The same thing could be said for CG Paladins.You could have a rogue chassis with 9th level divine casting. Just design it, clear it with your GM/players and bingo bango, there you go.
Again, it'd be nice if Paizo gave everyone what they wanted .. but in a way they did. They gave you the game system and the ability to do what you want with it. Go for it and have fun.
Yes, it could! In fact, I've said it myself. I'm not waiting, haven't waited, and won't wait for TSR or WOTC or Paizo to make something and give me some sort of "OK." Never have, never will. Whether it is first or third party products, they all are nifty ideas that I may or may not use and I let those who play with me know that ahead of time.
I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying anything about whatever happens in peoples home games under their house rules. I'm saying as a change to the basic rules of the game its a comparative power level issue with other martials, and a loss of thematic flavor for the class.Ah, and there we go.
It feels like the main reason some people insist on LG-only paladins is that they enjoy telling others that they're playing the game wrong.
Martial classes aren't balanced particularly well against each-other, never have been balanced (especially not in the core book), never have been OP and the Paladin isn't even the strongest one of them and would remain not the strongest. Heck the dreaded shooting star paladin wouldn't even be particularly good.
its a garbage damage dice and you can't get 1.5 charisma to damage with it (like you could with 1 one handed weapon and str), you also don't get the 1.5 power attack bonus, (although you still need 13 str). So unless you do two weapon fighting your damage is garbage and if you do two weapon fighting the class is still MAD (the whole thing you're trying to avoid) because you need dex for the feat pre requisites.
And even then your damage is only actually competitive whilst smiting.
all the dreaded combo achieves is better than average saves for a Paladin, better than average (but still shit) DCs on their spells, more lay on hands per day, oh and a more accurate smite.
compared to just going strength and heavy armor, which grants considerably more damage a less MAD PB and less feat taxes.
AC isn't even that big a bonus, a Paladin with a starting Dex of 10 a +5 Mithril breastplate and a +6 belt of perfection is bringing +17 AC from armor and Dex.
Meanwhile CHA boy starting with 18 CHA putting 4 in from levels and having a +6 headband (28 over all) wearing Celestial armor has +15. With +8 bracers of armor they get to +17.
So a two weapon fighting Desna Paladin with a 1 level dip is oracle ends up with less damage, less accuracy, more MAD point buy, more feat taxes, the same AC, better saves, better smite, more lay on hands uses and more spells than than a Paladin in heavy armor using strength and a Greatsword.
Oh yeah I can really see the game balance shattering before my very eyes.
If you're going to ignore everyones actual reasoning in favor of a strawman you may as well actually argue it well.
as for flavor, there is much more flavor in a Paladin code, than an alignment, and codes aren't the thing most people want removed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm legitimately curious as to whether or not you understand the concept of false equivalency.So your allowed to want "a CG class with full BAB, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, buffing aura, a touch ability, and 4/9 casting. "
but I'm not allowed to want "a class with 3/4 Bab, armor/weapons, sneak attack, 4+skills, and 9/9 casting"?
Why is your want serious and needed and mine seen as a joke or a false equivalent.
We both want something that doesn't exist in the game because of restrictions in the rules.
I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you are sincerely arguing that.I guess your under pressure as well?
I am not about to be gaslighted on this.
What I want is a version of an existing class, with an altered set of restrictions, to fill in what I believe is a gap in the setting's logic.
You are trying to make the argument that wanting yet another archetype/alternate class for the paladin is the equivalent of or at least the start of a slippery slope that ends with asking for blatantly overpowered hybrid classes that combine the best mechanical elements of the existing classes that didn't get mashed together already in the ACG. You are doing this intentionally to paint my argument as absurd and overreaching by association.
And now you're feigning offence that I'm not playing you're game by treating these two things that are clearly not equal as such.
I've been trying to restrain my self and be polite over the last couple of pages here. I've been trying to straddle that line I've set for myself where, while I may have no respect for the traditionalist opinion and argument on this, I am at least not attacking those arguing for the traditionalist opinion by condemning them as liars as they are condemning me.
But I am not for one moment going to sit here and pretend that the argument you're making there is in any way legitimate. It is a hatchet job, a transparent attempt at false equivalency followed by demanding neutrality instead of objectivity.
You and Mr. Freire can continue to make your assertions that this or that is necessary balance, and can continue to make hyperbolic and blatantly false characterizations such as a CG paladin being the road to fighters with 9th level casting, and he can keep calling me a liar if he wants.
But do not expect me to buy into it, to suddenly see the error of my ways and the absurdity of what I'm asking for, to not challenge you, and to not continue this argument, as regardless of what Ryan thinks, my beliefs on this issue are very, very genuine.
I said it before and I will say it again, this is a hill that I am quite prepared to die on.
Martial classes aren't balanced particularly well against each-other, never have been balanced (especially not in the core book), never have been OP and the Paladin isn't even the strongest one of them and would remain not the strongest. Heck the dreaded shooting star paladin wouldn't even be particularly good.
If you legitimately believe this than I'm relatively certain its safe to disregard your opinions on balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.
Well the cheeky answer might be why not?
If a warpriest would work for any of the other alignments, it would work for a LG holy warrior as well, right? Then why have the paladin other than backwards compatibility?
Why have the LG paladin for anything other than mechanical advantage rather than role play? The code can easily be something that you RP, which you do anyway, much like any other class.
My wanting "a class with 3/4 Bab, armor/weapons, sneak attack, 4+skills, and 9/9 casting" isn't ridiculous.
It's basically a Cleric without the Domain or Channel and adding in better skills and some kind of Sneak Attack.
I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.
It does work. It just also casts CG as being inadequate and impotent compared to LG as LG gets warpriests and paladins.
I can have a full party that consists of a cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest of Iomedae. I cannot do the same thing for Cayden Cailean.
The options are, as I've laid them out; that either Cayden Cailean is incapable of empowering holy warriors to be paladins in the way that Iomedae is, in which case Iomedae is apparently superior to him in some intangible way, or he simply doesn't see the value in doing so, in which case, he's an idiot.
If there is a third option, I am quite curious as to what it is. If there is a legitimate justification as to why LG gods deserve to have another toy to play with that CG gods don't, I'm quite curious as to what that is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.
It's roleplay and Lore.
Roleplay -
War-priests don't get to do the charismatic leader beacon of hope angle. The war priest is also lacking in any discernible niche roleplay/lore wise as to what it is supposed to be when lined up next to a cleric.
Lore -
Makes absolutely 0 sense that chaotic good and Lawful good gods can't empower Paladin like powers at all. Yet Chaotic and Lawful Evil gods can make their anti-Paladin/Tyrant's
The Lore one is the one most people are arguing I believe.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can this thread be closed before anyone kills or dies on a hill?
This is a FORUM, right?
Is it ever appropriate to write that someone's opinion is worthless?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or option three - he empowers his champions in DIFFERENT ways.I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.It does work. It just also casts CG as being inadequate and impotent compared to LG as LG gets warpriests and paladins.
I can have a full party that consists of a cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest of Iomedae. I cannot do the same thing for Cayden Cailean.
The options are, as I've laid them out; that either Cayden Cailean is incapable of empowering holy warriors to be paladins in the way that Iomedae is, in which case Iomedae is apparently superior to him in some intangible way, or he simply doesn't see the value in doing so, in which case, he's an idiot.
If there is a third option, I am quite curious as to what it is. If there is a legitimate justification as to why LG gods deserve to have another toy to play with that CG gods don't, I'm quite curious as to what that is.
Yep can confirm. They do in fact get empowered in different ways.
I guess LG is now incompetent or stupid since they don't have Brewkeepers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you legitimately believe this than I'm relatively certain its safe to disregard your opinions on balance.Martial classes aren't balanced particularly well against each-other, never have been balanced (especially not in the core book), never have been OP and the Paladin isn't even the strongest one of them and would remain not the strongest. Heck the dreaded shooting star paladin wouldn't even be particularly good.
I love how you then disregard me showing you mechanically, with math, that I am right.
The shooting star paladin ends up with the same AC, worse damage, less free feats, a more MAD point buy, better smite, more spells and more lay on hands.
The spells benefit is basically negligible. So the only real benefits are more accuracy and AC from smiting, better saves and more lay on hands
in exchange for less damage, more MAD point buy and 3 more committed feats. Its a wash at best.
The only thing it allows that is really scary is oracle dipping one level for Charisma to saves. But they still need dex to actually do decent damage with the fighting style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wanting "a class with 3/4 Bab, armor/weapons, sneak attack, 4+skills, and 9/9 casting" isn't ridiculous.
It's basically a Cleric without the Domain or Channel and adding in better skills and some kind of Sneak Attack.
I'm going to ask you very kindly to not insult my intelligence.
If you legitimately want a class like that to be made from whole cloth, that's fine. I think the inquisitor is meant to be the skill monkey divine class and there are rogue and slayer archetypes that cast them as divine sneak attackers, but there may be a real niche there for what you're proposing.
The issue is that I'm capable of reading context clues, and also the actual text of your posts in which you asked, "if we get rid of alignment restrictions, what's next on the chopping block?".
Just like Ryan and HWalsh brought up the idea of a fighter with 9th level spells as a strawman to discredit the idea of CG paladins, you brought up a rogue with 9th level spells for the same purpose and weren't even subtle about doing so. Now, maybe you've talked yourself into thinking it's a legitimately good idea, in which case, by all means, pursue that.
But do not insult me or try and gaslight me by suggesting that you're doing something other than the blatantly obvious.
Just like Ryan and HWalsh brought up the idea of a fighter with 9th level spells as a strawman to discredit the idea of CG paladins, \
Curious as to where I ever brought that up.
Or option three - he empowers his champions in DIFFERENT ways.
The problem is that he can't do it the same way, not that he does do it differently and the only difference is he does it in less ways anyway, since the LG gods gets WPs too.
Or option three - he empowers his champions in DIFFERENT ways.I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.It does work. It just also casts CG as being inadequate and impotent compared to LG as LG gets warpriests and paladins.
I can have a full party that consists of a cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest of Iomedae. I cannot do the same thing for Cayden Cailean.
The options are, as I've laid them out; that either Cayden Cailean is incapable of empowering holy warriors to be paladins in the way that Iomedae is, in which case Iomedae is apparently superior to him in some intangible way, or he simply doesn't see the value in doing so, in which case, he's an idiot.
If there is a third option, I am quite curious as to what it is. If there is a legitimate justification as to why LG gods deserve to have another toy to play with that CG gods don't, I'm quite curious as to what that is.
No, that falls under option 2. Because doing that to the exclusion of something as obviously and objectively practical as a paladin is objectively foolish.
Flagging and moving on.
Hopefully we all get what we want eventually. CG Paladins, a Rogue-type with 9/9 divine, or whatever else.
Otherwise I'm done with this toxic thread.
Peace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Curious as to where I ever brought that up.
Just like Ryan and HWalsh brought up the idea of a fighter with 9th level spells as a strawman to discredit the idea of CG paladins, \
It's possible I conflated you doing it with someone else. If so I do apologize for assigning blame to you for something you didn't do in that specific case.
Not that you haven't brought up strawman arguments - Chromantic Durgon did an excellent job of pointing that out. But if you didn't bring up that specific one, I apologize.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Dragon magazine has addressed, at least twice (including 3.0 I think while Paizo was in charge) paladins of every alignment. It would take a little tweaking, but essentially their 3.0 version of the CG paladin (or archetype) was called a Garath (not certain it that was the name from the first or second time) The changes would be as follows: Aura of Good is replaced by Aura of Chaos, Detect Evil becomes Detect Law, Smite Evil becomes Smite Law, Divine Health becomes Slippery Mind (as the rogue talent). Uses of mercy are swapped out for a static Break enchantment chained to lay on hands. All other "evil" descriptors are swapped out for their "law" equivalent.
Their spell list was:
1st level: Bless, Bless Water, Bless Weapon, Disguise Self, Cure Light Wounds, Detect Poison, Divine Favor, Endure Elements, Lesser Restoration, Magic Stone, Magic Weapon, Mending, Protection from Evil/Law, Read Magic, Shield of Faith
2nd Level: Align Weapon, Alter Self, Cat's Grace, Cure Moderate Wounds, Eagle's Splendor, Fox's Cunning, Invisibility, Make Whole, Misdirection, Resist Energy, Shield Other, Undetectable Alignment
3rd Level: Cure Moderate Wounds, Dispel Magic, Flame Arrow, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Magic Circle against Law/Evil, Nondetection, Obscure Object
4th Level: Cure Serious Wounds, Detect Scrying, Dispel Law/Evil, Freedom of Movement, Greater Invisibility, Holy Sword, Neutralize Poison, Restoration and Stone Shape
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or option three - he empowers his champions in DIFFERENT ways.I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.It does work. It just also casts CG as being inadequate and impotent compared to LG as LG gets warpriests and paladins.
I can have a full party that consists of a cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest of Iomedae. I cannot do the same thing for Cayden Cailean.
The options are, as I've laid them out; that either Cayden Cailean is incapable of empowering holy warriors to be paladins in the way that Iomedae is, in which case Iomedae is apparently superior to him in some intangible way, or he simply doesn't see the value in doing so, in which case, he's an idiot.
If there is a third option, I am quite curious as to what it is. If there is a legitimate justification as to why LG gods deserve to have another toy to play with that CG gods don't, I'm quite curious as to what that is.
Yep can confirm. They do in fact get empowered in different ways.
I guess LG is now incompetent or stupid since they don't have Brewkeepers.
I understand that Brain in a jar has moved on from this thread but I'm still going to address this for the record;
You'll note, and I have been very consistent about this, that I am not factoring prestige classes into my argument. Prestige classes are an entirely different beast to the paladin class and are not comparable for the purposes of this discussion.
I don't expect or require each and every god and alignment to have exact copies of every prestige class - they all have access to the ones that really matter, the ones from Inner Sea Gods. So beyond that they can all have their own quirky takes on prestige classes that they want. I'm sure LG gods have more than a few of their own as well.
But for this discussion I'm focusing on the four base, 1-20 divine spellcasting classes; cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest. All gods get access to cleric, inquisitor, and warpriest, while some gods are denied access to paladins.
Prestige classes are not a counter argument to that. Barbarians are not a counter argument to that. Rogue and bard archetypes are not a counter argument to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shooting Star Paladins wouldn't *even* get a better smite, because they can't add Charisma to their Attack Roll twice. And they really don't have the feats to take fullest advantage of starknives as a weapon--that would really call for TWF, at minimum Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim, plus either a Blink back Belt or Quick Draw, Martial Focus, and Ricochet Toss--and then a useless Weapon Finesse to qualify for Piranha Strike for Melee Combat. Really not seeing the massive power boost.
So at the same time a paladin isn't that powerful and doesn't need any particular balancing but is also so powerful that not having one is idiotic. Do I have that right? Because synthesized together that argument really seems to be being made.Or option three - he empowers his champions in DIFFERENT ways.I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.It does work. It just also casts CG as being inadequate and impotent compared to LG as LG gets warpriests and paladins.
I can have a full party that consists of a cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest of Iomedae. I cannot do the same thing for Cayden Cailean.
The options are, as I've laid them out; that either Cayden Cailean is incapable of empowering holy warriors to be paladins in the way that Iomedae is, in which case Iomedae is apparently superior to him in some intangible way, or he simply doesn't see the value in doing so, in which case, he's an idiot.
If there is a third option, I am quite curious as to what it is. If there is a legitimate justification as to why LG gods deserve to have another toy to play with that CG gods don't, I'm quite curious as to what that is.
No, that falls under option 2. Because doing that to the exclusion of something as obviously and objectively practical as a paladin is objectively foolish.
I said that paladins are objectively and practically useful. Not that they are the end all and the be all of divine servants.
As much as the warpriest class has been derided in this thread I would categorize a LG deity that only empowered paladins to the exclusion of warpriests as being as foolish as one who did the opposite.
I also don't see restricting them from CG as being a particular balancing act when there are paladin equivalents of NG, LN, LE, NE, and CE. TN, CN, and CG are literally the only alignments that do not get some form of paladin. I haven't heard why that's the logical place to draw the line yet. Only positions seem to be that the line needs to be scaled back to LG only, or that the line needs to be moved forward to being more inclusive.
I love how you then disregard me showing you mechanically, with math, that I am right.
The shooting star paladin ends up with the same AC, worse damage, less free feats, a more MAD point buy, better smite, more spells and more lay on hands.
The spells benefit is basically negligible. So the only real benefits are more accuracy and AC from smiting, better saves and more lay on hands
in exchange for less damage, more MAD point buy and 3 more committed feats. Its a wash at best.The only thing it allows that is really scary is oracle dipping one level for Charisma to saves. But they still need dex to actually do decent damage with the fighting style.
You actually dont. Desna's divine fighting style replaces dex and str both to hit and damage, it has no dex requirement, the dex requirement you might need is 13, for point blank shot to take the shooting star style , hardly an onerous requirement. Building for a Cha-monger is a far far less MAD point buy than a str based front line paladin that still gets decent use out of the cha based class abilities.
With a 20 point buy at level 1 you can have these stats as a desnan paladin
Gnome pal 1 (Desna) (18 pts spent)
Str: 8
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 10
Cha: 19
2 points left to spend so you can either up int for more skills or str for more carrying capacity.
Level 1 feat: Divine fighting style Desna
I deeply disagree with the idea that spells, even paladin spells are irrelevant but assuming you do buy into that, fortunately there's the tempered champion, which gives bonus feats and sacred weapon for the low cost of not having a mount for your divine bond.
As for less damage, well frankly less damage isn't the same thing as "not enough damage" Overkill is a pretty big thing in pathfinder, especially if your metric is do as much damage all at once as humanly possible. In exchange for "less" (but not insufficient) damage you get better everything else in your class, better survivability, better access to your spells, stronger smites, better lay hands, a stronger party face game, better AC (since the issue at hand is how easy it is to make the ultimate SAD char a 1 level oracle dip isn't exactly out of control for highest stat to AC/cmd)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still curious if these slippery slope folks were equally as indignant about the removal of the race requirement, ability score requirements, multiclassing restrictions, tithing requirements, restrictions on possessions, or whatnot?
The ability requirements never really left, if you roll a 10 cha you're not going to be a very viable paladin, you'll just be a fighter with less feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still curious if these slippery slope folks were equally as indignant about the removal of the race requirement, ability score requirements, multiclassing restrictions, tithing requirements, restrictions on possessions, or whatnot?
If I'm being overly fair to them and I think at this point, I am, I'd say that at they're core they're less 'slippery slope' and more, Captain Picard's "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" speech. They've just turned to the slippery slope as the last line of defense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So at the same time a paladin isn't that powerful and doesn't need any particular balancing but is also so powerful that not having one is idiotic. Do I have that right? Because synthesized together that argument really seems to be being made.Or option three - he empowers his champions in DIFFERENT ways.I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.It does work. It just also casts CG as being inadequate and impotent compared to LG as LG gets warpriests and paladins.
I can have a full party that consists of a cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest of Iomedae. I cannot do the same thing for Cayden Cailean.
The options are, as I've laid them out; that either Cayden Cailean is incapable of empowering holy warriors to be paladins in the way that Iomedae is, in which case Iomedae is apparently superior to him in some intangible way, or he simply doesn't see the value in doing so, in which case, he's an idiot.
If there is a third option, I am quite curious as to what it is. If there is a legitimate justification as to why LG gods deserve to have another toy to play with that CG gods don't, I'm quite curious as to what that is.
No, that falls under option 2. Because doing that to the exclusion of something as obviously and objectively practical as a paladin is objectively foolish.
The Paladin is a is an excellently designed class--by no means the top of the martial heap, but certainly in the upper echelons, but by no means overpowered. I do not believe that the Paladin's Code is a factor in that balance, because I do not believe a roleplaying restriction is *capable* of balancing mechanical power, and the Antipaladin, especially an undead or Dhampir Antipaladin has roughly equivalent power for a vastly more powerful--arguably functionally inviolable--code. But insofar as the Code *is* a point of balance, the hypothetical CG paladin would still have one --the restrictions would be different, but restrictions would still exist, as classes such as the Cavalier give precedence for. The abilities provided by the Paladin chassis meanwhile, *are* decidedly useful, as well as highly thematically appropriate for the followers of many Gods with 'inspirational crusader' personas, Gods who would surely be interested in servants who could Smite Evil and inspire others to acts of courage and protect them from mental control by their very promise. It is thus very strange that they don't do this if they can.
It also occurs to me, at this point, we can have Neutral Good Paladins, Lawful Neutral Paladins, Paladins of every stripe of Evil...fully 2/3 of the alignment spectrum can be Paladins. I'm not sure any argument of either dilution or 'munchkinly avoiding the Code' has much of a leg to stand on at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin is a is an excellently designed class--by no means the top of the martial heap, but certainly in the upper echelons, but by no means overpowered. I do not believe that the Paladin's Code is a factor in that balance, because I do not believe a roleplaying restriction is *capable* of balancing mechanical power, and the Antipaladin, especially an undead or Dhampir Antipaladin has roughly equivalent power for a vastly more powerful--arguably functionally inviolable--code. But insofar as the Code *is* a point of balance, the hypothetical CG paladin would still have one --the restrictions would be different, but restrictions would still exist, as classes such as the Cavalier give precedence for. The abilities provided by the Paladin chassis meanwhile, *are* decidedly useful, as well as highly thematically appropriate for the followers of many Gods with 'inspirational crusader' personas, Gods who would surely be interested in servants who could Smite Evil and inspire others to acts of courage and protect them from mental control by their very promise. It is thus very strange that they don't do this if they can.
It also occurs to me, at this point, we can have Neutral Good Paladins, Lawful Neutral Paladins, Paladins of every stripe of Evil...fully 2/3 of the alignment spectrum can be Paladins. I'm not sure any argument of either dilution or 'munchkinly avoiding the Code' has much of a leg to stand on at that point.
I'd like to thank you for making that argument more eloquently and comprehensively than I've made it thus far.
There's been no small amount of negativity and even some outright hostility in this thread. I'd like to take a moment to express my personal thanks and appreciation to you, Isonaroc, Chromantic Durgon, and anyone else that I'm leaving out in my exhaustion for not only continuing the argument on what I believe is the right side, but often doing so better than I have.
Whether any of you've agreed with every single thing I've said or not - I would imagine probably not - I still appreciate that I haven't had to make this argument alone.
I love how you then disregard me showing you mechanically, with math, that I am right.
The shooting star paladin ends up with the same AC, worse damage, less free feats, a more MAD point buy, better smite, more spells and more lay on hands.
The spells benefit is basically negligible. So the only real benefits are more accuracy and AC from smiting, better saves and more lay on hands
in exchange for less damage, more MAD point buy and 3 more committed feats. Its a wash at best.The only thing it allows that is really scary is oracle dipping one level for Charisma to saves. But they still need dex to actually do decent damage with the fighting style.
You actually dont. Desna's divine fighting style replaces dex and str both to hit and damage, it has no dex requirement, the dex requirement you might need is 13, for point blank shot to take the shooting star style , hardly an onerous requirement. Building for a Cha-monger is a far far less MAD point buy than a str based front line paladin that still gets decent use out of the cha based class abilities.
With a 20 point buy at level 1 you can have these stats as a desnan paladin
Gnome pal 1 (Desna) (18 pts spent)
Str: 8
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 10
Cha: 192 points left to spend so you can either up int for more skills or str for more carrying capacity.
Level 1 feat: Divine fighting style DesnaI deeply disagree with the idea that spells, even paladin spells are irrelevant but assuming you do buy into that, fortunately there's the tempered champion, which gives bonus feats and sacred weapon for the low cost of not having a mount for your divine bond.
As for less damage, well frankly less damage isn't the same thing as "not enough damage" Overkill is a pretty big thing in pathfinder, especially if your metric is do as much damage all at once as humanly possible. In exchange for "less" (but not insufficient) damage you get better everything else in your class, better...
You've gained perhaps a +1 passive to hit over the standardly built Paladin as you start out, and now your Smite won't make you hit better because you're already adding Charisma to attack, your damage has fallen behind, between being small, locking yourself out of Power Attack (and needing a feat that's otherwise useless to you to use Pirhana Strike), not being able to get the 1.5 bonus from two-handing. now, a two-weapon smite could make up the difference to at least some degree, but that's feat intensive and you need to invest more in your Dexterity to qualify for upper levels of the feat chain. And you'd better take that Oracle dip (bringing down your max BAB in the process), because at 8 strength, you won't be making much use of your heavy armor proficiency...Extra Lay on Hands is really the most unambiguous win here. It's all a very neat trick, but overall, it's trading a degree of offense for defense, which sounds more or less on par to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, guys, I think it's about time to just sit down, take a deep breath, and all acknowledge that Chaotic Good is a terrible alignment suited to profligates and hedonists who should feel bad about themselves. That's reasonable, right?
Guys, guys, I think it's about time to just sit down, take a deep breath, and all acknowledge that Chaotic Good is a terrible alignment suited to profligates and hedonists who should feel bad about themselves. That's reasonable, right?
You're right. We don't need smite evil, we need smite temperance.
Anyway, in regards to the proposed star knife Desna build; I know Ryan will not believe me on this on account of him cleverly deducing that I am, in fact, a dirty, filthy liar(I know, it shocked me, too), but here's one simple reason why I wouldn't play that build regardless of it's viability; I don't much like Desna and I don't like star knives.
Desna is just one of those gods that does nothing for me - if you like her, more power to you, but she's just kind of there to me. And I actively dislike star knives. They strike me as being one of the silliest, least practical weapons in the system and I just cannot fathom making a character that used one as their primary implement of battle.
Were I to make a CG paladin, if such an archetype/alternate class got made, I'd probably go with Tolc or Valani and style them as a tribal warrior-shaman type thing. That would probably be my first choice.
But of course that's a front to hide my devious, shameful power-gaming ways.
But of course that's a front to hide my devious, shameful power-gaming ways.
Being sarcastic about it isn't particularly convincing. I'm sure no one who was lobbying for mechanical advantage would ever pretend to have other motivation and fall back to sarcasm to defend their position. Never.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being sarcastic about it isn't particularly convincing. I'm sure no one who was lobbying for mechanical advantage would ever pretend to have other motivation and fall back to sarcasm to defend their position. Never.
But of course that's a front to hide my devious, shameful power-gaming ways.
And I'm sure that no one would ever resort to making wild accusations about other's motives because they couldn't dispute the other's arguments on their own merits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignments are unique, so I want there to be something unique to each alignment that others cannot have.
That is basically it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignments are unique, so I want there to be something unique to each alignment that others cannot have.
That is basically it.
Already too late for the Paladin, who can, in fact, fall anywhere on the alignment spectrum except, currently, Chaotic Good, Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral. And I can't say any other base class in the game that make any attempt to limit themselves to a single unique alignment, either...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Already too late for the Paladin, who can, in fact, fall anywhere on the alignment spectrum except, currently, Chaotic Good, Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral. And I can't say any other base class in the game that make any attempt to limit themselves to a single unique alignment, either...
It is a bit more complicated than that. Grey Paladin was written with a in-universe reasoning behind it why it behaves like it does. Like a gradient, the power disperses as you move away from the corner and the archetype makes good amount of changes how you approach the class as a result.
Tyrant on the other hand is total garbage. Like seriously. So much wasted potential, it just reeks of taking an easy route. You could print the archetype on a name tag, it is so short. And considering both are in the same book, they fall under same editorial moment.
Of course one can take a step back and realize why these things are so. Because of course, there has always been a bias towards the Good side simply because heroes are good and is used more than evil stuff will ever be. Antipaladin after all is a class that exists as a side note. Lack of commitment in a way.
I am not afraid that they will make Chaotic Good Paladin archetype one day, I am afraid how it will look. "I can't ride a horse, but I am really good at telling jokes and jest, my lady" says the Paladin (Liberator archetype) the fair Queen when she asks what makes him special of those "normal" paladin orders.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You actually dont. Desna's divine fighting style replaces dex and str both to hit and damage, it has no dex requirement, the dex requirement you might need is 13, for point blank shot to take the shooting star style , hardly an onerous requirement. Building for a Cha-monger is a far far less MAD point buy than a str based front line paladin that still gets decent use out of the cha based class abilities.With a 20 point buy at level 1 you can have these stats as a desnan paladin
Gnome pal 1 (Desna) (18 pts spent)
Str: 8
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 10
Cha: 192 points left to spend so you can either up int for more skills or str for more carrying capacity.
Level 1 feat: Divine fighting style DesnaI deeply disagree with the idea that spells, even paladin spells are irrelevant but assuming you do buy into that, fortunately there's the tempered champion, which gives bonus feats and sacred weapon for the low cost of not having a mount for your divine bond.
As for less damage, well frankly less damage isn't the same thing as "not enough damage" Overkill is a pretty big thing in pathfinder, especially if your metric is do as much damage all at once as humanly possible. In exchange for "less" (but not insufficient) damage you get better everything else in your class, better...
I didn't say that spells were irrelevant, I said that the bonus you get to them would be functionally irrelevant, it equates to a couple extra bonus spells per day and some higher DCs which you never use anyway.
Without two weapon fighting and piranha strike this fighting style is not going to do much damage at all in melee or at range.
So your dex requirement is 15 and you need to pump it higher as you level
For Melee you need
You need two weapon fighting, weapon finesse, Piranha Strike - as a minimum.
You're going to want improved two weapon fighting and GTF as you level up as well.
If you want to throw them as well you need, PBS, Precise Shot, Deadly aim and probably going to want Weapon focus, Startoss Style, Startoss Shower and Startoss Comet.
so yeah its 5 feats for the melee build and 7 for ranged and the fighting style its self. So if you want to do it you actually have to go Tempered champion.
Meanwhile a simple Paladin with any +2 to one stat race
Str: 18
Dex: 10
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 10
Cha: 14
and your gnome actually needs
Str: 8
Dex: 15
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 10
Cha: 18
with one point left over.
probably worth dropping str to 7 to get 12 in, make up for that +skills the human one gets. Actually you're probably better just being a human, you're feat starved.
The simple build needs Power attack to be functional and ends up with the same AC(more if he goes 1 handed + shield) and more damage throughout his career. And can do anything he likes with his feats. Like a Reach build maybe.
And as Revan pointed out, your smite is actually worse, not better for your terrible game breaking paladin of ultimate balance shattering death. (slightly weaker but much more complicated than usual Paladin)
So overall your weaker in melee with more feat investment, you're weaker still when smiting. But you have a neat trick when enemies are about 30 ft away and your saves are super high. But honestly when did anyone think, my saves are way too low, I wish I could pump them more, playing a Paladin?
Oh and its not overkill damage, the most overkill damage in the game happens at levels 1 and 2, wherein a power attack on a great sword from 18 STR is overkill, which can easily one shot on CR creatures. By level 5, you almost definitly can't do that. Some of the best archery and melee characters get back to 1 rounding (not one shotting) in the very high levels of play. This super charisma Paladin won't get back to that.
EDIT: oh and the throwing build needs quick draw too.
Being sarcastic about it isn't particularly convincing. I'm sure no one who was lobbying for mechanical advantage would ever pretend to have other motivation and fall back to sarcasm to defend their position. Never.
But of course that's a front to hide my devious, shameful power-gaming ways.
Why on earth would we bother convincing you? You already told us you think we're all liars and have no respect for our position.
It just so happens that even the strawman that you decided to argue against, you're not arguing very well. So now people are showing you that too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Warms himself by the thread, while roasting a sausage, on a stick*
In short: Should it be possible to make a Paladin of any alignment?
My answer: Yes. the alignment requirement is an outdate means of gating classes.
Should every Paladin (or deity) still have a code?
My answer: Yes. I myself would prefer that the individual player had more leeway with shaping said code, to prevent every Paladin of Deity/Alignment X of being to similar, but its a point of negotiation, not a demand.
Should the Paladin be overall similar in class mechanics?
My answer: Yes. They should have the same Bab, Weap./Amour profs, Saves, smiting, and divine casting (ie 4/9). Everything else is up for debate.
Would I personally prefer more customizability? Sure! But overall that's again negotiable.
Really, I tend to find alignment gating of anything, to be a functional metode only in so rare cases, that I would do away with it if possible.
Actually I would do the same for most "must worship feats" too, unless then feat in question is somehow intrinsically linked, to the deity in question.
Might allow lower requirements for the original intended feat-user though (ie worshippers), but that would be on a feat to feat basis.
*Gets back to roasting his sausage*
Would it be more powerful to use 2 levels of a CG paladin equivalent for the 4-dumpstat Oracle, or the first printing version of Divine Protection that gives Cha to saves as a feat? I'm definitely leaning towards the latter. So, if I were to rollplay my hypothetical options, the CG paladin doesn't actually factor in.
Hello, everyone.
This thread has inspired me to finally convert Dragon Magazine #310's article by James Jacobs, Champions of the Divine: Paladins of Other Alignments into paladin archetypes. I'm going alphabetically so I currently only have The Anarch completed.
Hello, everyone.
This thread has inspired me to finally convert Dragon Magazine #310's article by James Jacobs, Champions of the Divine: Paladins of Other Alignments into paladin archetypes. I'm going alphabetically so I currently only have The Anarch completed.
Just glad it inspired someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure it's already been said in the thread but I'm fine with paladins and anti-paladins only. Having a "paladin" for every alignment feels a little too grab-bagish for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure it's already been said in the thread but I'm fine with paladins and anti-paladins only. Having a "paladin" for every alignment feels a little too grab-bagish for me.
And I'll say again, we have a grab bag as it stands, as there are currently actually only a third of the alignments that a Paladin cannot be.
And I've got to say, it feels *really* strange to me that you're apparently opposed to the Paladin's evil counterpart being a darkly noble warrior who has twisted the Paladin's devotion to order into a cruel tyranny, and insist that only a maniac who seeks destruction for its own sake can fill that role...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being sarcastic about it isn't particularly convincing. I'm sure no one who was lobbying for mechanical advantage would ever pretend to have other motivation and fall back to sarcasm to defend their position. Never.
But of course that's a front to hide my devious, shameful power-gaming ways.
Let's be real here; whether you genuinely believe that everything I've said is a lie to cover up my real motivations or you're choosing to believe that because you've no argument against my stated position on the merits, there's nothing I can say that can convince you of anything other than what you've already chosen to convince yourself of.
Granted, being equally real, I don't imagine there's really much you can say that could convince me that the alignment restriction is a good idea and I'm mistaken. We're both pretty immovable on this issue.
I'd like to believe the difference between us is that I've listened to your sides arguments, considered them, and found them to be without legitimate merit because they simply don't hold up to scrutiny where as you've listened to my side's argument and determined that however valid those arguments may be, they're simply not selfish enough and I have to have an alternative motive behind this, one that you've simply declared as an axiom to be bad.
But I'm not exactly unbiased on that regard and it is an admittedly self-serving way to look at it.
Why on earth would we bother convincing you? You already told us you think we're all liars and have no respect for our position.
To be perfectly fair to the man I, at least, have also made it clear that I don't respect his position, either. But I've also made it clear that is because I've considered it on it's merits and have found it to be without merit, not because I think he or anyone is out and out lying about what it is they want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alignments are unique, so I want there to be something unique to each alignment that others cannot have.
That is basically it.
If we are to disregard the archetypes that allow the anti/paladin to be something other than LG/CE, of which I don't share your negative opinion but that is at least a position I can understand, then there's a slight problem;
LG and CE end up being the only alignments with something unique to call their own, in so far as you can really call the antipaladin unique and not a mockery of the paladin.
So the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that we're going to need seven new 1-20 base classes to represent each of the alignments.
I don't like that idea. I don't like that idea because I don't believe that someone can design seven classes to fit that specific a theme without running out of ideas towards the middle of the project.
I don't like that idea because I don't believe that any one alignment can be summed up with just one class. Each one encompasses a wide array of differing themes and notions. And I don't want any one person's conception of "this power is this alignment because I say it is" or "this theme is the quintessential version of this alignment because I say it is".
As an example; should CN be represented by a class that reflects Gorum's fury, Calistria's capriciousness, Gozreh's nature, or the vast mutability of the proteans? All of them? None of them?
Someone - I believe it was PossibleCabbage but I could be misremembering - suggested that the CG class be a swasbuckling skill monkey. Ignoring that we already have swashbuckling skill monkeys that aren't restricted by alignment, while that may represent the values of Cayden Cailean just fine, does it really represent the values of Milani? Cernunnos? Black Butterfly? Tolc? Valani?
For that matter I don't believe that a paladin really represents lawful good that well. Taking the code of conduct aside for a moment, nothing about their actual power/skill set strikes me as being inherently lawful. Good, yes. But I don't see anything about it that strikes me as "well this could never be chaotic". Especially in a setting like Golarion where the god of courage and the god of devotion, two core principles for what the paladin represents, are both CG.
That's my issue with each alignment having it's own specific base class. Aside from it being a balancing nightmare, aside from it being a gimmicky design choice, it ultimately just becomes arbitrary assignment; I'm going to call this fighting style, this power set, this ability lawful/neutral/chaotic/good/evil because I say it is. Most of which, let's be honest, is just going to be reflavoring and slight tweaking of existing class abilities that don't currently have alignment restrictions, with a few levels of divine spell casting slapped on to it.
That doesn't interest me. You want to have alignment-exclusive prestige classes, sure. Have at it, hoss. Those can be any kind of mess you want them to be. But introducing seven or eight new base classes is a needlessly complex and convoluted alternative to making the paladin's code of conduct fit it's alignment/deity. All in service of an idea - exclusive possession - that I don't particularly find at all worthwhile.