted - which might b ea pretty fun build (high STR, lay on hands, potentially both arcane and divine casting if you advanced enough levels, plus a specialized rage/bardic performance = lots of flexibility + lots of really fun abilities. Probably would dish out a lot of damage as well - but still have plenty to do outside of combat. Slightly lower BAB than the Bloodrager / Paladin version however.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cronjewel08 wrote:

In my PFS games, one of my players wants to multiclass his first level paladin to get rage. Luckily the Barbarian is not viable. However, he saw that the bloodrager got rage, and the celestial bloodline. Therefore my question is, is there a ruling or errata barring the bloodrager and paladin? If not, I think there should be because it seems like there is too much that can be done.

PFS rulings only.

Thanks,
cronjewel08

There's this slight issue of the Paladin having to retain a LAWFUL alignment if he wants to keep his class, but other than that, nothing at all.


Bloodragers aren't Barbarians. They can be Lawful if they want.


And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.


Bloodragers dont have a aglinment requirement, you can go both paladin and bloodrager.

The celestial bloodline could fit?


kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
xavier c wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.

The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.

But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.

Dark Archive

xavier c wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.

I don't see how the game is enriched by the guy who gets mad as hell as a class feature not being able to temper that rage with wisdom (Monk) or use it to crush the forces of evil (Paladin) or whatever.

Honestly, when you need to jump to extremes like "why have classes at all?" that's a dead giveaway that you don't have an actual argument.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, an Untouchable Rager/Primalist Bloodrager, is basically a Barbarian.

Rage Powers and all.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
xavier c wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.

The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.

But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.

Are the really frequent outbursts of rage that makes him non-lawful.

He fundamentally lacks any self-discipline, but it also permits the barbarian to unleash greater raw strength


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
xavier c wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.

The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.

But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.

Are the really frequent outbursts of rage that makes him non-lawful.

He fundamentally lacks any self-discipline, but it also permits the barbarian to unleash greater raw strength

Except that makes zero sense whatsoever.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh? Forced Flavor?


Fundamentally untrue by the very simple methods available to get a Raging Paladin.

Rage's only mechanical effects are "no Int/Wis/Cha based skills, no spells". Whether or not you lack discipline while raging depends entirely on your roleplay.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
xavier c wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.

The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.

But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.

Are the really frequent outbursts of rage that makes him non-lawful.

He fundamentally lacks any self-discipline, but it also permits the barbarian to unleash greater raw strength

Except that makes zero sense whatsoever.

Agreed.

The following is all anecdotal evidence so keep that in mind.

I'm not sure barbarians refer to themselves as barbarians. In almost every fantasy setting I've ever encountered with barbarians in them, they don't refer to themselves as such, and often take offense to being called such.

To call someone a barbarian is to call them uncultured, uncivilized.

Every setting I've seen them in, barbarians have quite a strong culture with tribal laws, elders, rites and rituals, and a code of honor regarding combat.

Heck the literal definition of a barbarian is either uncivilized people or tribes that existed outside of the great empires.


I think Forgotten Realms called them barbarians in the Drizzt novels.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
"Sure, they're demon worshipping cannibals who mate with animals for the glory of Lamashtu, but I wouldn't call them Evil, at least not while there's a Paladin around."

This raises some questions.

Would a wildshaped druid mating with animals be considered an evil act? What about if the animal isn't exactly opposed to it? (If you've ever heard of 'mr hands' you'll know what I'm talking about)

Cannibalism could be seen as efficient too. What if that's their culture? Who is deciding this is evil?

So many issues.

the former would still be bestiality (since theres a sentient person inside the tiger who's going at it with a not-so-sentient normal tiger) and therefore 'taking advantage' of that animal, so pretty evil unless you're in a weirdass society in-game.

Weired, yes. Evil, no. Unless rape is involved. But if the druid uses the mating rituals usual for the species in question and the female lets him do it not evil at all.

Else letting your dog hump your leg would be evil, too.


The cannibalism and demonically inspired bestiality were something from a recent game where my goblin PC, Chief Sharky, decided to see what he could Intimidate some human prisoners into doing. The initial acts might not have been strictly Evil since they were performed under duress, but some of the prisoners began to really get into it and slaughtered a few of their less enthusiastic fellows. I think it is safe to assume that they're probably Evil and possibly insane by now.


Entryhazard wrote:
He fundamentally lacks any self-discipline, but it also permits the barbarian to unleash greater raw strength

There's a Ranger archetype that grants Rage, but no alignment restriction.

Anyone who can get domains can get Rage without being non-Lawful.

What about the Urban Barbarian, who gets Controlled Rage in addition to regular Rage? How is something that's controlled an indicator of lacking discipline?

Liberty's Edge

I believe there have been a discussion and the consensus of it was that you may use hexes while raging (Scarred Witch Doctor + Barbarian Rage) as hex is a SU ability.
Lay on Hands is also a SU ability so it should also works as part of raging.

There are a few more ways to boost the healing of the paladin;
Aside from the Lesser Celestial Rage Totem there is the feat http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/fey-foundling
and Tiefling's Favored class bonus buffs lay on hands by 1/level.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Happily there are rules in Unchained both to remove alignment restrictions for classes, and to remove alignment completely from the game.


Kudaku wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Happily there are rules in Unchained both to remove alignment restrictions for classes, and to remove alignment completely from the game.

Indeed, although I had been under the [mistaken] impression that all the alignment issues aside from LG Paladins and Lawful Monks had been stripped out. [On that note, Lawful Monks is rather annoying as well.] Mandatory non-lawful Barbarians is silly.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There are a few ways to have non-lawful monks.

The monk archetype Martial Artist is open to any alignment but gives up ki powers for so different but still good abilities. And there is a variant type of Aasimar who can take a trait that allows them to be a neutral monk. Somewhat costly but for the right concept very nice (it would for example allow for a barbarian/monk if you wanted to build one. As far as I know that would work with the new unchained monk while the archetype would not.


Yeah, the aforementioned goblin used the Martial Artist archetype to skirt alignment conflicts while taking a few levels of Monk to help improve his grappling and defensive skills.

Barbarians have been gaining more grappling and unarmed combat skills over the years to the point where a single classed Barbarian might make a decent Monk substitute in some cases. This makes me think of Monk Lu Zhisen of the 108 Stars of Destiny, a monk who ate meat, drank wine, and never read scripture. He was basically a wanted man who hid out in a monastery by posing as a monk but later achieved actual Enlightenment.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Broken Paladin ruling All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.