| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing at issue with the Paladin is how it is supposed to have this special, set aside place in-universe. A true Paladin claiming to be one isn't supposed to be doubted. How? While you might point at the class features or the Paladin-exclusive spells, I find there to be several issues with those as solutions. One, probably every single class feature of the Paladin is swappable for something else via an archetype. Two, that makes a lot of assumptions about how average Joes are even aware of classes, class features, and what they're associated with. I.e., is Flip Rodriguez in American Ninja Warrior an 8th level Expert or a 4th level Rogue with a class feature boosting his Athletics to the level of what an 8th level Expert could do? Would you really be able to tell the difference? Could we in today's age of global communication accomplish such a thing? And could it be done with the world dialed back to news being relayed by messengers and bards?
There's also the question of Razmir. If information about Paladins is so widespread that they can somehow be unerringly recognized by the average Joe, how is being a deity not more unmistakeable? And yet, Razmir has the whole of his nation fooled. Isn't that a mark against the idea that unassailable reputations (such as the Paladin's) can exist that widespread?
Thing is, we already have a similar situation in the lore of the setting. I think we can solve this issue by looking to Norgorber. According to Inner Sea Gods page 109, it is literally impossible for Norgorber to be depicted with any kind of specificity. He can be average and nondescript, but his true appearance cannot be known or even accidentally lucked into. Cosmos-wide, such a thing just cannot be done.
Okay, so let's just do something like that for the Paladin. Create a literal game mechanic to preserve the Paladin's reputation.
Paladinic Authority (or "Mandate of Heaven" or whatever evocative name you like)
"By default, the Golarion setting and the Pathfinder Second Edition game operate under the existence of a trait called Paladinic Authority. With this trait in play, it is literally impossible for a character to claim to be a Paladin unless he is one. This ignores antimagic, dead magic, null magic, and literally anything and everything else that might try to circumvent this. Attempts to do so anyway in either voice or writing result in the character essentially acting out that scene in Liar Liar where Fletcher Reed kept trying to say the pen was re-... rrrre-... rrrRRREE-... blue. I.e., the entire multiverse is under a Zone of Truth spell, but only insofar as it pays attention to claiming to be a Paladin.
Characters must maintain an LG alignment and abide by the Paladin's code of conduct to qualify. Other characters can become aware of this (the general knowledge that claiming to be a Paladin can't be faked and the general parameters of the Paladin's code) via a DC 5 Religion or Knowledge (Religion) (or whatever the pertinent skill ends up being) check that they are always allowed to take 10 on."
So what does this do? Several things, in fact.
1. It lets the Paladin have the unerring recognition and unassailable reputation he's supposed to have. It's almost impossible for NPCs to not know that the guy claiming to be a Paladin actually is one. The fact that he could even successfully say that he was a Paladin must mean he is one. So even though he's splattered with blood and standing over a dead body, if he says everything is on the up and up, it must be so. He's either not lying, or we can trust him to be lying in service to a higher priority aspect of his code. He doesn't even have to go through the song and dance of showing his aura or casting his class-exclusive spells to prove this.
2. It gives a game mechanic to prove a Paladin's Paladinness that doesn't peel back the curtain of the world. By making it something that can be resolved in-universe, it refrains from leaning on the fourth wall and ruining the cohesiveness of the game world. After all, if I can be aware of classes, where does it stop? Do I know about hit points? Or the d20? Or how the world aligns with a 5-foot grid? Do I know that Talking is a Free Action?
3. It halfway solves the Razmir question. True, it does nothing to explain why being a deity is even a thing that can be faked, but at least it explains why and how Paladins have their reputation.
4. It negates the association of adhering to the Paladin's restrictions with getting/avoiding losing the Paladin's shiny powers. There are no mechanical power booststo a character picking this. He isn't trading roleplaying restrictions for better class features than another character with the same amount of XP would have. They're completely off the table. What he is trading some of his roleplaying freedoms (the ability to lie, cheat, tell authority to go stuff itself) for is roleplaying rewards (the ability to easily and reliably "grease the wheels" where a Paladin's reputation would help). It also means the player can have his character be a Paladin for the same reason his character wants to be a Paladin, as opposed to the character remaining a Paladin because he felt the call of good while the player is busy just avoiding becoming a Fighter without feats.
5. This makes it easier to remove for campaigns not meant to include Paladins with this kind of reputation. This trait can exist by default for Pathfinder Second Edition, Golarion, PFS, etc., while exercising the option of lifting this trait removes everything else associated with it. With alignment being something meant to be easily remove-able, this can only also be helpful.
6. Making this trait an aspect of the game rather than an aspect of the class prevents the class from being locked to only that concept. The chassis of the Paladin class is perfectly capable of covering everything a Warpriest or a multiclass Cleric/Fighter would represent and can do so in a less clunky manner and with more refinement. The exclusivity of the Paladin is attained by the Paladinic Authority trait, in the game, in the setting, and in PFS by default. Heck, characters with the Paladin class and adhering to the Paladin's code in a game with Paladinic Authority could even have more selective power compared to other characters using that class. I.e., at 3rd level, their class feature choices could be the entire list plus Righteous Ally while characters not keeping to the code would have a smaller list. Each individual option would be just as worthwhile, but the Paladin-y Paladin's list of choices would be bigger.
7. Conversely, this also prevents the concept from being locked to the class. A character who holds to the Paladin ideals but who wants to wage his fight against evil by being the best Wizard he can only has two options right now. Either he can act like a Paladin and say he's a Paladin without either the proof that he's truly holding to the code or the trust of others that believe he is what he says he is. Or he can spend one level on Paladin for class features he will probably never use (the Detect Evil, sure, but he's not going to be smiting or wearing heavy armor). Never mind that Rule #1 of being a caster is "Thou shalt not sacrifice caster levels". With Paladinic Authority being a trait outside and independent of the class structure, Good now has more ways it can fight against Evil and more varieties of Paladin can be made without clunky multiclassing or hollow claims.
Y'know what, as a guy GMing a group of four paladins, I really like this idea.
Honestly, i find it so much simpler than that, it is like our world, people can 1, say they are the thing they are: "Im a paladin/police officer...",yes people could also lie about it, bluff all the way, 2, people can be recognized by others "This man is a paladin *said the town cleric*...", and so on.
Actuallty, funny enough, the false priests fit into this right in. They are lying about being clerics, cause people understand what is a cleric, that is why they get powers to fool people. Just like you could try to fool people that you are a paladin, the issues being when you are caught ofc :P.
Anyway, this wasnt the point you were trying to make.
Your solution does grasp the heart of the matter, which is, paladins are paladins in universe and that they shouldnt have their niche changed. Your solution is far from the worse i saw around actually, it could use some refining and im unsure about the whole any class thing, but it could fit i guess.
The issue I have with this is that, lets be real here, this wont ever happen, cause there is no way paizo is dropping the paladin as a class. In the core book, by the end, paladin will for sure be there, it wont be crusader or whatever else. Ofc, i dont speak for the devs, so who knows, but i dont believe for a second this is happening until i see it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I like interchangeable classes that can't instantly be recognized. Would be a shame if that was taken away. Even for Paladin. Doesn't really make any sense to me to have the entire universe decide being a Paladin makes people always know to trust you, and this makes the Razmir problem worse IMO, because being a god should be far harder to take than a mere servant to them. I'd really like to get rid of in-universe absolute proof someone is X class.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think game terms are used in game, not in world.
I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.
Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.Not going to mine for quotes [I got chores to do] so if this in any mischaracterizes someone I'm sorry and I hope you correct me.
It was brought up multiple times as an argument in the Paladin blog thread defending the idea that being a Paladin means something in the world and that such a thing is directly observable.
After a quick trip to the loft and read through of the relevant books...
It is not stated in the PF1 class description.
D&D 3.5 class description says that paladins recognise each other, but doesn't say that other characters recognise them.
AD&D 2nd Ed Paladins radiate a 10 ft aura of protection that can be recognised by anyone within that aura.
It is not stated in the AD&D class description.
What I had forgotten is that in both versions of AD&D the paladin is described as a sub-class of fighter, and 2E specifically states that they are an optional class.
I couldn't find 3.0, and I am not sure we ever had the full BECMI rules, so that's all the references I can give you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this a rule I am unfamiliar with? Paladins have no special authority, nor are they instantly recognisable as such.
Even if known as a paladin their word is only as good as the next persons because while they shouldn't lie they can still be wrong.
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.
Honesty it went from paladin is a in world thing that means something on itself.
To people who thought it meant suddenly meant everyone could instantly see you are a paladin.
I think game terms are used in game, not in world.
I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.
Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.
Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.
I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.
Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.
Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.
Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.
Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.I hope for the opposite. Few things in a class-based game irritate me more than character classes being in-universe terminology. The only purpose it serves is to limit what concepts and character types are allowed to be expressed by which classes. Like, my favorite class is the magus, but not a single one of my magi has ever referred to themselves as a magus. They've been knights, swordsmen, spell-fencers, scholars, magicians and just wanderers. I've never defined a single paladin as just being a paladin. Demon hunter? Sure. Crusader? Sometimes. Hero? only one occasion. As far as I'm concerned, the class name is for the players' convenience and nothing more.
Like I said different strokes for different folk.
A magus would be a magus in mine. Ofc, again, you can call yourselves whatever you want and honestly none of what you said had to be a lie. But let's say you called yourself a wizard, THEN you are lying.
Point is, you can't jump on other classes , without lying anyway, cause they are in world things, but you sure call yourself things that go beyond your class without issues.
To make a simple analogy.
That Razmir for example.
If you have a sorc who is a priest/follower...
If someone ask "Are you a priest/follower... of Razmir" Assuming the sorc is one, this isn't a lie.
But if they ask "Are you a cleric of Razmir" and they say yes, then they are rolling a bluff check.
So if your Paladin was tasked with rooting out corrupted members of the order they would be lying if they used the label inquisitor? Thats kind of absurd to be honest.Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.
Yeap he would be lying. An inquisitor is not the same a paladin. That simple.
You may work to enforce the law, that doesn't make you a police officer.
You may know how to build a house, that doesn't make you an engineer...
Just because your head cleric said, go clean the house, doesn't mean a paladin turns into a inquisitor as far as I'm concerned.
Ofc, some stuff blurs this due to being generic, like the Assassin case...
And what happens when a class is added? Was your character lying all along?
PF2E launches and I make a knightly mounted fighter. He refers to himself as a cavalier. He goes around cavaliering for 2 years until the release of a book that adds the Cavalier class. Do I now have to rewrite my character?
This is a very unique case in which no, I wouldn't force a player to get out of his way for something that wasn't even there when the game launched. When he made the PC this was perfectly valid and thus should remain till the next game starts.
Changes made during play should be for very serious reasons as far as I'm concerned. And mostly should be things the entire table can agree on, even more after 2 years of play.
But let's be honest here, classes aren't that common for this to happen all the time.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think game terms are used in game, not in world.
I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.
Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.
Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.
I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.
Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.
Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.
Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.
The way I see it, you can't say "I'm a Paladin" anymore than you can say "I'm level 6". Those are metagame terms to explain mechanics. Like "attack of oportunity" and "squares" are. Your wizard does not point fireballs to corners of squares, he point them to points in the space.
Paladin has 2 meanings in the game. One of those meanings is the class you pick as a player, the other one is
Definition of paladin
1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause
which is what PCs and NPCs use as a definition to speak about people. An NPC could refer to their church head figure as "cleric", but that person might be in fact not be a Cleric, but an Oracle, an Adept, or even an Expert without divine spells -but good knowledge of Religion and good sense motive and diplomacy to guide the followers of his religion-. Some other NPC could call "barbarians" to a group of foreing savages, even if those savages are actually a Ranger, a Fighter and a Bloodrager.
So "I'm a paladin of Iomedae" would need a bluff check if you actually follow any other god, or non at all. Then you will be lying. But if you are "a leading champion of the cause of Iomedae", then you are a paladin of Iomedae, even if you are not a Paladin (the class) of Iomedae.
Would they be? What if all of their formal magical knowledge came from studying at a wizard's college, from which they graduated (if only barely)? They cast arcane spells using their intelligence modifier, prepare them out of a spellbook and have to use material components barring taking the Eschew Materials feat. Would it still be a lie for them to claim to be a wizard? Because if that was my magus's background, he would definitely call himself a wizard.
First lets assume he did go to a college, in said college there would be multiple courses, not just the wizard one, he would be well aware there are magus, wizard, arcansists... and that those things are different.
If we go beyond and say that he went on with your story, the player would be well aware his PC is wrong in the claim, cause i would have told him so when he made the PC, but he can still go on with it, i mean, dont people often believe they are things they arent?
Maybe eventually people could caught on with this and so on...
Pretty much how guy can go to the temple and there are people training to be be a paladin or a cleric or a inquisitor... he would know these arent the same from the get go, same way most NPCs that belongs to a religious orders would know a paladin isnt a inquisitor, a cleric...
This ofc gets more complex the more generic a term is.
And if that's how you want to do things, then more power to you. But if I don't want to, I don't think the game shouldn't assume that I do. How you do things shouldn't have to conflict with how I do things.
By no means im playing the better way here. You do you, i will do me. Ofc, as i said above, i believe in informing players as much as i can about these things, houserules... so after the game starts they suffer for things they didnt know.
Ultimately, they might, simply cause we run them differently. Ofc, there is a room for middle ground, for example, the mounted knight player wanted to call himself a cavalier at all costs, he didnt want this to be a mistaken by any means... i might consider banning the entire cavalier class then, if there are no cavaliers as a class, then the player wouldnt be wrong.
Would they still need to if their principle responsibility at their temple was clerical work? If their primary function in the temple of Razmir where they serve is to provide general support and assist in the ongoing functioning of the temple in an official capacity, then I think of them, in the most literal interpretation, as a cleric of Razmir.
Yes, because i would explain such to them, because the term cleric wouldnt mean the person that does things X and Y in the temple, it would mean people that belong to this class, who have this skill set...
The way I see it, you can't say "I'm a Paladin" anymore than you can say "I'm level 6". Those are metagame terms to explain mechanics. Like "attack of oportunity" and "squares" are. Your wizard does not point fireballs to corners of squares, he point them to points in the space.I think game terms are used in game, not in world.
I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.
Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.
Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.
I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.
Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.
Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.
Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.
Yeap, fundamentally different ways to play, that is all.
To me a class isnt divided from what it is ingame.
A PC with the class paladin, is also a paladin in game...
If the PC doesnt have the paladin class, then he isnt a in game paladin...
Ofc this goes for other class aswell, but again, some are harder than others to divide due to being a more generic term, like the assassin case.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Must be fascinating knowing that everyone who makes a living off of slaughtering wild animals in a hunt in your world has an animal companion and 6-level Nature casting. Must be the most populous class in your setting. And bar-fights must be brutal as everyone who frequents bar-room brawls gains 1d6 lethal punches and full BAB. And of course everyone who takes the law into their own hands suddenly develops split-personality, and a lot of them develop either full BAB or Sneak Attack. After all, these mechanics are inherently tied to being labeled a hunter, brawler, or vigilante respectively, no?
I kid to a degree, but honestly not that much. This whole system is nonsensical to me. Game terminology and world terminology IMO should always be kept separate.
Yeap, fundamentally different ways to play, that is all.To me a class isnt divided from what it is ingame.
A PC with the class paladin, is also a paladin in game...
If the PC doesnt have the paladin class, then he isnt a in game paladin...
Ofc this goes for other class aswell, but again, some are harder than others to divide due to being a more generic term, like the assassin case.
Not wanting to sound nitpicking, but how do people in your game call to those who hunt?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Must be fascinating knowing that everyone who makes a living off of slaughtering wild animals in a hunt in your world has an animal companion and 6-level Nature casting. Must be the most populous class in your setting. And bar-fights must be brutal as everyone who frequents bar-room brawls gains 1d6 lethal punches and full BAB. And of course everyone who takes the law into their own hands suddenly develops split-personality, and a lot of them develop either full BAB or Sneak Attack. After all, these mechanics are inherently tied to being labeled a hunter, brawler, or vigilante respectively, no?
I kid to a degree, but honestly not that much. This whole system is nonsensical to me. Game terminology and world terminology IMO should always be kept separate.
Anyone who refers to themselves as a "warrior" gets demoted to NPC classes.
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.Honesty it went from paladin is a in world thing that means something on itself.
To people who thought it meant suddenly meant everyone could instantly see you are a paladin.
Just people who would count as an ally (friendly faiths, people of the same faith etc) who come within 10 feet of you and become subject to your aura of courage, which outside of GMS who houserule some sort of buff invisibility is a noticeable thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I like interchangeable classes that can't instantly be recognized. Would be a shame if that was taken away. Even for Paladin. Doesn't really make any sense to me to have the entire universe decide being a Paladin makes people always know to trust you, and this makes the Razmir problem worse IMO, because being a god should be far harder to take than a mere servant to them. I'd really like to get rid of in-universe absolute proof someone is X class.
Yep, me too.
I think game terms are used in game, not in world.
I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.
Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.
Same here. I think classes should not equal concepts, that they can be inspired by concepts and inspire players to use the class for certain concepts, but there should not be a "MUST" involved. It's a setting full of millions of people. That's something that cannot possibly be accurately modeled, something has to give, and so I think classes should be as open as possible to what they can be used for, limited only by the person using it (in this case, the player).
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.Not going to mine for quotes [I got chores to do] so if this in any mischaracterizes someone I'm sorry and I hope you correct me.
It was brought up multiple times as an argument in the Paladin blog thread defending the idea that being a Paladin means something in the world and that such a thing is directly observable. Thus broadening the alignment inherently reduces this meaning as being observable as a Paladin would not necessarily indicate the status it does now.
This right here. I don't buy that the Paladin class (any class, really) should be narrowly defined by a single concept. But that doesn't have to mean the concept shouldn't exist or that it can't be a concrete thing in-universe.
That's my whole point for this idea. To try and frame those two things as not having to be mutually exclusive in the first place. No, I don't want the Paladin/Sentry/Champion class to be stuck behind the Paladin concept. Proponents of the LG-only Paladin concept don't want that character concept to be diminished in status. So this is me "reaching across the aisle", not by creating a compromise, not by suggesting an amicable solution that diminishes both sides towards the middle but by suggesting a satisfactory solution that preserves as much as possible for both sides.
Paladinic Authority is, by default, sacrosanct and unassailable. Even more so than when it depended on characters in-universe being aware of traits and class features that we're not going to agree they should be aware of. And I know some of the posts claimed it wasn't even about the specific class features. This makes that true. And on the other side, the Paladin/Sentry/Champion class is open to whatever concept the player thinks this chassis best serves as the vehicle for.
Though, yes, I agree this probably won't see the light of day.
In the face of this it would absolutely be useful to have a "noticeability" factor for special abilities sidebar.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of classes being literal things in my setting sounds so ridiculous, especially with how diverse characters can be with archetypes, how different they can be from their original classes chassis after a few replacements. And on top of that there are things like multiclassing... there is no way people would come across a skill set definitively enough to say "Paladins (or any other class) are specifically x".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just people who would count as an ally (friendly faiths, people of the same faith etc) who come within 10 feet of you and become subject to your aura of courage, which outside of GMS who houserule some sort of buff invisibility is a noticeable thing.I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.Honesty it went from paladin is a in world thing that means something on itself.
To people who thought it meant suddenly meant everyone could instantly see you are a paladin.
Even we we assume aura's are 'sensed' [I don't recall a rule that they are], how does one ID a paladin aura vs any of the dozens of other aura's available via spell, class, feat, ect. ?
Even we we assume aura's are 'sensed' [I don't recall a rule that they are], how does one ID a paladin aura vs any of the dozens of other aura's available via spell, class, feat, ect. ?Just people who would count as an ally (friendly faiths, people of the same faith etc) who come within 10 feet of you and become subject to your aura of courage, which outside of GMS who houserule some sort of buff invisibility is a noticeable thing.I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.Honesty it went from paladin is a in world thing that means something on itself.
To people who thought it meant suddenly meant everyone could instantly see you are a paladin.
One assumes with an untrained knowledge roll RE: paladins meaning roughly 50% of the populace would recognize that paladins have a presence that soothes fear and inspires.
Edit: and like i said, unless your gm keeps buffs secret a +4 to saves vs fear is going to feel like SOMETHING.
I think game terms are used in game, not in world.
I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.
Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.
Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.
I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.
Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.
Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.
Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.
You know, I may disagree with this method of play myself, but I hope PF2 preserves both sides by letting GMs arbitrate how recognizable classes are. One of my favorite DnD Podcasts does this as detailed above, where being a paladin or cleric or barbarian has a very specific meaning and it is awesome. I couldn't GM like that myself, but it still can be a great story.TH
Seriously, PF1 does a good enough job of differentiating most classes and letting GMs decide how much impact that has, I don't see why that needs to change.
One assumes with an untrained knowledge roll RE: paladins meaning roughly 50% of the populace would recognize that paladins have a presence that soothes fear and inspires.
Edit: and like i said, unless your gm keeps buffs secret a +4 to saves vs fear is going to feel like SOMETHING.
But does it 'feel' different than an aura that gives another bonus to fear? One that gives a generic bonus to saves? Does the common person KNOW the exact numerical effect and KNOWS for a fact one is different from another?
IMO, parsing the diffence between the dozens of auras is a high DC know arcana and no where close to an untrained check as there is NOTHING tangible to difernentiate them from one another.
Except people don't parse differences very well. "there's an aura, it makes me feel less afraid, must be a paladin"
Except people don't parse differences very well. "there's an aura, it makes me feel less afraid, must be a paladin"
So ANY positive aura gets you ID's as a paladin right? I bonus on saves 'makes you feel less afraid'. A Draconic Manifestation/Draconic Heritage also gives a bonus on fear. Heroism Subdomain gives bonuses to fear.
So again, it's hard to say by default 'oh I feel something good so it MUST be a paladin'. Heck, a simple bless would 'feel' the same.
Example: Lets take a Cult Master Mesmerist once. Their Fanatical Stare 'fills the target with fervent belief' and gives a will save vs will. As a bonus, they get a 'healing touch' that passes out temp hp.
Yep. We have a Knowledge Arcana skill, a Knowledge Religion skill, and a Spellcraft skill, but there is no "Knowledge Class Feature" skill. Adjudicating how recognizable certain class features are, or whether they're associated with one class or those other two classes or whether they're actually a feat isn't laid out in terms of difficult the task is or when it's even a task that can be accomplished.
That's why I phrased Paladinic Authority as something inherent to the universe and independent of class features or even classes, and specifically laid out that it was a skill check, which skill it was, and how difficult.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. We have a Knowledge Arcana skill, a Knowledge Religion skill, and a Spellcraft skill, but there is no "Knowledge Class Feature" skill.
Actually, per the Spymaster's Handbook (p.9) identifying Class Features is absolutely doable, though the skill varies by Class (it'd be Knowledge - Religion on a Paladin), with a DC of 10 + The Level the Class Feature is gained.
Still, that's a DC 11 check at a minimum when only DC 10 or lower checks can be made untrained, so only people with Knowledge (Religion) can reliably identify a fake Paladin.