Trade off for Anathema and other class restrictions

[Felinus]

I'm just wondering, with the introduction of 'Anathema' for Clerics, Paladins and maybe druids (metal armour, I'm looking at you) what is the trade off? For what is ultimately a restriction on the play of that class and therefore a penalty, is there anything to balance the scales?

For instance, is a Deity's signature skill or Domain power the trade off for Clerics? If that's the case what does the Paladin get for the Code of Conduct and the Anathema?

[Arachnofiend]

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

[Mark Seifter]

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

This. On the other hand, there is one anathema in the book that a very particular character can opt into that's legitimately also a (quite restrictive) mechanical restriction, and we gave that one a significant mechanical benefit. I'm very interested to see further playtest of it, actually, though so far the one playtest character that chose that very specific option was awesome.

[Arachnofiend]

I'm all for mechanical restrictions giving mechanical benefits of course, that makes total sense.

As for the anathema... Is it Vow of Poverty? My guess is Vow of Poverty. I doubt it's tied to any specific god since something as polarized as you're advertising it to be is unlikely to be a "must take" option for someone following a core god.

[The Raven Black]

No metal armor for Druid in PF1 seems to be a mechanical restriction.

And they lose their power, which is similar to Paladin falling, so why differentiate ?

I get it. One is based on game choices (here equipment) while the other is mostly based on RPing / intangibles

So, that is why there is no poison clause in the new Paladin code. Because poison is a rules mechanic and not an intangible

[necromental]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

This. On the other hand, there is one anathema in the book that a very particular character can opt into that's legitimately also a (quite restrictive) mechanical restriction, and we gave that one a significant mechanical benefit. I'm very interested to see further playtest of it, actually, though so far the one playtest character that chose that very specific option was awesome.

If this is confirmation of design intent, it's probably the most personally important post I've seen form a dev.

This makes even paladin's restrictions playable, and makes me not fret about anathemas.

Thank you Mark.

[Seisho]

The Raven Black wrote:

No metal armor for Druid in PF1 seems to be a mechanical restriction.

And they lose their power, which is similar to Paladin falling, so why differentiate ?

I get it. One is based on game choices (here equipment) while the other is mostly based on RPing / intangibles

So, that is why there is no poison clause in the new Paladin code. Because poison is a rules mechanic and not an intangible

If one is inventive one can easily work around it.

The Ironwood spell, armor created from a carapace, hide or scales of a mighty beast (Bullette, (lesser) Dragons, Giant Insects)
So not beeing able to wear metal armor would be more a challange then an actual restriction.

Edit: Admittedly that can be a problem if your GM has no enough sense of imagination or is really stiff on the rules.

[David knott 242]

One thing that is unclear is how big a deal the Atonement ritual is. Obviously, a point of balance needs to be found to ensure that it is neither too hard nor too easy for the player.

[Malk_Content]

I think the problem with mechanical advantages for restrictions is inevitably they are only a restriction if the player was ever going to break them and there are no workarounds. Like "no poisons" isn't a restriction if a) poisons aren't all that great without speccing into their use and b) that player wasn't interested in using poisons anyway.

[Mark Seifter]

Malk_Content wrote:

I think the problem with mechanical advantages for restrictions is inevitably they are only a restriction if the player was ever going to break them and there are no workarounds. Like "no poisons" isn't a restriction if a) poisons aren't all that great without speccing into their use and b) that player wasn't interested in using poisons anyway.

That and, roleplaying restrictions can actually make a class more fun to play for some people. Like I've worked with my GM to create a bunch of weird roleplaying restrictions for my samsaran amnesiac, where I roll randomly on a d100 chart of past lives to influence me on a given day, and it makes playing her more fun for me than if I didn't have the restrictions.

[Malk_Content]

Awesome! I like making those sorts of choices for my characters as well. Having them mandated less so. Unless I wanted that restriction anyway, at which point it isn't a restriction.

[MidsouthGuy]

Anathema seems to me like a preventative measure against GMs and players arguing over just what is and isn't against a God's rules. I like that we're finally seeing a fleshing out of just what it means to serve a God. Real world religious orders can have some very severe and extreme restrictions on their members' lives (read the Rule of the Knights Templar, it was harsh), so why would it be different in a fantasy world? Yes, the restrictions can be harsh, but the rewards are huge. As for what characters get in return for Anathema, what is not being allowed to lie or eat meat when you can channel the powers of nature, smite a demon unto death, or bring the dead back to life?

[Felinus]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

This. On the other hand, there is one anathema in the book that a very particular character can opt into that's legitimately also a (quite restrictive) mechanical restriction, and we gave that one a significant mechanical benefit. I'm very interested to see further playtest of it, actually, though so far the one playtest character that chose that very specific option was awesome.

Thanks for the response, and I do feel like Paizo is making an effort to lift the burden on RPing Paladins and Clerics. Having played them in the past, RP restrictions can feel mechanical, albeit not in number-crunching terms.

Also for clarity, where do anathema sit in order of preference against a Paladin's code. Does the 'not striking first' anathema trump 'inaction causing harm to an innocent'?

[Felinus]

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

How about a role playing benefit?

[Arachnofiend]

Felinus wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

How about a role playing benefit?

Sure, followers of the same deity/allied deities tend to like you.

[Ryan Freire]

Felinus wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

How about a role playing benefit?

TBH i disagree fundamentally with the idea that a roleplay restriction shouldn't give mechanical benefits. The design of the game is rife with them.

Paladins and clerics being beholden to codes and dieties
Various monk vows
Druid armor restrictions

PRC that require you to perform obediences daily for powers. Hell the whole obedience style feat group is roleplay restrictions in exchange for power.

The commonality, other than the monk vows is that these are classes, abilities and feats that are for characters literally suborning themselves to a higher power in exchange for mechanical benefits, so clearly roleplay restrictions DO give mechanical benefits.

[thflame]

MEANINGFUL roleplay restrictions SHOULD grant you SOME benefit (mechanical or otherwise).

GURPS let's you buy RP flaws for more mechanical benefits, but with the stipulation that if you don't RP your flaws or you avoid all situations that would make you RP your flaws, you lose the benefits you bought with them.

The problem is having a MEANINGFUL restriction.

Yes, if someone wants to play a "boy scout" then having the Paladin's restrictions isn't going to hurt their character concept at all.

That being said, anyone who DOESN'T want to play the "goody two shoes" character probably isn't going to play a Paladin(LG) in the first place.

The problem comes from this idea that GMs shouldn't test their Paladins. Doing so get's you called a "bully" (mind you, I don't mean making no win situations, I mean making players choose between an easy solution and the one that doesn't make the Paladin fall.)

If you are going to implement an "RP restriction" and you aren't going to have that RP restriction tested, then it isn't an RP restriction, it's just a character quirk and it shouldn't grant you any special abilities.

Hence, why people want non-LG Paladins, because the "code" is basically meaningless since it's taboo to test Paladins and people who want to play Paladins have no intention of breaking their code anyway.

[Arachnofiend]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

How about a role playing benefit?

TBH i disagree fundamentally with the idea that a roleplay restriction shouldn't give mechanical benefits. The design of the game is rife with them.

Paladins and clerics being beholden to codes and dieties
Various monk vows
Druid armor restrictions

PRC that require you to perform obediences daily for powers. Hell the whole obedience style feat group is roleplay restrictions in exchange for power.

The commonality, other than the monk vows is that these are classes, abilities and feats that are for characters literally suborning themselves to a higher power in exchange for mechanical benefits, so clearly roleplay restrictions DO give mechanical benefits.

Let me ask you this question: do you think the Paladin, Barbarian, and Fighter should be equal in mechanical capabilities - they get the job done in different ways, but they can all do the job - or do you think the Fighter should necessarily be weaker than the Barbarian, who in turn should be weaker than the Paladin?

[thflame]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

How about a role playing benefit?

TBH i disagree fundamentally with the idea that a roleplay restriction shouldn't give mechanical benefits. The design of the game is rife with them.

Paladins and clerics being beholden to codes and dieties
Various monk vows
Druid armor restrictions

PRC that require you to perform obediences daily for powers. Hell the whole obedience style feat group is roleplay restrictions in exchange for power.

The commonality, other than the monk vows is that these are classes, abilities and feats that are for characters literally suborning themselves to a higher power in exchange for mechanical benefits, so clearly roleplay restrictions DO give mechanical benefits.

Let me ask you this question: do you think the Paladin, Barbarian, and Fighter should be equal in mechanical capabilities - they get the job done in different ways, but they can all do the job - or do you think the Fighter should necessarily be weaker than the Barbarian, who in turn should be weaker than the Paladin?

I know this wasn't directed at me but they ARE better than a fighter in PF1.

Thematically speaking, a Paladin is just a fighter that has been granted divine power by following an oath, so he SHOULD be stronger, mechanically.

Granted, you could say that the time a Paladin spends in prayer or meditation is used by the fighter to learn new techniques and practice his combat skills, but learning a new disarm technique is nowhere near as beneficial to a group of adventurers as being able to magically close wounds.

As for Barbarians, they are really just self taught fighters. The "Chaotic" restriction is pretty much meaningless, especially since most examples of Barbarians in popular culture have VERY Lawful tendencies, like following tradition and being almost ritualistic.

Take a shot every time Wulfgar from the Drizzt series says something along the lines of "that is our/their way". He's basically a "Paladin of Tempus", seeing as every time he flies into a rage he calls out to Tempus (the god of war in the Forgotten Realms).

The only examples of truly Chaotic barbarians I can even think of is "wild men" who are basically murder-maniacs and are almost ALWAYS villains in stories.

Chaos has always been more about valuing free will over societal structure than being able to keep your temper in check.

[Arachnofiend]

I know Paladins were better than Fighters in PF1, but that's because the balance in PF1 sucked (Barbarians were better than Paladins if you knew what you were doing). I'm more talking about design philosophy than reality - should this be true, rather than is it true.

As an addition, saying Barbarians are just "self taught Fighters" is completely ignoring the way Barbarians actually worked in PF1. A Barbarian was more comparable to a Monk in the sense that they both weaved Ex and Su abilities together.

[thflame]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I know Paladins were better than Fighters in PF1, but that's because the balance in PF1 sucked (Barbarians were better than Paladins if you knew what you were doing). I'm more talking about design philosophy than reality - should this be true, rather than is it true.

As an addition, saying Barbarians are just "self taught Fighters" is completely ignoring the way Barbarians actually worked in PF1. A Barbarian was more comparable to a Monk in the sense that they both weaved Ex and Su abilities together.

All of the core barbarian's abilities are Extraordinary. They have no supernatural abilities. They are just guys who are REALLY tough and get EVEN TOUGHER when they elect to get angry.

On "design philosophy" it depends on what aspect you are referencing.

As far as GAME design philosophy, ultimately, you want all options to be roughly balanced with each other.

As far as world design philosophy, fighters are just trained soldiers, Barbarians are self taught "malefic donkeys", and Paladins are trained soldiers with divine powers. There is no non-contrived way to balance these mechanics and maintain verisimilitude. (You could theoretically state that the fighter's discipline makes up for the barbarians extraordinary "Hulk powers", but then that opens up other problems, like what happens if the barbarian goes to Fighter Academy and learns all the official martial art tricks ON TOP OF his rage powers?)

OG DnD didn't even try to balance Paladins and Fighters. Paladins were just plain stronger. The idea was that you were hand picked by "god" to be a superhero so long as you were heroic.

[SilverliteSword]

thflame wrote:

Hence, why people want non-LG Paladins, because the "code" is basically meaningless since it's taboo to test Paladins and people who want to play Paladins have no intention of breaking their code anyway.

I'm not sure I agree. I want more flexible holy warriors because I want to code to be *more* meaningful. I want to test my characters' morals to the breaking point (not with false dilemmas, but with pulling on their heartstrings) and be able to look them in the eyes and tell them "You chose this." I want my GMs to force me to choose between my morals and a treasured NPC, and then to ask me if my god is still worth serving.

BUT, none of those things matter if I'm following a code someone else decided for me. My code only matters if I own it for myself, and maybe that's not a code I want to own.

(I actually don't mind it, It's just not right for all characters.)

[Arachnofiend]

Who cares about the core Barbarian? The class's identity has evolved over the years and become more distinct and I see no reason why Paizo would dial back on that when the class's fans readily identify it with stuff like the totem powers and Spell Sunder now. I'd be incredibly disappointed if the Barbarian got changed back into a purely Ex class and this forum would never hear the end of it.

I vehemently disagree with the idea that a character blessed by the gods must be better than one who's focused purely on martial training. Media is full of characters who are "just that good, baby", and we should be able to play that in-game.

Also, OG DnD sucked and nothing Gygax said is sacred. There, I said it.

[Ryan Freire]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

How about a role playing benefit?

TBH i disagree fundamentally with the idea that a roleplay restriction shouldn't give mechanical benefits. The design of the game is rife with them.

Paladins and clerics being beholden to codes and dieties
Various monk vows
Druid armor restrictions

PRC that require you to perform obediences daily for powers. Hell the whole obedience style feat group is roleplay restrictions in exchange for power.

The commonality, other than the monk vows is that these are classes, abilities and feats that are for characters literally suborning themselves to a higher power in exchange for mechanical benefits, so clearly roleplay restrictions DO give mechanical benefits.

Let me ask you this question: do you think the Paladin, Barbarian, and Fighter should be equal in mechanical capabilities - they get the job done in different ways, but they can all do the job - or do you think the Fighter should necessarily be weaker than the Barbarian, who in turn should be weaker than the Paladin?

Eh. Define equal in capabilities?

Disclosure: I'm not impressed by overall bleeding edge optimization DPR cap comparisons. I'm more concerned about the ability to do "enough" damage. IE can a class drop in 1 or 2 hits things that people are expected to drop in 1 or 2 hits, can a class using its abilities survive 2 or 3 rounds against a thing designed to drop a pc if they engage it for 2 or 3 rounds.

So the face of equal capabilities becomes tricky. I like that paladins seem likely to be able to raise the dead with their lay hands ability. How do you thematically create an equal capability in a barbarian or fighter while staying true to those classes? I do think paladins should have more "soft" power for their restrictions. I also think that they do. You'll find i don't really buy the "properly built barbarians are more powerful" lines because they always shrink down to a DPR comparison. Things like superstition are always compared to divine grace and extolled as "strictly better after time" while ignoring the fact that it forces saves against buff spells and healing because people boil things down to raw numbers without taking into account the soft power/consequences.

[Arachnofiend]

The Barbarian can fly.

The Barbarian can dispel magic.

The Barbarian can make strength checks no one else can.

The Barbarian can debuff his enemies.

The Barbarian does not need Endure Elements to survive harsh conditions.

I gotta be frank, anyone who thinks the Barbarian's capabilities come down to just DPR is ignorant about the class. That's all it is.

[Ilina Aniri]

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

[Ryan Freire]

The barbarian that flies cant pounce
The barbarian's dispel magic is weaker than a standard level 3 spell
The barbarian needs to invest 3 of his 10 feats in order to debuff effectively

Everything you're listing save the invulnerable rager's endure elements continues to be about fighting and only work while he's raging, a time limited resource.

A paladin can cure leprosy, or blindness or deafness or regrow limbs with a touch
A paladin is completely immune to fear auras that can and have caused TPK in campaigns.
A paladin can raise the dead.

When the time comes to interact with people in a developed campaign world the paladin has FAR more to offer in gaining cooperation and aid and information than the barbarian does.

[Ryan Freire]

Ilina Aniri wrote:

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

I'd say the same about all the people reeeing over CG champions and their code.

[Ilina Aniri]

Paladins can't Cure Vampirism.

[Ryan Freire]

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Paladins can't Cure Vampirism.

I hear a stake through the heart and beheading does wonders.

[Arachnofiend]

Ryan Freire wrote:

The barbarian that flies cant pounce

The barbarian's dispel magic is weaker than a standard level 3 spell
The barbarian needs to invest 3 of his 10 feats in order to debuff effectively

This tells me that you didn't even click on the damned links, because I specifically used Elemental Blood instead of Dragon Totem so that the Barbarian can still pounce. Again, ignorance.

[Ilina Aniri]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ilina Aniri wrote:

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

I'd say the same about all the people reeeing over CG champions and their code.

the complexity of most humans can't be defined by a mere two words. i'm against alignment as a whole. i mean i'm against black and white morality. i'd prefer a personality traits and character bonds system ala Apocalypse World over the concept of Alignment.

Alignment is just a cheap excuse to keep some classes under a straightjacket. even though any of Sir Rolands enemies wouldn't view him anywhere near as righteously as the French stories did.

i mean, Sir Roland's order of Paladins served one of the biggest Fascist Dictators in history who sent anyone who questioned his Authority to be tortured for eternity and literally rewarded his faithful with brainwashing to upkeep a false Utopia that cannot exist.

[Ryan Freire]

Excuse me, i read it as elemental totem. Even then, its rage based, and level 10, so fly 5 levels later than people with the actual fly spell.

the paladins limb regeneration comes online a level earlier than clerics can access it.

[Ryan Freire]

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ilina Aniri wrote:

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

I'd say the same about all the people reeeing over CG champions and their code.

the complexity of most humans can't be defined by a mere two words. i'm against alignment as a whole. i mean i'm against black and white morality. i'd prefer a personality traits and character bonds system ala Apocalypse World over the concept of Alignment.

Alignment is just a cheap excuse to keep some classes under a straightjacket. even though any of Sir Rolands enemies wouldn't view him anywhere near as righteously as the French stories did.

i mean, Sir Roland's order of Paladins served one of the biggest Fascist Dictators in history who sent anyone who questioned his Authority to be tortured for eternity and literally rewarded his faithful with brainwashing to upkeep a false Utopia that cannot exist.

And there are plenty of games that do that just fine, d+d derivatives aren't one of them though.

[Ilina Aniri]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ilina Aniri wrote:

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

I'd say the same about all the people reeeing over CG champions and their code.

the complexity of most humans can't be defined by a mere two words. i'm against alignment as a whole. i mean i'm against black and white morality. i'd prefer a personality traits and character bonds system ala Apocalypse World over the concept of Alignment.

Alignment is just a cheap excuse to keep some classes under a straightjacket. even though any of Sir Rolands enemies wouldn't view him anywhere near as righteously as the French stories did.

i mean, Sir Roland's order of Paladins served one of the biggest Fascist Dictators in history who sent anyone who questioned his Authority to be tortured for eternity and literally rewarded his faithful with brainwashing to upkeep a false Utopia that cannot exist.

And there are plenty of games that do that just fine, d+d derivatives aren't one of them though.

they can do it though, there just seems to be a massive backlash every time the concept of alignment is dimished. look at D&D 5e. Alignment is completely optional in that edition and has absolutely no sway over your character.

[Ryan Freire]

I'm not a fan of 5E nor do i think its removal of alignment is a significant indicator of its success when compared to name recognition and a massive marketing blitz by one of the country's largest toy companies.

[The Holiday Cultist]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Paladins can't Cure Vampirism.

I hear a stake through the heart and beheading does wonders.

It also cures Paladinhood.

[The Raven Black]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

This. On the other hand, there is one anathema in the book that a very particular character can opt into that's legitimately also a (quite restrictive) mechanical restriction, and we gave that one a significant mechanical benefit. I'm very interested to see further playtest of it, actually, though so far the one playtest character that chose that very specific option was awesome.

I take this as meaning that the aforementioned anathema is innocuous to most characters who would get it but that it will be a great disadvantage to some very specific build that gets it

Half-Orc Paladin of Torag adopted by Dwarves and with the Hatred of Orcs feat ?

[Shinigami02]

The Raven Black wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

This. On the other hand, there is one anathema in the book that a very particular character can opt into that's legitimately also a (quite restrictive) mechanical restriction, and we gave that one a significant mechanical benefit. I'm very interested to see further playtest of it, actually, though so far the one playtest character that chose that very specific option was awesome.

I take this as meaning that the aforementioned anathema is innocuous to most characters who would get it but that it will be a great disadvantage to some very specific build that gets it

Half-Orc Paladin of Torag adopted by Dwarves and with the Hatred of Orcs feat ?

My personal suspicion is it's the classic Monk Vow of Poverty. Notoriously exceptionally debilitating (at least in PF1e), and also traditionally not worth it. If they made that more worthwhile it would be great.

[The Raven Black]

I understand the idea and the wish for this kind of character but I do not feel that it would fit the "very particular character" description by itself

[Crayon]

Quite aside from being lenient to the point even referring to them as 'restrictions' seems disingenuous, I can't really see any reason for their inclusion in the game.

First, no matter how detailed the rules might be, they will ultimately come down to the GM or the character's deity making a decision so why not just cut out the rules altogether and just have the GM inform the player through dreams etc whenever her actions are at odds with the will of her deity?

[Tholomyes]

My personal feeling is that I don't tend to like RP restrictions that are enforced in the mechanics, or more specifically if their details are enforced by set rules.

For example, I can definitely see the argument that Paladins should have a code of conduct, because part of their power comes from having a code. Let the player and the GM decide what the particular character's code is. For gods, I'm a bit less sympathetic, because you get a wider range of choice, but still, it's shown in the lore that the gods have different aspects which different cultures emphasize or don't.

Now for RP restrictions that are enforced within RP, go nuts. Maybe there's an order of LG Knights, that have a code of conduct identical to the current Paladin's Code. If you join, you get a sigil of their order that you can use to verify your trustworthiness. But if you break their code, the magic in the sigil permanently blots out the symbol. If your character is in universe a member of that order, and they break that code, then sure that's cool. I just don't like it when the mechanics make that decision.

[gustavo iglesias]

thflame wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

I know Paladins were better than Fighters in PF1, but that's because the balance in PF1 sucked (Barbarians were better than Paladins if you knew what you were doing). I'm more talking about design philosophy than reality - should this be true, rather than is it true.

As an addition, saying Barbarians are just "self taught Fighters" is completely ignoring the way Barbarians actually worked in PF1. A Barbarian was more comparable to a Monk in the sense that they both weaved Ex and Su abilities together.

All of the core barbarian's abilities are Extraordinary. They have no supernatural abilities. They are just guys who are REALLY tough and get EVEN TOUGHER when they elect to get angry.

They had abilities to become scaled, and grow claws, fangs and wings when raging, plus the ability to sunder spells with a sword. I think that's pretty extraordinary, to say the least.

[Shinigami02]

To be fair, thflame did say core Barbarian. That said, given how iconic some post-core abilities became I wouldn't be surprised to see some of those supernatural ones (particularly Spell Sunder) come back as core in PF2e.

[Ryan Freire]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I know Paladins were better than Fighters in PF1, but that's because the balance in PF1 sucked (Barbarians were better than Paladins if you knew what you were doing). I'm more talking about design philosophy than reality - should this be true, rather than is it true.

Barbarians did damage better than paladins. They didnt do survivability, or rando utility anywhere near as good.

[Weather Report]

While geeks and/or nerds like words like Anathema, I don't see it catching on.

[Diego Rossi]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Excuse me, i read it as elemental totem. Even then, its rage based, and level 10, so fly 5 levels later than people with the actual fly spell.

the paladins limb regeneration comes online a level earlier than clerics can access it.

5 levels later than wizard, witches and clerics with the travel domain. Maguses get it at level 7, sorcerers at level 6.

Druids at level 4 with the first wild shape.

There is no limitation on raging only in combat.

Spell sunder is weaker than dispel magic show that you have little idea of how powerful is being able to suppress any kind of spell for some round with a CMB check. Beside the CMB of most barbarian being way higher than the CL of most spellcaster, there are several spells that can't be dispelled but can be suppressed by spell sunder.

Your arguments seem all about pigeonholing how the powers of a barbarian work in a spall in a small frame that is your image of a barbarian than considering what they do.

[Diego Rossi]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

I know Paladins were better than Fighters in PF1, but that's because the balance in PF1 sucked (Barbarians were better than Paladins if you knew what you were doing). I'm more talking about design philosophy than reality - should this be true, rather than is it true.

Barbarians did damage better than paladins. They didnt do survivability, or rando utility anywhere near as good.

2 skill point/level vs 4 skill point/point? That is a lot of utility.

Try a paladin against not evil opponents and see who is better.
In a stealth mission.
In a survival in the wilderness situation.

Most APs are made in a way that will have paladins shine and they often are very useful in a party. But that party composition matter. If you have a cleric or oracle and enough non evil opponents, a barbarian can be better. Different utility in different situations.