An Impassioned Plea: Paladins - Respect Tradition


Prerelease Discussion

351 to 400 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Admittedly for me Warpriest has always been a class that felt like it didn't need to exist.

It wasn't as good a melee holy warrior type as Paladin and wasn't as good a caster or melee type as Cleric.

Maybe if Cleric was more a magely caster like wizard or sorc, Warpriest would have had a niche to fill like Magus did. But since you can already be a very effective melee warrior type with Cleric or Oracle, Warpriest feels superfluous.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Faith Warriors?


Orthos wrote:

Admittedly for me Warpriest has always been a class that felt like it didn't need to exist.

It wasn't as good a melee holy warrior type as Paladin and wasn't as good a caster or melee type as Cleric.

Maybe if Cleric was more a magely caster like wizard or sorc, Warpriest would have had a niche to fill like Magus did. But since you can already be a very effective melee warrior type with Cleric or Oracle, Warpriest feels superfluous.

I second this and said so during the play test for the war priest. There was no need for it as a hybrid class, as the paladin from tradition already was the cleric/fighter hybrid. And the it would have been easier to open up the Paladin to archetype that allowed different aliments and codes, or just make it an archetype to cleric. The cleric is already better at being war priest then the war priest class. Same/bab/armor more healing and spells. The reason why the paladin was 3-4 level casting and not 6 level, is because the Cleric was originally 6-7 level caster. So cut that in half and you have 3-4 level caster. Move to 3rd edition happen the paladin stayed the same for the most part. And cleric became broken. They decided to keep 3/4 bab, 8 side dice and armored, but make a full caster with spontaneous healing. OG D&D cleric where more balanced because healing was rare or could be easily lost. So they need armor, good attacks, along with there spells to keep the party and themselves alive. There was no spontaneous healing, also there was no concentration checks. If you got hit while casting a spell you lost the spell. So for healing to be viable Cleric need to have decent armor to avoid being hit. All cleric need for an update to 3rd edition and not be broken was invention concentration check and spontaneous healing spells to give the class more flexibility. This would have left option open to a priest/white mage/more historical oracle type class. That is similar to wizard but with massive number divine spells. This did not happen and The cleric and the paladin as they are limits what you can do with other divine classes. This is why every divine class in pathfinder current has 3/4 attack bonus and at least medium armor and at least d8 hp. There are no divide caster with less then that. There no reason to play a full caster that has less armor, BAB or d6 hp, because the cleric already has full casting with better options. This is something else I hope to see fix. Bring the cleric casting level back down or remove the armor, attack bonus and hit dice to be on par with wizard for full casting. This could then actually give a place for war priest class as the in-between Paladin and Cleric.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Thing From Another World wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Yes, other characters have to not act like evil douches. That’s it.
Have you played/GMed Strange Aeons?
Not yet. Your post has me curious please elbaborate.

mild aeon spoiler:

In different stages of Strange Aeon the party has to make deal with monsters. They have to strike a deal with a vampire that ask them their blood. They have to bargain with a mad wizard poet. They have to deceive a pair of censor angels, to keep the necronomicon, the book of ultimate evil, and delve into it, to be able to defeat a cosmic menace.

All of those are interesting moral choices. Players might or might not do it. Some will go deeper into the whole «need to read this evil thing and risk my sanity to do the right thing», some will do not.

A paladin is a deterrant to that. «should we strike a deal with this obvious evil guy to defeat that obvious evil guy» is not a choice, if answering «yes» means one of the players basically lose his character.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I don't want to spoil it just yet, so please give us some time. I promise that we have looked into this deeply and I think we've come up with a pretty great solution.

Given the level of ire here, would it be beneficial to give us a little more info at this time? Otherwise, short of Paizo staff forbidding the conversation to go forward, I suspect we may keep going.

I appreciate that rate and flow of information has to be tightly controlled to maintain 'hype' for customers. Nonetheless, with an issue this contentious... perhaps we ought to get a little more to go on. Look at how quickly this thread basically 'caught fire.' Look at how many Paladin-fall-argument threads happen on these forums all the time. It's a very hot-button issue, and probably one of the things beyond 'core game engine behavior' that we need to know about as soon as possible so we can calibrate our expectations.

Last night, I had to rein in the urge to start making extremely snarky replies to some people in this thread who I felt are basically out to deny me something I would find fun in the game.

Even a bit of info would be much appreciated. It might result in some initial uproar, but things will probably calm down in short order after that. It's kind of like how Nintendo let us know the bizarre name of one of their game consoles (the 'Wii') early because they expected us to rage and snark for a few months and then calm down. ...And that's exactly what happened.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
A paladin is a deterrant to that. «should we strike a deal with this obvious evil guy to defeat that obvious evil guy» is not a choice, if answering «yes» means one of the players basically lose his character.

from the paizo PRD:

Quote:
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.

There's no automatic loosing one's character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
A paladin is a deterrant to that. «should we strike a deal with this obvious evil guy to defeat that obvious evil guy» is not a choice, if answering «yes» means one of the players basically lose his character.

from the paizo PRD:

Quote:
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.
There's no automatic loosing one's character.

There is, if you don't have a source of attonement handy.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
There is, if you don't have a source of attonement handy.

should != must.

And "periodically" gives enough leeway in terms of time frame.

Fact is, you can easily play a Paladin in most (I've not read SA, so there I can't say for sure) of the APs mentioned here. Unless you let your personal interpretation of how the Paladin is supposed to be played get in the way of what is good for the game.

I don't care anyway as I removed that stupid rule about paladins not being able to ally with evil characters from my table the first time I read it. But I admit that I'm glad PF1 officially put it in the trash-bin where it belongs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
And "periodically" gives enough leeway in terms of time frame.

Yep. "periodically during the alliance" means that if the alliance last for a few months, you have leeway to do it once per hour, once per day, per week, or per month. However, you still have to do it during the alliance.

And I'm in the camp of "paladins should have more room", so I don't worry about it too much either. Also, attonements are cheap, and you can burn entire villages of innocent people to the ground just for fun, as long as you cast attonement later :P.

The thing is, by the book, Paladins still are more restrictive than any other class. And more importantly, they impose this restriction to the group. Nobody cares if the LG bard thinks they should not steal the Necronomicon because stealing is bad. In fact, it will be a great roleplaying oportunity, with each character giving their point of view about it. But if the Paladin steals, he might (will?) fall, and that means his character will suck until someone cast attonement on him. So players "have" to cater to him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The problem with 1e Paladin is that they are held to such an impossible standard that mortal players and GMs often cannot hope to attain the basic gaming synergy to allow such a paradigm to exist in a proactive fashion.

Sure, outliers appear, but the general take (over several scenarios) is that they are about as disruptive to the game as kender in Krynn, CN characters, etc, based on play and forum experience.


We even got a dev involved, what an amazing 1E thread.

Don't think I won't hold ever paladin thread we have from now on to these same standards.

Assuming Jason lets us have them....


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, am I 'wrong' if I play a rogue who is scrupulously honest and law-abiding and in fact works for the police, using the abilities of the rogue class to conduct sting operations and fight criminals tactically, because the 'concept' of a rogue is a greedy thief?

Am I wrong for playing a Bard who has never touched a musical instrument, playing them as an occult researcher or a flamboyant swashbuckler or an archaeologist because the 'concept' of a bard is a magical troubadour? (To say nothing of its original druidic ties.)

Am I wrong for playing a Barbarian who grew up on the streets of the biggest city in the setting making money in underground fight clubs because the 'concept' of a barbarian is a primitive/tribal/Viking warrior?

Am I wrong for playing a Ranger as a caraveneer who uses his knowledge of wilderness survival and talent for training animals to lead and defend a wagon train across an expanse to sell goods in an exotic locale, or as a professional soldier trained in guerilla tactics and scouting, because the Ranger concept demands I have special reverence for nature?

Classes are broad and flexible in concept. If your vision of a Paladin is so restrictive, than it should not be a function of a class, or at least not a base class.


Revan wrote:

So, am I 'wrong' if I play a rogue who is scrupulously honest and law-abiding and in fact works for the police, using the abilities of the rogue class to conduct sting operations and fight criminals tactically, because the 'concept' of a rogue is a greedy thief?

Am I wrong for playing a Bard who has never touched a musical instrument, playing them as an occult researcher or a flamboyant swashbuckler or an archaeologist because the 'concept' of a bard is a magical troubadour? (To say nothing of its original druidic ties.)

Am I wrong for playing a Barbarian who grew up on the streets of the biggest city in the setting making money in underground fight clubs because the 'concept' of a barbarian is a primitive/tribal/Viking warrior?

Am I wrong for playing a Ranger as a caraveneer who uses his knowledge of wilderness survival and talent for training animals to lead and defend a wagon train across an expanse to sell goods in an exotic locale, or as a professional soldier trained in guerilla tactics and scouting, because the Ranger concept demands I have special reverence for nature?

Classes are broad and flexible in concept. If your vision of a Paladin is so restrictive, than it should not be a function of a class, or at least not a base class.

This so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the rework is simply a new code to justify one of the three other corner alignments, then so be it. I would expect all three other paladins to have Mercies or Cruelties, Smite, Lay On Hands, Divine Grace etc.

Hell, I've played a NG paladin with a strict code before and (sssh!) it had Divine Grace too.


*HERESY!*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Context, past arguments with many of them continues to show that their primary complaint is that they can't get Cha to all saves with the alternate yet thematically appropriate options for holy warrior. Divine Grace is the one constant on any of the reworks. Own the label if thats going to so obviously be the case.

I want a holy warrior class that gets full bab, smite, lay on hands, some form of alignment detect, and divine grace. But I don't want a class that is specifically tied to one alignment, I want one that can serve as a Holy Warrior for any god/ideal/pantheon/philosophy.

If you can find me another class with all those features, I'll quit wanting paladin to be open to more alignments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So it is far better to have a table-time-grabbing character class that dictates the flow of play to the rest of the table and can couch it in terms like "Oh, it's lawful and good so therefore one MUST accept it"?

I have been strongly resisting the urge thus far, but the arguments that have been brought up in favor of *just LG* for some of this have such a *polihistorical* echo that it's been making me nauseous at points.

...but I soldier through, as my Neutral butt would, to gain insight and understanding and hopefully grow from the process, as apparently some cannot.


Revan wrote:

So, am I 'wrong' if I play a rogue who is scrupulously honest and law-abiding and in fact works for the police, using the abilities of the rogue class to conduct sting operations and fight criminals tactically, because the 'concept' of a rogue is a greedy thief?

Am I wrong for playing a Bard who has never touched a musical instrument, playing them as an occult researcher or a flamboyant swashbuckler or an archaeologist because the 'concept' of a bard is a magical troubadour? (To say nothing of its original druidic ties.)

Am I wrong for playing a Barbarian who grew up on the streets of the biggest city in the setting making money in underground fight clubs because the 'concept' of a barbarian is a primitive/tribal/Viking warrior?

Am I wrong for playing a Ranger as a caraveneer who uses his knowledge of wilderness survival and talent for training animals to lead and defend a wagon train across an expanse to sell goods in an exotic locale, or as a professional soldier trained in guerilla tactics and scouting, because the Ranger concept demands I have special reverence for nature?

Classes are broad and flexible in concept. If your vision of a Paladin is so restrictive, than it should not be a function of a class, or at least not a base class.

And who exactly died and declared classes have all to be that way exactly?

Your example are valid, for more open classes to concepts, that simple.

That is why ingame you being a rogue means... pretty much nothing. The class literally will not be called out, only if you can sneak or open locked doors, which others can also do, so what matters is your skill set.

This does fit YOUR concept of what a class should be, but that doesnt others have any obligation to agree here with you.

A paladin does come with a lore baggage in its package, being a paladin, can be directly called out, since it means something lore wise.

You can play paladins in many ways, but ultimately all paladins will have MUCH more incommon than all rogues and that is perfectly fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Like i said..if the label fits stop getting offended when its applied. Wanting the best parts of a class without any of the in game restrictions is pretty much textbook.

You mean the parts of the class that make up almost all of the flavor of the class type and are unique to it (aside from the full bab)?

I'm too lazy to create my own set of abilities, if you can come up with abilities that are similar in nature that fit the holy warrior theme, I'd gladly take them instead.

Essentially these abilities at a minimum should be included for a holy warrior class.

  • Full BAB - I'm a divine martial, not a spellcaster
  • Smite - I get divine bonuses when I attack foes of my god/philosphy/lifestyle
  • Lay on hands - I'm a divine martial, while I may not have spellcasting, I should be able to heal/harm magically as dictated by my god/philosphy/lifestyle
  • Alignment Detect - I should be able to find foes of my god/philosphy/lifestyle easier.
  • Divine Grace - I'm a divine martial, I get a divine bonus to my defenses against effects.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I have something to say.

I took a time off this thread to think a little bit about this question. Perhaps I am being too inflexible and single-minded. I don't want to exclude other people's play-styles.

I'm divided here. I want the Paladin's legacy to remain. However, I also want to satisfy people who simply do not like the LG Paladin, and how I can accommodate them. I still didn't reach a solution, but I'm thinking about this in a whole different way.
I may post a solution if I find one.
I ask your pardon if I was rude to anyone here.


Igwilly wrote:

Ok, I have something to say.

I took a time off this thread to think a little bit about this question. Perhaps I am being too inflexible and single-minded. I don't want to exclude other people's play-styles.

I'm divided here. I want the Paladin's legacy to remain. However, I also want to satisfy people who simply do not like the LG Paladin, and how I can accommodate them. I still didn't reach a solution, but I'm thinking about this in a whole different way.
I may post a solution if I find one.
I ask your pardon if I was rude to anyone here.

Its called warpriest. It isn't an issue of anything but wanting the mechanical bennies of paladin without the in game restrictions associated with it. Its why you see fights to open up paladin to other alignments rather than reimaginings/updates of older holy warrior classes, uses of VMC or flavorful descriptions of a warpriest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

Ok, I have something to say.

I took a time off this thread to think a little bit about this question. Perhaps I am being too inflexible and single-minded. I don't want to exclude other people's play-styles.

I'm divided here. I want the Paladin's legacy to remain. However, I also want to satisfy people who simply do not like the LG Paladin, and how I can accommodate them. I still didn't reach a solution, but I'm thinking about this in a whole different way.
I may post a solution if I find one.
I ask your pardon if I was rude to anyone here.

Super simple, allow any AL. This keeps standard paladins and allows non LG ones. Look at what 5E did, you still have classic paladins, and non LG ones, sife by side

Really, non LG paladins is one of the most common house rules of all time. We all know this. Which should tell you something.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If I want to play a paladin, I will play a paladin. If I want to play a warpriest, I will play a warpriest. The only "fights" to open up paladins to other alignments occur in threads like these where people tell other people how to play their games, because chances are that people who really want to play variant paladins are already doing so and aren't waiting for anyone's approval other than that of their GM.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its called warpriest. It isn't an issue of anything but wanting the mechanical bennies of paladin without the in game restrictions associated with it. Its why you see fights to open up paladin to other alignments rather than reimaginings/updates of older holy warrior classes, uses of VMC or flavorful descriptions of a warpriest.

Except warpriest is significantly different from paladin and the holy warrior concept.

If you think warpriest is such a great concept, why don't you suggest that we just delete paladin and use warpriest instead, heck we could even add codes of conducts to warpriest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its called warpriest. It isn't an issue of anything but wanting the mechanical bennies of paladin without the in game restrictions associated with it. Its why you see fights to open up paladin to other alignments rather than reimaginings/updates of older holy warrior classes, uses of VMC or flavorful descriptions of a warpriest.

False and insulting.

As I said elsewhere, there are reasons to open it up.

In my opinion, classes that support multiple concepts within a general category are better than those that only support a more narrow concept. Allow people to build the established concepts, but also allow people to experiment with other variations on that archetype.

Paladin is in my opinion too narrow for a class, especially with the original offering needing to make the most of each class provided. Allow people to realize the concept with the correct selection of archetypes, backgrounds, and feats. Make it an option within a broader class.

Not tying it to twelve peers of Charlemagne's court would also be nice. I’ve read a translation of Song of Roland, did not care for it.

I am not even advocating that every variety have the same powers. It certainly would be much more appropriate for a Warrior of Faith of Gorum to have a Smite Law and some sort of unwilling battle rage ability that they force on opponents. A Holy Warrior of Urgathoa would spread plague, not cure it. There is a lot of potential character concepts that could be fit into a Warrior of Faith.


willuwontu wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its called warpriest. It isn't an issue of anything but wanting the mechanical bennies of paladin without the in game restrictions associated with it. Its why you see fights to open up paladin to other alignments rather than reimaginings/updates of older holy warrior classes, uses of VMC or flavorful descriptions of a warpriest.

Except warpriest is significantly different from paladin and the holy warrior concept.

If you think warpriest is such a great concept, why don't you suggest that we just delete paladin and use warpriest instead, heck we could even add codes of conducts to warpriest.

Yeah i mean having a lay on hands analogue that is functionally similar, works in the same way and is also 2 to 1 for channel energy as well as functionally having the divine bond weapon option is significantly different. Its certainly not a holy warrior concept. The arguments about how different it is certainly don't hinge around wanting specific class abilities widely viewed as very powerful without any of the in game restrictions associated with the class that gains them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm totally ok with Paladins losing Divine grace, if that means they are open to other ethos.


Divine Grace is the paladin class.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Yeah i mean having a lay on hands analogue that is functionally similar, works in the same way and is also 2 to 1 for channel energy as well as functionally having the divine bond weapon option is significantly different. Its certainly not a holy warrior concept. The arguments about how different it is certainly don't hinge around wanting specific class abilities widely viewed as very powerful without any of the in game restrictions associated with the class that gains them.

The only thing they gain that I actually care about having on a holy warrior class is the lay on hands (fervor).

Divine bonded weapons are not why you play a holy warrior, channel energy could be, but fervor/lay on hands is something I'd rather have.

I want class abilities that speaks that they are the class abilities of a Holy Warrior, not multiclassed fighter/cleric, and Paladin has these, while Warpriest doesn't except for fervor.

In addition to these things, I'm glad to know that Warpriest is considered part of the Core Rulebook and will thus be available at the start of PF2e. Which is why you keep bringing it up as you can guarantee it's going to be reprinted.


I mean, fervor and your two divine blessings that are related to your gods portfolio. Most of them aren't as mechanically powerful as divine grace though so i understand how thematically/deificially appropriate abilities are somehow less fluffy than raw number advantage.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Last time I checked, the paladin was widely considered to be a Tier 4 class while the Warpriest is a tier 3 class.

So no, it's not about power, because if it's about power you don't choose the weaker option.,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

no Ryan it is still fal se and insulting.

in fact the only decent archtype it has, is the champion of the faith. which grants it some of the more offensive of the paladin's abilities.
the sacred armor of the class s a joke.
sacred weapon is passable( except with said archtype in becomes chosen alignment for DR issues)

still if I want to play a cleric, I will paly one, if I want to play a war priest, I will play one. If I want to play a paladin, I will play one. I just don't want to play how you think I should or should not...

Edit: the only other class that even comes close is the Green Knight cavalier...... all swords wielded are Vorpal.....

champion of the faith WP
https://www.aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Warpriest Champion of the Faith


Such snark must be smitten.
Tiers are not part of the official game.

Let's not forget, the warpriest was the second attempt at creating an alignment free clerical warrior type class. The cavalier was a result of the first.

I think we can reasonably expect these classes combined into one super class whose variable choices define the flavor but whose mechanics are so similar there is no point to have separate classes.

Future releases could see samurai, etc, included as more variable options on this chassis.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I mean, fervor and your two divine blessings that are related to your gods portfolio. Most of them aren't as mechanically powerful as divine grace though so i understand how thematically/deificially appropriate abilities are somehow less fluffy than raw number advantage.

Did someone steal your sweetroll when you were a child? You seem absolutely obsessed that someone might be gaining the effect of Divine Grace without your approval. I mean, come on man, it's not even as if the Paladin was the most powerful class in Pathfinder, let alone not a running joke for how ineffective it was in 3rd Edition.


Remember Divine Protection in the original ACG?

Just look at us now hahahaha.


Arakhor wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I mean, fervor and your two divine blessings that are related to your gods portfolio. Most of them aren't as mechanically powerful as divine grace though so i understand how thematically/deificially appropriate abilities are somehow less fluffy than raw number advantage.
Did someone steal your sweetroll when you were a child? You seem absolutely obsessed that someone might be gaining the effect of Divine Grace without your approval. I mean, come on man, it's not even as if the Paladin was the most powerful class in Pathfinder, let alone not a running joke for how ineffective it was in 3rd Edition.

I think the LG alignment is part of the in game restriction on the class and i think that Cha to all saves in all instances rates among the top non 9 level spellcasting abilities in the game. I think the restrictions are appropriate for a class that gets that kind of powerful ability., especially one so deeply frontloaded. I think that its just as easy for people to housrule the restriction away rather than trying to force their interpretation of modern design in as though its some universally accepted position.

If anyone's sweet rolls are missing its the remove the alignment restriction folks. Look at how frothy they get over paladins being a stick in the mud/autofalling/not having rp freeeeeeedom.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I think the restrictions are appropriate for a class that gets that kind of powerful ability., especially one so deeply frontloaded.

"You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So if the warpriest is good enough for all the other alignments .. why does the paladin need to exist as a separate class?

351 to 400 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / An Impassioned Plea: Paladins - Respect Tradition All Messageboards