Alright so I've been following the forums since I haven't been able to really get a hold of the playtest book itself for more than a cursory look through, and I think I have a decent idea of what the issue is even without doing so and think some of my thoughts might be relevant. I like the 'sound' of the retributive strike and I can appreciate what it's meant to do, but honestly I wonder if an even further direction away from a 'keyed' mechanic might actually be a better direction.
Personally, my favorite version of the paladin is the archetype (technically an archetype combo but it specifically goes with each other) used in the Spheres of Might books, which trades out all of smite evil and spells to instead gain Combat Sphere access of Expert level (1 talent per level). For reference, these spheres enforce particular fighting styles and combos or add in other abilities a class didn't have (like Temp HP tanking rage style or an animal companion). I felt this better emulated a paladin, or a Martial Cleric as it were, to a specific god or ideal if a god never even came to it, because it was more modular and paladins to me should be just as flexible as a fighter but in a different direction. They are a fighter with a greater cause than "survive".
Instead of just "smite evil" or "retributive strike" why not allow the paladin to have a more customized option like this? Maybe allow them to choose one or the other at 1st level, and have each version do something different or at least affected by the god/ideal they chose. Maybe the Smiting paladin who's god's favored weapon is a bow can smite ONLY at range or if they picked RS they can make AoO's at range instead? The paladin of the ideal of "Good" rather than a god may be able to deal more damage to undead than the paladin of Iomedae who may instead be adding in different effects. This might also give the player more of the feeling that their character chose this path for a reason since it's probably a similar reason they are choosing it as well. Do they want to protect and serve or to punish and destroy?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
any class that's feature list is tied to one feature is generally a bad idea.
ways to protect.
1: stay in teh back baby sitting the party wizard.... really, how does anyone think baby sitting is fun? I dont care if its the wizard or not. or even an injured party member. Ret strike, isnt a great thing there as you have to wait for your ally to get hit first before it can be used and then the bad guy or girl or it can still kill off the party member and then the strike is worthless.... and the shield thing could be just as bad if your shield is umm... dented at that point. a good offense is a good defense. too me though, the paladin as it stands focuses too much on Defense. a good offense does not equal Great defense( if one would even want to call the paladin's defenses great for that matter)
2: offensive protection. the ability to smite evil or have your weapon infused with the ability to do radiant/ holy damage like the dnd 5e paladin does would do this. this is also imo and ONLY imo where a constant active CHA based divine grace would come in handy even if it was capped at +3 or 4 to throws would shine.
the PF1 paladin's auras that made the paladin immune to certain things at certain levels and granted +4 bonuses were great and helped with offense and party defenses alike. Though I will be first in line to tell you that outside aura of courage making the paladin immune to fear and the bonus for the party was great. The others though, making the paladin immune to charm and compulsion and bonus against for party was ... well, should have just been a bonus to the paladin and party.
to me, the PF1 paladin had a balance for both.
pf2 has waaaay too much invested with ret strike to be effective in combat other than a glorified baby sitter hogging party resources invested enchanted paladiny weapons to try to counter this weak offense as much as possible....
if being a baby sitter is your shtick than more power to you.
like others though, I think it needs revamped too.
if nothing else, replace it with teh witch... that is presuming there was a bare bones one on paper somewhere... otherwise remove it completely... for the APG 2.0... and have it along side the pf2 witch( the one that didnt have bare bones on notes anywhere)...
oh and ps: I do hope this is the last time to hit the edit button. which are you
1: Lead by example
2: lead from the back
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Steelfiredragon wrote: any class that's feature list is tied to one feature is generally a bad idea. If the feature is broad or universal enough, it can work. But Ret. Strike is not universally useful to all builds like how, say, Rage is useful for any Barbarian, Sneak Attack and Finesse Striker are useful for any Rogue, Attack of Opportunity plus a feat for your desired fighting style (dual-wield, 2-handed, archery) is for any Fighter, etc.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
1: stay in teh back baby sitting the party wizard.... really, how does anyone think baby sitting is fun? I dont care if its the wizard or not. or even an injured party member. Ret strike, isnt a great thing there as you have to wait for your ally to get hit first before it can be used and then the bad guy or girl or it can still kill off the party member and then the strike is worthless.... and the shield thing could be just as bad if your shield is umm... dented at that point. a good offense is a good defense. too me though, the paladin as it stands focuses too much on Defense. a good offense does not equal Great defense( if one would even want to call the paladin's defenses great for that matter)
Agreed. I've seen it argued that "Ret. Strike is supposed to be a deterrent so it's not actually even supposed to trigger," but how un-fun is that? This is just exacerbated by the fact that Smite is tied to Ret. Strike, so if those people are right, then Smite is also not even supposed to trigger.
Steelfiredragon wrote: 2: offensive protection. the ability to smite evil or have your weapon infused with the ability to do radiant/ holy damage like the dnd 5e paladin does would do this. this is also imo and ONLY imo where a constant active CHA based divine grace would come in handy even if it was capped at +3 or 4 to throws would shine. I'm not sure how Divine Grace is also "offensive protection," but it is at least universally useful like the first point I made (like Rage, etc.), but the fact that Clerics get Channel Smite at level 4 makes it hard for me to swallow that Paladin's Smite is way weaker than the Cleric version due to being tied to Retributive Strike, never mind that it comes 5 levels later.
Steelfiredragon wrote: the PF1 paladin's auras that made the paladin immune to certain things at certain levels and granted +4 bonuses were great and helped with offense and party defenses alike. Though I will be first in line to tell you that outside aura of courage making the paladin immune to fear and the bonus for the party was great. The others though, making the paladin immune to charm and compulsion and bonus against for party was ... well, should have just been a bonus to the paladin and party. Yeah, the Auras are a much better defender/protector feature than Ret. Strike, because they are always helping your party members survive, unlike Ret. Strike, which does not do that.
Steelfiredragon wrote: to me, the PF1 paladin had a balance for both.
pf2 has waaaay too much invested with ret strike to be effective in combat other than a glorified baby sitter hogging party resources invested enchanted paladiny weapons to try to counter this weak offense as much as possible....
if being a baby sitter is your shtick than more power to you.
like others though, I think it needs revamped too.
if nothing...
Agreed. It's fine to build a bodyguard archetype if it fits your party, but Paladins need to be able to accommodate more flexible builds than just that.
DG is only offensive protection for the paladin... and only then for that rare time a paladin would fail its throws running into battle against something that would require a throw being made... should of been more clear
but then I failed my Im hungry throws when I wrote it....
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Steelfiredragon wrote: DG is only offensive protection for the paladin... and only then for that rare time a paladin would fail its throws running into battle against something that would require a throw being made... should of been more clear
but then I failed my Im hungry throws when I wrote it....
I'm just salty right now.
Tonight's goal of *trying* to get Retributive Strike to trigger flopped bad and I can't figure out anything I did that was wrong. I *as the GM* had problems setting up a skill to go off. Though granted, I was being fair, I wasn't having the enemies intentionally turn away from the Paladin, they were animals, meaning that they weren't likely to understand how to avoid it, assuming that would be the best case scenario and still... Nope.
This is frustrating me to no end.
HWalsh wrote: Steelfiredragon wrote: DG is only offensive protection for the paladin... and only then for that rare time a paladin would fail its throws running into battle against something that would require a throw being made... should of been more clear
but then I failed my Im hungry throws when I wrote it....
I'm just salty right now.
Tonight's goal of *trying* to get Retributive Strike to trigger flopped bad and I can't figure out anything I did that was wrong. I *as the GM* had problems setting up a skill to go off. Though granted, I was being fair, I wasn't having the enemies intentionally turn away from the Paladin, they were animals, meaning that they weren't likely to understand how to avoid it, assuming that would be the best case scenario and still... Nope.
This is frustrating me to no end. I think part of the problem lies in that it's not nearly as intuitive as it's meant to be. It 'should' be a situation that happens, and it is, but even with lesser intelligent creatures it certainly seems like there are just too many moving parts to the game for ANY ability that is based on such a narrow trigger to be the main deal of an entire class.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Naoki00 wrote: HWalsh wrote: Steelfiredragon wrote: DG is only offensive protection for the paladin... and only then for that rare time a paladin would fail its throws running into battle against something that would require a throw being made... should of been more clear
but then I failed my Im hungry throws when I wrote it....
I'm just salty right now.
Tonight's goal of *trying* to get Retributive Strike to trigger flopped bad and I can't figure out anything I did that was wrong. I *as the GM* had problems setting up a skill to go off. Though granted, I was being fair, I wasn't having the enemies intentionally turn away from the Paladin, they were animals, meaning that they weren't likely to understand how to avoid it, assuming that would be the best case scenario and still... Nope.
This is frustrating me to no end. I think part of the problem lies in that it's not nearly as intuitive as it's meant to be. It 'should' be a situation that happens, and it is, but even with lesser intelligent creatures it certainly seems like there are just too many moving parts to the game for ANY ability that is based on such a narrow trigger to be the main deal of an entire class. The other side is intelligent enemies can easily circumvent it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Naoki00 wrote: HWalsh wrote: Steelfiredragon wrote: DG is only offensive protection for the paladin... and only then for that rare time a paladin would fail its throws running into battle against something that would require a throw being made... should of been more clear
but then I failed my Im hungry throws when I wrote it....
I'm just salty right now.
Tonight's goal of *trying* to get Retributive Strike to trigger flopped bad and I can't figure out anything I did that was wrong. I *as the GM* had problems setting up a skill to go off. Though granted, I was being fair, I wasn't having the enemies intentionally turn away from the Paladin, they were animals, meaning that they weren't likely to understand how to avoid it, assuming that would be the best case scenario and still... Nope.
This is frustrating me to no end. I think part of the problem lies in that it's not nearly as intuitive as it's meant to be. It 'should' be a situation that happens, and it is, but even with lesser intelligent creatures it certainly seems like there are just too many moving parts to the game for ANY ability that is based on such a narrow trigger to be the main deal of an entire class. The other side is intelligent enemies can easily circumvent it. Agreed. Something I would like to point out as well is that regardless of how good a 'defensive' ability that RS is, in all my years of gaming the tank has been at least as good at dealing damage as the average guy if not even more. The tank draws aggro by being...well a tank. A big scary threat with a big gun ready to pick one unlucky evil doer and send them home (via smite or whatever have you). No matter how you dress it up, there will never be a better CC than "dead".
HWalsh wrote: I'm just salty right now.
Tonight's goal of *trying* to get Retributive Strike to trigger flopped bad and I can't figure out anything I did that was wrong. I *as the GM* had problems setting up a skill to go off. Though granted, I was being fair, I wasn't having the enemies intentionally turn away from the Paladin, they were animals, meaning that they weren't likely to understand how to avoid it, assuming that would be the best case scenario and still... Nope.
This is frustrating me to no end.
How did it not trigger if you were fighting animals? Did your DM reposition them so they didn't get the hit? Did you not move up next to them while they were in combat with your teammates? Did they always attack you?
Either you didn't use your abilities to full effect by positioning properly, your DM intentionally misplayed his animals by making them smartly reposition or they actually attacked you which is the whole point of retributive strike. Your playtests seem to be self fulfilling prophecy.
Naoki00 wrote: No matter how you dress it up, there will never be a better CC than "dead". That's why there are classes that are really good at dealing damage. The conclusion is not that every class needs to be good at dealing damage. Would you use that argument for clerics? Why even pick classes that don't deal the highest damage in the game? Because there is more to a class than just damage. Defensive abilities are not useless.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So, got to play a paladin.
While I had fun doing it, I gotta say, I agree that Retributive strike should be an option, not the main focus. I felt totally hampered the entire time, feeling like I was forced to babysit other players and move and let the villain monologue cause I couldn't attack the big bad and risk leaving the casters alone cause I couldn't trigger the strike. On top of that, I really resent the fact of how much better a paladin at another table was just cause he chose to use a reach weapon.
Finally, and this is the thing that REALLY cheesed me off... was that all it took to make me worthless as a paladin was two skeletons. Because 1 skeleton attacked me and the other attacked my babysitting target. I only have 1 reaction, so I could either strike the skeleton hitting my charge, or shield defense the one hitting me. Either action ended up with us loosing health, and since strike doesn't actually stop damage unless I kill the enemy, trying to use strike to defend just meant that I did a smidge more damage instead of actually defending anyone, and we both got beat up for it. And if both skeletons had attacked my charge instead of me? He'd be dead before I could hit the skeletons enough to protect him. :(
The paladin should not suddenly lose his ability to be an effective protector just because there is more than one person beating up his charge, so even if we go the "He protect" route with paladins (Which I don't like), it doesn't even successfully do that.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I still think they should replace it with either an actual smite evil or put in a constant active divine grace instead.
ret strike comes across as a revenge power... and un paladin like
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
After finding it in the bestiary, I want antipaladins more, their smite actually works because it affects yourself, making it a very aggressive class, it also evokes classic sword duels.
Let both do both. Then it works. Easy fix.
master_marshmallow wrote: After finding it in the bestiary, I want antipaladins more, their smite actually works because it affects yourself, making it a very aggressive class, it also evokes classic sword duels.
Let both do both. Then it works. Easy fix.
so let my paladin use the AP smite and make it aggressive?? if so I can do this
Asuet wrote:
How did it not trigger if you were fighting animals? Did your DM reposition them so they didn't get the hit? Did you not move up next to them while they were in combat with your teammates? Did they always attack you?
If you have played Pathfinder 2 then you are aware that it is more mobile than Pathfinder 1 was. This makes "standing next to your team meats" not always possible to be in the right position at the right time. Not only that but you have to be practically psychic to predict where every enemy is going to move.
Example:
You have two allies, you are standing between them there are two enemies. Your allies are A, you are Y, and enemies are E.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ A _ A _
_ _ Y _ _
_ _ _ _ _
E _ _ _ E
Your option is (assuming you win initiative) to move up toward the enemy (readying an action isn't an option as that uses your reaction thus shutting off Retributive Strike) or delay.
So the first enemy moves.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ A _ A _
_ _ Y _ E
_ _ _ _ _
E _ _ _ _
Okay, now, you can move to engage the other enemy, potentially dragging his attention onto yourself, or you can try to attack the first enemy to help your ally.
You opt to try to protect your ally, so if the enemy attacks them again on their next action you can Retributive Strike them.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ A _ A _
_ _ _ Y E
_ _ _ _ _
E _ _ _ _
The other enemy goes after your other ally...
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ A _ A _
E _ _ Y E
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Your allies, squishies, the kind who don't want to be in melee combat back away from their attackers.
_ A _ _ _
_ _ A _ _
_ _ _ _ _
E _ _ Y E
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Your enemy moves...
_ A _ _ _
_ _ A E _
_ _ _ _ _
E _ _ Y _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
You don't get to Retributive Strike.
So, on your turn you decide to move directly in front of your ally who you have been trying to protect, make an attack on the enemy, and then raise your shield.
_ A _ _ _
_ _ A E _
_ _ Y _ _
E _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
The second enemy goes after your back ally...
_ A _ _ _
E _ A E _
_ _ Y _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
You get no Retributive Strike. The enemy isn't attacking you.
Now, did you make a tactical error here? Possibly, yes, if you didn't mind losing your attack that turn, and didn't mind giving up your attack you could have instead moved in front of your rear ally, abandoning protecting the ally you were trying to protect, and used Lay on Hands on your ally to heal them so you would be in position to Retributive Strike if the enemy went after your rear ally:
_ A _ _ _
_ Y A E _
_ _ _ _ _
E _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
This *might* work if the enemy isn't intelligent. If they are intelligent...
_ A _ _ _
_ Y A E _
_ _ _ E _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
They lose nothing, as they had to move anyway, and your Retributive Strike doesn't go off.
Now, providing the enemy followed the exact same action as before, and wasn't intelligent, you might have gotten one there.
This is a ridiculously hard balancing act compared to using things like Attack of Opportunity.
Quote: Either you didn't use your abilities to full effect by positioning properly, your DM intentionally misplayed his animals by making them smartly reposition or they actually attacked you which is the whole point of retributive strike. Your playtests seem to be self fulfilling prophecy. No, my playtests aren't a self-fulfilling prophesy. The ability is poorly designed.
The idea that the power works because you aren't using it is:
1. Not fun.
2. Not true.
Retributive Strike needs to be easier to use.
Imagine any of the above scenarios if the Paladin could move a 5ft step as part of using Retributive Strike, and suddenly it is firing almost every single time and forcing enemies to target the Paladin.
As a GM I watched several crits canceled out by Retributive Strike.
At first level, there were 30+ h.p. of damage on the dice (w/o adding the deadly bonus d10s which hadn't been rolled) all wiped away.
"Crit my mage buddy? No, die instead."
The player was apologizing/smirking for robbing me, especially since I was rolling near max (34 out of 36).
So while I empathize with Paladins perhaps being too reactive, I do not accept that Retributive Strike is the issue. It does its job quite well, and has that good ol' Paladin-protector gave-peace-a-chance feeling.
Paladin takes point, anybody attacking those next to/behind him get smacked.
I do agree iconic abilities should not have to rely on it!
It's nice for what it does, but it is circumstantial, so the Paladin may or may not access a whole suite of abilities based on not being the one attacked? Awkward enough as an option, worse if thrust upon them.
And I don't think the Paladin should get the Anti-Paladin's anti-crit smack, as I think the LG/CE flavor fits as it is. So it follows I don't think the Anti-Paladin should have abilities stacked upon their crit-smack either.
Having a Strike Reaction tied to enemy actions makes for a nice trick, but relying on enemy choices to use iconic abilities is not. Smart enemies learn, and will quickly counter in most tactical situations.
ETA: Maybe there could be an option so that abilities that are currently tied to Retributive Strike could also be activated later on the Paladin's turn & include if the Paladin was struck/attacked. Then the solo Paladin (in Hell!) becomes viable again.
I want the generic knight class to exist, and to be all about using retributive strike as your special reaction instead of attack of opportunity, but with two main changes:
1) combine Vengeful Strike with Retributive Strike, this means it triggers if the enemy attacks either you or the ally, making attacking less attractive at all, and makes me feel like a dueling knight.
2) trigger it when the enemy attacks any ally in melee, not just adjacent ones. You have to be aware of the ally.
I want to use this ALL the time, it's limited to once per turn, and gets enhanced later on.
The five paths for knights should be:
Generic/Bannerless (no alignments, extra generic feats, maybe fighter stuff? Definitely more armor stuff from PF1 fighters)
Paladin (LG, spell points, holy stuff)
Samurai (Lx, exotic weapons, resolve stuff)
Hellknight (LE, disciplines from PF1, intimidate stuff)
Antipaladin (CE, spell points, unholy stuff)
This would make it a coherent class with multiple paths like the barbarian. Each one can add a different thing to retributive strike at the same levels, and run parallel to each other. Should definitely focus on armor and mobility. Should get full movement in heavy armor as a feat.
Castilliano wrote: As a GM I watched several crits canceled out by Retributive Strike.
At first level, there were 30+ h.p. of damage on the dice (w/o adding the deadly bonus d10s which hadn't been rolled) all wiped away.
"Crit my mage buddy? No, die instead."
The player was apologizing/smirking for robbing me, especially since I was rolling near max (34 out of 36).
So while I empathize with Paladins perhaps being too reactive, I do not accept that Retributive Strike is the issue. It does its job quite well, and has that good ol' Paladin-protector gave-peace-a-chance feeling.
Paladin takes point, anybody attacking those next to/behind him get smacked.
I do agree iconic abilities should not have to rely on it!
It's nice for what it does, but it is circumstantial, so the Paladin may or may not access a whole suite of abilities based on not being the one attacked? Awkward enough as an option, worse if thrust upon them.
And I don't think the Paladin should get the Anti-Paladin's anti-crit smack, as I think the LG/CE flavor fits as it is. So it follows I don't think the Anti-Paladin should have abilities stacked upon their crit-smack either.
Having a Strike Reaction tied to enemy actions makes for a nice trick, but relying on enemy choices to use iconic abilities is not. Smart enemies learn, and will quickly counter in most tactical situations.
ETA: Maybe there could be an option so that abilities that are currently tied to Retributive Strike could also be activated later on the Paladin's turn & include if the Paladin was struck/attacked. Then the solo Paladin (in Hell!) becomes viable again.
Problem with Paladin taking point: P is Paladin, A is ally, E is enemy (this is assuming an intelligent enemy)
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ A _ _
_ _ P _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ E _
Enemy does this:
_ _ _ E _
_ _ A _ _
_ _ P _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Paladin doesn't get to Retributive Strike.
Intelligent enemies lose almost nothing for moving, and they can 100% negate the RS every time unless the Paladin is wedged into a corner (or has a reach weapon)
HWalsh wrote: Castilliano wrote: As a GM I watched several crits canceled out by Retributive Strike.
At first level, there were 30+ h.p. of damage on the dice (w/o adding the deadly bonus d10s which hadn't been rolled) all wiped away.
"Crit my mage buddy? No, die instead."
The player was apologizing/smirking for robbing me, especially since I was rolling near max (34 out of 36).
So while I empathize with Paladins perhaps being too reactive, I do not accept that Retributive Strike is the issue. It does its job quite well, and has that good ol' Paladin-protector gave-peace-a-chance feeling.
Paladin takes point, anybody attacking those next to/behind him get smacked.
I do agree iconic abilities should not have to rely on it!
It's nice for what it does, but it is circumstantial, so the Paladin may or may not access a whole suite of abilities based on not being the one attacked? Awkward enough as an option, worse if thrust upon them.
And I don't think the Paladin should get the Anti-Paladin's anti-crit smack, as I think the LG/CE flavor fits as it is. So it follows I don't think the Anti-Paladin should have abilities stacked upon their crit-smack either.
Having a Strike Reaction tied to enemy actions makes for a nice trick, but relying on enemy choices to use iconic abilities is not. Smart enemies learn, and will quickly counter in most tactical situations.
ETA: Maybe there could be an option so that abilities that are currently tied to Retributive Strike could also be activated later on the Paladin's turn & include if the Paladin was struck/attacked. Then the solo Paladin (in Hell!) becomes viable again.
Problem with Paladin taking point: P is Paladin, A is ally, E is enemy (this is assuming an intelligent enemy)
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ A _ _
_ _ P _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ E _
Enemy does this:
_ _ _ E _
_ _ A _ _
_ _ P _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Paladin doesn't get to Retributive Strike.
Intelligent enemies lose almost nothing for moving, and they can 100% negate the RS every time... That's why I think multiple abilities should not be reliant on RS, and why all PCs need to adjust for PF2's skirmish style of combat. But in part I, a dungeon crawl, that tactic wasn't an option (and didn't suit the intelligence or bravery of the enemies anyway).
I've developed a new concern--that RS will be the "lawful good" unique ability. It's the signature ability to this version of the paladin. Maybe the LG paladin is just viewed as reactive?
MuddyVolcano wrote: I've developed a new concern--that RS will be the "lawful good" unique ability. It's the signature ability to this version of the paladin. Maybe the LG paladin is just viewed as reactive?
Right now, and as far as we know there will *only* be an LG Paladin. Please let us stop talking like non-LG Paladins are something the Devs have promised. They have not.
HWalsh wrote: MuddyVolcano wrote: I've developed a new concern--that RS will be the "lawful good" unique ability. It's the signature ability to this version of the paladin. Maybe the LG paladin is just viewed as reactive?
Right now, and as far as we know there will *only* be an LG Paladin. Please let us stop talking like non-LG Paladins are something the Devs have promised. They have not. ...hey. I'm mostly on your side, here, man.
Let's step back a moment. XD
I probably phrased it badly.
The primary concern is that LG, designwise, may be being viewed as reactive. The second concern is that they've suggested a "maybe" for other options in *future* books. Following that, IF that exists, it might craft a second issue of trying to reserve "designspace" by being overly focused/narrow in one concept.
I said it was a fear. I did not say it was /reasonable/. Either way, the first concern is still there, you know?
All in all, my mind is trying to wrestle with why this is so restrictive. It wants some justification. Has anyone gotten RS to fire in a playtest?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Asuet wrote: The conclusion is not that every class needs to be good at dealing damage. Would you use that argument for clerics? Clerics are *full spellcasters*. Paladins have neither full spellcasting nor damage to offer. All they have are the weakest version of Lay on Hands since AD&D and the weak Retributive Strike.
Quote: Defensive abilities are not useless.
In general, no. Retributive Strike, pretty much is.
MuddyVolcano wrote: HWalsh wrote: MuddyVolcano wrote: I've developed a new concern--that RS will be the "lawful good" unique ability. It's the signature ability to this version of the paladin. Maybe the LG paladin is just viewed as reactive?
Right now, and as far as we know there will *only* be an LG Paladin. Please let us stop talking like non-LG Paladins are something the Devs have promised. They have not. ...hey. I'm mostly on your side, here, man.
Let's step back a moment. XD
I probably phrased it badly.
The primary concern is that LG, designwise, may be being viewed as reactive. The second concern is that they've suggested a "maybe" for other options in *future* books. Following that, IF that exists, it might craft a second issue of trying to reserve "designspace" by being overly focused/narrow in one concept.
I said it was a fear. I did not say it was /reasonable/. Either way, the first concern is still there, you know?
All in all, my mind is trying to wrestle with why this is so restrictive. It wants some justification. Has anyone gotten RS to fire in a playtest? Oh I wasn't meaning to sound aggressive, just cautionary. A lot of the bad feelings that cropped up were because a lot of players thought that Paizo said that they *would* have non-LG Paladins nad when that didn't happen it caused a huge flame war. I was just cautioning for accuracy.
.... nope... they stated in the playtest would be LG, but depending on how it work during the playtest, they might do other alignments.
what this IS and IS not, is that it is STILL not the stone that has been etched into.( which would be post playtest final product...)
it also doesnt mean that they didnt carefully word their article either to avoid any backlash from the "Must be LG ONLY" side of things either.
it ALSO doesnt mean that they were straight up on it either.
BUT, this is not behind the scenes Paizo office space, this is the forums.
nor is it the place and time anymore for what they said, how they said it , what they meant by it and how each of us took it.
so that this post is not completely off topic.
ret strike is garbage and wasnt likely given thought to when the combat design came into being....
now take that however you will, but know this; im outta here to go get something to eat.
Recent threads in Classes
|
