I've heard a ton of arguments for and against Paladin alignment restriction staying the same or changing, and thought I would add my two cents to the issue.
What about leaving Paladins LG to keep the old school players happy, and then creating classes that function similarly to the Paladin, but have different alignments to satisfy those who want a change? We already have CE Antipaladins, and Hellknight is begging to be made into a full class. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to create maybe two more classes that fill similar roles but have different alignments.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too much page count for a wide spread of classes that will be very mechanically and thematically similar. Easier to have one core chassis, then have "packages" to customize it based on either deity or alignment. If by alignment, I'm okay with only the LG one getting the name Paladin while the others get their own names.
I feel like Hellknight would be better represented as a faction than as a class, assuming factions can have mechanical benefits attached.
LG for core and other extreme alignments for sequel book is my preference. And classes function mostly the same (not counting direct alignment related abilities).
Hellknight begs to be an universal archetype, rather than a class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Im all in favor of keeping the paladin fully LG, even having high hopes of actually seeing it since the cleric review. Quite glad the devs arent dropping core concepts like how alignment restrictions should be.
With this said, i wouldnt mind if similar powers were given to other classes, as long as they are kept divided, like the antipaladin. On this im with you OP.
2. Regarding Hellknight on another hand, unless i missed the lore, i dont think they should be a class. Maybe an archetype.
This is due to them being, as far as i remember, one big organization, not something someone anywhere could grow to be, simply put, they arent generic enough to be a class by themselves.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean...we just need a holy warrior that is more martial and less spell casting than the cleric.
And let them exist for every deity. Basically I'm talking about an Inquisitor or Warpriest.
But if it will make people feel better, you can call the ones for LG deities "Paladins".
I wish they went warpreist and demoted the paladin to a prestige class. Though there lies the issue, what a paladin is has at least three different camps. No way to please everyone on this. Id expect the core paladin to be a more fighty cleric copy in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am very curious about when we will see a blog about archetypes and what justifies the existence of its own full class, versus what justifies an archetype, vs what justifies having classes flexible enough for very different kinds of characters to be X class. The Cleric for example, looks like it is headed in the direction of extreme flexibility and difference. That is good. This will be challenging for the paladin to do, because the more flexible it becomes, the more people will be upset if only the paladin gets to do all of this different cool stuff, but the paladin would narratively be limited to only worshiping deities that would allow lawful good champions.
If the plan is to have 20 or more base classes by the time of the 2nd or 3rd players book, I don't have a problem with it being the case that one class has a restricted alignment. But classes really need more of a difference than: This one is good, and this one is evil. Or else it doesn't really make a lot of sense to have twice as many game mechanics for one narrative choice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When only looking at the core rule book of Pathfinder 1, the Paladin as a class made some sense.
There was nothing quite like it, filling the niche of "martial holy warrior". But as PF1 grew, we got other classes the did the niche just as well (arguably better) though the paladin still had a distinct flavor.
You could create a generic holy warrior class, with an option for each alignment or deity and one of those could fulfill the flavor role that the current paladin does, without needing a class full of separate mechanics.
Honestly, to me there is no point in not folding the paladin into another class as a specific variant/archetype. Although the mechanics would probably change drastically.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is tradition.
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?
Eh, don't worry too much about it. You already won this one; Paladin is going to be a class in the CRB. There are plenty of people suggesting various classes be consolidated or dropped.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When only looking at the core rule book of Pathfinder 1, the Paladin as a class made some sense.
There was nothing quite like it, filling the niche of "martial holy warrior". But as PF1 grew, we got other classes the did the niche just as well (arguably better) though the paladin still had a distinct flavor.
You could create a generic holy warrior class, with an option for each alignment or deity and one of those could fulfill the flavor role that the current paladin does, without needing a class full of separate mechanics.
Honestly, to me there is no point in not folding the paladin into another class as a specific variant/archetype. Although the mechanics would probably change drastically.
The point is tradition.
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?
I want the tradition of having the archetypal paladin be an option. But it doesn't need to be it's own class.
Besides which, there is a strong chance that many of the "mechanical advantages" that the paladin class has currently, wont persist into PF2. Outside of having access to heavy armor and being proficient with martial weapons, and probably some smite like mechanic (though probably not add level to damage) we can't say too much for certain about what the class will have.
To me being a Paladin was always about the roleplay. The class is otherwise a set of mechanics that are simply OK, except against evil where it excels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When only looking at the core rule book of Pathfinder 1, the Paladin as a class made some sense.
There was nothing quite like it, filling the niche of "martial holy warrior". But as PF1 grew, we got other classes the did the niche just as well (arguably better) though the paladin still had a distinct flavor.
You could create a generic holy warrior class, with an option for each alignment or deity and one of those could fulfill the flavor role that the current paladin does, without needing a class full of separate mechanics.
Honestly, to me there is no point in not folding the paladin into another class as a specific variant/archetype. Although the mechanics would probably change drastically.
The point is tradition.
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?
Because them being alignment restricted basically stops a huge swathe of character concepts until we get a splatbook which adds "Paladin but not LG!"
And once again, other people getting an option doesn't take anything away from you and an appeal to tradition means nothing when that tradition has changed every bloody edition.
The problem with that is that every time ive gotten into that debate with someone, showing how their concept can be created with existing classes and archetypes it boils down to wanting the cha to all saves. Which kind of makes it less a concept issue and more of a need to remove the rp restrictions on a powerful ability in order to min max issue.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what is about the Paladin class that specifically needs to exist separate mechanically from other holy warrior classes like an Inquisitor or Warpriest?
Because to me as long as you have an option to RP (which you would) I'm not sure what the issue is aside from wanting certain mechanics.
Mechanics which may not transfer into 2.0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that is that every time ive gotten into that debate with someone, showing how their concept can be created with existing classes and archetypes it boils down to wanting the cha to all saves. Which kind of makes it less a concept issue and more of a need to remove the rp restrictions on a powerful ability in order to min max issue.When only looking at the core rule book of Pathfinder 1, the Paladin as a class made some sense.
There was nothing quite like it, filling the niche of "martial holy warrior". But as PF1 grew, we got other classes the did the niche just as well (arguably better) though the paladin still had a distinct flavor.
You could create a generic holy warrior class, with an option for each alignment or deity and one of those could fulfill the flavor role that the current paladin does, without needing a class full of separate mechanics.
Honestly, to me there is no point in not folding the paladin into another class as a specific variant/archetype. Although the mechanics would probably change drastically.
The point is tradition.
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?
Because them being alignment restricted basically stops a huge swathe of character concepts until we get a splatbook which adds "Paladin but not LG!"
And once again, other people getting an option doesn't take anything away from you and an appeal to tradition means nothing when that tradition has changed every bloody edition.
Well for one its been heavily hinted at in the Fighter blog that the Paladin will be the go to class if you want to be a heavy armour guy.
Disregarding mechanics here is a character concept: Holy Champion of any god that doesn't allow LG as a follower alignment.
Warpriest. You get a similar to lay on hands/touch of corruption with fervor, you choose blessings which are tailored to your gods spheres of interest, can wear heavy armor and use martial weapons. The sacred weapon ability allows you to use your deity's favored weapon more effectively (for those who have favored weapons like dagger, whip and starknife). If you're wanting a mount there's an archetype for it as well. Any holy warrior concept is pretty easily fulfilled by the warpriest.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that is that every time ive gotten into that debate with someone, showing how their concept can be created with existing classes and archetypes it boils down to wanting the cha to all saves. Which kind of makes it less a concept issue and more of a need to remove the rp restrictions on a powerful ability in order to min max issue.
This has been repeatedly disproven.
And moreover, Divine Grace wouldn't give you Cha as a bonus to all saves in PF2 anyway. That would completely break the math. At most, if it still exists in some similar fashion, it would probably be an ability allowing you to substitute your Cha for the normal ability modifier. Or change to a Reaction that costs spell points to add Cha to a save for the one save you spend the reaction and spell points on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, people throw some opinion out and then claim they disproved a thing. Thats different than it being repeatedly disproven.
People wiggle and squirm when its pointed out that the warpriest fills any narrative role of holy warrior you care to build, and its because of a desire for the mechanical strength of the paladin chassis with a less restrictive set of rp guidelines. Its almost always people who hate alignment in general as well, so its basically a motte and bailey debate tactic around doing away with alignment.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, people throw some opinion out and then claim they disproved a thing. Thats different than it being repeatedly disproven.
People wiggle and squirm when its pointed out that the warpriest fills any narrative role of holy warrior you care to build, and its because of a desire for the mechanical strength of the paladin chassis with a less restrictive set of rp guidelines. Its almost always people who hate alignment in general as well, so its basically a motte and bailey debate tactic around doing away with alignment.
I don't think many of us actually hate alignment. Graystone does, for sure, a few others. But most of the rest of us making these arguments just want alignment minimized, not gone.
I think alignment is a good "foundation" for hanging more important personality traits on. I think creatures /made of alignment/ like demons and so on are just fine. I don't have a problem with purely monstrous supernatural non-humanoids just outright being evil. But I also think having class abilities and the like tied to alignment, or saying a mortal humanoid race is "always evil", is just a freaking mess. Differing opinions on what alignment means and allows has probably caused more fights and broken up tables than everything else in D&D combined. That's why I'm such a strong advocate for classes where it would otherwise be relevant to be based on more defined codes, oaths or PF2-style anathema instead.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is why you "go play a Warpriest" types never acknowledge that the Paladin is the only divine warrior with a full BAB. That thing that represents how martial you are and is a prerequisite for many many feats. And maybe I want divine abilities without actual spellcasting. I can do that with a paladin and no other divine class.
The only full BAB divine warrior class being restricted to a single alignment was horrendous design. Fortunately, BAB is dead in the new edition, and hopefully so are overly narrow alignment restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the warpriest counts class level as BAB for their bonus feats, so the "I need the bab to get the feats i need" is invalid, they even count as fighters for ones with a fighter prereq. The only real difference is the second attack coming on 2 levels later, and the third (widely regarded as useless anyway by the time you get it) four levels later.
Light to no spellcasting
Sentinel
Any martial with obedience
Celestial bloodrager
Tons of PRC's
The fighter IS unabashedly weaker than the paladin, in both survivability and out of combat utility. He doesn't have similar aura buffs, status removal, or the potential for a mount of level relevant power without significant feat investment.
He's stronger than the paladin in fighting style versatility, combat maneuver usage and raw damage output.
Likewise the barbarian is stronger than both of them in raw damage output (though this is primarily due to being the only martial with decent access to a pounce mechanic)
Also the concept of equal mechanical strength at equal levels has never been a design focus in any edition of the game save 4th, and i expect we're going to disagree here but i dont believe it should be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the warpriest counts class level as BAB for their bonus feats, so the "I need the bab to get the feats i need" is invalid, they even count as fighters for ones with a fighter prereq. The only real difference is the second attack coming on 2 levels later, and the third (widely regarded as useless anyway by the time you get it) four levels later.
For bonus feats, yes. Their accuracy and overall martial ability (CMB, CMD, hit die, etc) is still inferior to the the Paladin's. Still not a substitute.
Celestial Bloodrager.
Oh come on, that's angelic ancestry. Nothing about those abilities has anything to do with being a holy warrior. You sure wouldn't accept it as a substitute for a paladin, so it's not a substitute for the concept I'm describing.
Any full BAB Class with Obedience.
Same as above. If this was all the Paladin was, would that be enough holy warrior for you?
Sentinel.
Tons of PrCs.
Yeah, I'll just wait until level 5+ to start getting any abilities that actually match my vision for the character. And just ignore whatever I get from my first class that doesn't match, I guess? It's also great that I have to spend precious feats to qualify, just to make sure that certain feat-heavy combat styles aren't available to me. Prestige classes are just not a good option in Pathfinder. Paizo has fairly blatantly replaced them with full-level classes/archetypes so they get basically no support. That is not a reasonable substitute.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They get access to divine favor, which they cast as a swift action. Their accuracy, and cmb/cmd is on par with a full BAB martial.
Whats more holy warrior than spending a swift action in prayer for strength from your deity :P
Edit: But to my original point, notice how none of these arguments are based in "can i narratively make a holy warrior of this god" but are based in not getting the exact mechanics, regardless of the fluctuations in power from option to option (some being more, others being less)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that is that every time ive gotten into that debate with someone, showing how their concept can be created with existing classes and archetypes it boils down to wanting the cha to all saves. Which kind of makes it less a concept issue and more of a need to remove the rp restrictions on a powerful ability in order to min max issue.When only looking at the core rule book of Pathfinder 1, the Paladin as a class made some sense.
There was nothing quite like it, filling the niche of "martial holy warrior". But as PF1 grew, we got other classes the did the niche just as well (arguably better) though the paladin still had a distinct flavor.
You could create a generic holy warrior class, with an option for each alignment or deity and one of those could fulfill the flavor role that the current paladin does, without needing a class full of separate mechanics.
Honestly, to me there is no point in not folding the paladin into another class as a specific variant/archetype. Although the mechanics would probably change drastically.
The point is tradition.
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?
Because them being alignment restricted basically stops a huge swathe of character concepts until we get a splatbook which adds "Paladin but not LG!"
And once again, other people getting an option doesn't take anything away from you and an appeal to tradition means nothing when that tradition has changed every bloody edition.
Play a warpriest is a great option in PF1. It's what I do whenever I want to play a divine champion and not risk being an NPC class for a while simply because me and my GM disagree on the code.
But we do not know if Warpriest will ever exist in PF2. So we go back to having to play a fighter or cleric or mix the two to make a martial champion of Desna or Cailean. Maybe Warpriest will be released in several years, or maybe paizo will move forward and ditch some of the hybrid classes and instead make new classes or put more focus on other classes.
So play a warpriest may not be an option soon or ever. It might just be 'play a fighter or cleric' or whatever multiclass combo is available, unless you were fortunate enough to want a divine champion of a god that was nearly LG. Which is a shame because not a lot of LG gods in Golarion really appeal to me. This is one of the reasons I want to see the holy warrior class be open to more alignments in core. If instead sentinel and celestial bloodrager and divine obedience are core, then I'll not have any complaints that Paladin is LG only.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard a ton of arguments for and against Paladin alignment restriction staying the same or changing, and thought I would add my two cents to the issue.
What about leaving Paladins LG to keep the old school players happy, and then creating classes that function similarly to the Paladin, but have different alignments to satisfy those who want a change? We already have CE Antipaladins, and Hellknight is begging to be made into a full class. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to create maybe two more classes that fill similar roles but have different alignments.
Wouldn't mind this compromise, it's working in PF1 (where evil paladins exist and nobody complains that it destroyed the paladin flavor because they added 'Anti' to the front). But I would like to see each of these not have 'I no longer have the Paladin Code' act as a reason for them to be weak. Similarly I'd like to avoid having evil paladins just be bizzarro paladins where all abilities they have are reversed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't mind this compromise, it's working in PF1 (where evil paladins exist and nobody complains that it destroyed the paladin flavor because they added 'Anti' to the front). But I would like to see each of these not have 'I no longer have the Paladin Code' act as a reason for them to be weak. Similarly I'd like to avoid having evil paladins just be bizzarro paladins where all abilities they have are reversed.I've heard a ton of arguments for and against Paladin alignment restriction staying the same or changing, and thought I would add my two cents to the issue.
What about leaving Paladins LG to keep the old school players happy, and then creating classes that function similarly to the Paladin, but have different alignments to satisfy those who want a change? We already have CE Antipaladins, and Hellknight is begging to be made into a full class. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to create maybe two more classes that fill similar roles but have different alignments.
Here's the thing about the antipaladin. Its pretty clearly a NPC class that can be used by people running a very specific and uncommon to rare game style (the evil campaign). It exists as a foil to the LG paladin.
But ryan, what about the grey paladin and tyrant and the NE antipaladin
You'll note that the grey paladin is mechanically weaker in exchange for the loosening of rp restrictions, and people hate the idea of it as a replacement (reinforcing that its more about the power of mechanics than that they cant make a champion of a certain god)
The tyrant is an unfinished and frankly bad (Due to its being unfinished) archetype. It swaps itself to LE but doesn't adjust the spell list, nor the "divine bond" enhancements to reflect that. It seems hastily thrown together. Its more campaign friendly, but is still obviously intended as an antagonist or rare campaign class
The opportunist, or whatever its actually called suffers from the same thing as grey paladin, its mechanically weaker than the core class. Its rarely discussed but id imagine the same complaints about grey paladin would apply.
The reality is even the weakest of these options is more than strong enough to go through any published adventure. It isn't until you get into bleeding edge optimization that the power disparities start to cause problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They get access to divine favor, which they cast as a swift action. Their accuracy, and cmb/cmd is on par with a full BAB martial.
3/4 BAB + Sacred Weapon or Smite + Divine Favor is definitely much less than full BAB + Divine Bond + Smite + Divine Favor. I admit that assumes different buffing times. If the Paladin has no time to buff, then after two rounds of buffing, the Warpriest is roughly equivalent. Equivalent CMD requires another feat, their CMB on maneuvers that don't use weapons is just straight lower, and their HP is still lower. And that's fine, because the Warpriest is much more of a spellcaster. Which was kind of the point. If I want martial power with a divine warrior on par with a fighter or barbarian, it's paladin or bust.
Edit: But to my original point, notice how none of these arguments are based in "can i narratively make a holy warrior of this god" but are based in not getting the exact mechanics, regardless of the fluctuations in power from option to option (some being more, others being less)
Narratively, I mostly agree with you. There is kind of a caveat in that mechanics do inform the narrative. Rogues have all the right flavor for a back alley assassin, but their abysmal accuracy meant that they didn't live up to the flavor well. A 3rd level Wizard claiming to be a demigod just can't back it up. Capability has to match flavor at some point.
I've used Sentinel a bunch of times to make Holy Warriors when Paladin didn't cut it.
I've used Celestial Bloodrager as well.
I didn't say that you couldn't do it or that it couldn't be a fun character. I said that it didn't fully realize the concept. I see you've avoided my question about whether you would be satisfied if those options were also the extent to which the Paladin had divine abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I will try to say that again:
Paladins aren't "mere" holy warriors. Paladins are special, and that special-ness depend on their high moral and ethical conduct.
You may create whatever concept you wish elsewhere. The problem with Warpriest is not full BAB? Give it full BAB in the new edition.
It seems that people only want non-LG paladins because of specific mechanics of a half dozen classes, not realizing that specific mechanics can change between editions.
But, if you change the paladin so that s/he loses his/her paladin-ness, then we have a problem.
So yeah, don't take it away the paladin from us - people who like paladins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't mind this compromise, it's working in PF1 (where evil paladins exist and nobody complains that it destroyed the paladin flavor because they added 'Anti' to the front). But I would like to see each of these not have 'I no longer have the Paladin Code' act as a reason for them to be weak. Similarly I'd like to avoid having evil paladins just be bizzarro paladins where all abilities they have are reversed.I've heard a ton of arguments for and against Paladin alignment restriction staying the same or changing, and thought I would add my two cents to the issue.
What about leaving Paladins LG to keep the old school players happy, and then creating classes that function similarly to the Paladin, but have different alignments to satisfy those who want a change? We already have CE Antipaladins, and Hellknight is begging to be made into a full class. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to create maybe two more classes that fill similar roles but have different alignments.
Here's the thing about the antipaladin. Its pretty clearly a NPC class that can be used by people running a very specific and uncommon to rare game style (the evil campaign). It exists as a foil to the LG paladin.
But ryan, what about the grey paladin and tyrant and the NE antipaladin
You'll note that the grey paladin is mechanically weaker in exchange for the loosening of rp restrictions, and people hate the idea of it as a replacement (reinforcing that its more about the power of mechanics than that they cant make a champion of a certain god)
The tyrant is an unfinished and frankly bad (Due to its being unfinished) archetype. It swaps itself to LE but doesn't adjust the spell list, nor the "divine bond" enhancements to reflect that. It seems hastily thrown together. Its more campaign friendly, but is still obviously intended as an antagonist or rare campaign class
The opportunist, or whatever its actually called suffers from the same thing as...
Sure, Antipaladin is made with NPCs in mind and grey paladin is clearly weaker in exchange for a lower chance of getting turned into an NPC class. I don't disagree that this is the case. Not sure how grey paladin helps any case involving champions of gods, it is still restricted to LG/NG/LN gods, but it is certainly weaker.
I disagree with the thought that this is the right decision. I think having a more creative approach to evil paladins than turning them upside down and slapping 'anti' in front would be better. I think a class that fits well in a system should not be made powerful enough that it needs roleplay to restrict it. Neither of these things seem like great game design. And since a new game is being released, one where the design team is re-evaluating some of the design flaws they inherited from a different game or put in their game by accident, I think there is space to reevaluate problems with the non-LG paladin substitutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is the fundamental disconnect. I absolutely think that by accepting RP strictures, which can cost you use of your powers, you should get unique and potent abilities. PARTICULARLY when its linked to one of the more restrictive alignment choices that forces upright and heroic behavior.
I absolutely don't believe you can create a code that works for any alignment that restricts the way the dual requirements of LG + paladins code does. People claim they can but never actually follow through with anything remotely as adventuring behavior restrictive.