Paladin Playtest Feedback


Classes

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

More stuff I'm noticing now that others probably noticed a long time ago. The feat Paladin's Sacrifice has a somatic component and is a reactive spell. Meaning that the Paladin must stand around with a hand free waiting for an ally to be hit in order to use this ability. That has to be the rarest use case of all time.

As to Retributive Strike, I've definitely found that playing in higher level scenarios I rarely am able to use the reaction because all large creatures have reach. In the Mirrored Moon I used Retributive Strike twice through the 6-7 hours, I took AoOp feat and used it 8 - 10 times.

At lower levels I was using Retributive Strike left and right. This may also be a result of GMs learning and playing around the ability.

Speaking of GMs affecting my perception of the class I now believe Detect Evil feat is quite strong but that my GM was being too liberal in using Deception against the ability when he shouldn't have. (The creature should be actively attempting to disguise themselves before the Paladin detects them, they don't reactively deceive.)

Still I think the class lacks options when comparing it to other classes. I'd like to be able to take a non-mountable Animal Companion, have greater offensive options at lower levels (like using ranged, or benefits for using two-handed weapons), and have better immunities and defensive auras a lower levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't think Retributive Strike should allow you to punish people for focusing on you instead of your allies; that would remove the whole "take me instead" incentive.

But I do think it needs to be more useful for non-Reach paladins. What about if it allowed you to take a Step or Stride in the direction of the triggering enemy so you can get at them? That would also make the paladin feel a bit more aggressive, because they're constantly moving towards enemies.

Except retributive strike isn't "take me instead", its "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back."

In fact retributive strike would work better as an anti-paladin feature because he could stand behind a wall of peasants with a pole arm and get extra strikes for attacking his "allies"

Perhaps retributive strike should be renamed peasant shield.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't think Retributive Strike should allow you to punish people for focusing on you instead of your allies; that would remove the whole "take me instead" incentive.

But I do think it needs to be more useful for non-Reach paladins. What about if it allowed you to take a Step or Stride in the direction of the triggering enemy so you can get at them? That would also make the paladin feel a bit more aggressive, because they're constantly moving towards enemies.

Except retributive strike isn't "take me instead", its "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back."

In fact retributive strike would work better as an anti-paladin feature because he could stand behind a wall of peasants with a pole arm and get extra strikes for attacking his "allies"

Perhaps retributive strike should be renamed peasant shield.

Well, you're not wrong. It's a good reason why it should be less of a centerpiece of the class; "you guys need to get hurt for my class to do maximum damage" doesn't sound very LG.

On the other hand, if it doesn't trigger when people attack you rather than your allies, then it's a deterrent, and that does work for paladins. And there's a long tradition of passive-aggressive "I'm going to wait until you do something naughty and then I'll punish you SO HARD" paladinhood.

So, I think it should be a feat choice, not so much the primary class ability. And it should allow you to move up to the offender to make the strike; "take me instead" should involve the paladin making himself available as a target. So I don't really like it on bows. That makes it a bit too easy to lurk behind the lines.


Ascalaphus wrote:


On the other hand, if it doesn't trigger when people attack you rather than your allies, then it's a deterrent, and that does work for paladins. And there's a long tradition of passive-aggressive "I'm going to wait until you do something naughty and then I'll punish you SO HARD" paladinhood.

I think we are in agreement about a lot of aspects of retributive strike, But I think "its naughty if you hit my friends, but its not naughty if you hit me" is silly. And I understand that there could be a complicated potential deterrent the way its currently worded. "Let's get the paladin, he doesn't fight back (as hard) if you hit him. He only goes ham if you hit his friends"

I'd rather see retributive strike modelling the honorable ideals of: the other guy swung first, the other guy drew first (western paladins), so its OK to lay the smack down and then have that extend to allies as well.

Retributive Strike could be awesome and fits perfectly with an anathema that says you never swing first against any foe.


Snickersnax wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't think Retributive Strike should allow you to punish people for focusing on you instead of your allies; that would remove the whole "take me instead" incentive.

But I do think it needs to be more useful for non-Reach paladins. What about if it allowed you to take a Step or Stride in the direction of the triggering enemy so you can get at them? That would also make the paladin feel a bit more aggressive, because they're constantly moving towards enemies.

Except retributive strike isn't "take me instead", its "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back."

In fact retributive strike would work better as an anti-paladin feature because he could stand behind a wall of peasants with a pole arm and get extra strikes for attacking his "allies"

Perhaps retributive strike should be renamed peasant shield.

Bring back leadership so I can use my class feature.

On a serious note, this made me laugh audibly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
Except retributive strike isn't "take me instead", its "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back.".

I've seen this genre of comment a lot. I believe it to be inaccurate.

If every time I hit you, I realized that it allowed one of your specific allies to attacked me, but if I attack your ally, you don't attack me, there's no way I'm going to keep attacking you. I'm going to attack your ally. The problem is that RS doesn't make it clear what the NPC believes to be true about the RS. Plus, GMs meta-game (both for and against players). So it's easy to imagine a GM meta-gaming NPCs to avoid RS but not attacking the Paladin. Finally, in cases where an NPC might legitimately be willing to ignore the implication of being counter-attacked, the player might not agree or be able to know such an action is in good faith.

I'm not going to say whether RS is something anyone should enjoy or that it is the right choice for the Paladin's signature ability, but having played next to a Paladin in some test scenarios, I loved it. As a Ranger, plant your crit-bag Animal Companion right next to the Paladin and get some measure of protection.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Retributive Strike is an ability that a vanishingly small number of combatants have, so the most likely indicator of somebody having that ability would be that you see them use it. So, unless there is some reason for the party's foes to know the party's peculiar abilities, said foes should usually find out about such abilities when they see them used and start reacting to or avoiding their effects at that point.


David knott 242 wrote:
..., said foes should usually find out about such abilities when they see them used and start reacting to or avoiding their effects at that point.

Agreed. But the nature of this game and the pejorative concept of meta-gaming, introduce a lot of problems when it comes to determine what any individual/NPC understands/believes to be true. The game doesn't make it clear that PCs/NPCs know about feats. Does everyone know when someone is using Power Attack? What about Rapid Shot? Improved Precise Shot?

Without it being clear what NPCs are aware of or know about the world and how it works, leads to a lot of problems with how NPCs react in combat. Does a fire elemental recognize that they are being hit by a RS or do they have no idea what triggered the attack? What about a large spider?

RS could be helped out if the rules included info in dealing with this stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Except retributive strike isn't "take me instead", its "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back.".

I've seen this genre of comment a lot. I believe it to be inaccurate.

If every time I hit you, I realized that it allowed one of your specific allies to attacked me, but if I attack your ally, you don't attack me, there's no way I'm going to keep attacking you. I'm going to attack your ally. The problem is that RS doesn't make it clear what the NPC believes to be true about the RS. Plus, GMs meta-game (both for and against players). So it's easy to imagine a GM meta-gaming NPCs to avoid RS but not attacking the Paladin. Finally, in cases where an NPC might legitimately be willing to ignore the implication of being counter-attacked, the player might not agree or be able to know such an action is in good faith.

OK, let's imagine an encounter where the paladin and his allies is fighting a bad guy, and the bad guy doesn't know he's facing a paladin and he also doesn't know anything about paladin features.

The paladin is going to try to train this bad guy, using negative reinforcement from his retributive strike, not to hit his friends.

Now Retributive Strike doesn't trigger every time the bad guy attacks the paladin's ally, only when the bad guy has a successful attack. The paladin only gets a RS when he hasn't already used a reaction and only once per round, and the retributive strike is -2 to hit, so its likely that the RS is only hitting 40-50% of the time. Given all these conditions, the bad guy gets punished for attacking the paladin's ally 10-30% of the time. Most likely the fight is going to be over way before the bad guy ever figures out that it isn't a good idea to attack the paladin's friends. If by some luck he does figure it out, the most likely outcome is that the bad guy moves away from the paladin to avoid getting hit and continues to attack the ally.

N N 959 wrote:
I'm not going to say whether RS is something anyone should enjoy or that it is the right choice for the Paladin's signature ability, but having played next to a Paladin in some test scenarios, I loved it. As a Ranger, plant your crit-bag Animal Companion right next to the Paladin and get some measure of protection.

I'm not sure how this doesn't fall into the category of "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back."


The paladin, the only class that can effectively wear heavy armor, who wears holy symbols of a select few gods, is not easily distinguishable?

I call BS


Snickersnax wrote:
OK, let's imagine an encounter where the paladin and his allies is fighting a bad guy....

Sure, we can come up with an infinite number of scenarios where RS does not help. And? It's a signature ability that is granted at 1st level. It's not intended to be 100% useful 100% of the time.

I ran next a Paladin at 1st and 5th level. At level 1, he never hit with it and probably only got two or three attacks. At level 5, it accounted for about 20% of his total encounter damage and that was with no one trying to take advantage of it (except my Animal Companion) and his not remembering to use it about 1/3 of the time.

Quote:
If by some luck he does figure it out, the most likely outcome is that the bad guy moves away from the paladin to avoid getting hit and continues to attack the ally.

And as a GM, I see a great opportunity to justify attacking the heavily armed Paladin instead of the lightly armed Rogue or Ranger. RS is a mechanics that helps me out as a GM because it allows me a legitimate tool to help the Paladin feel like s/he is doing their job.

You want to make the NPCs run around just to avoid RS? Great, as player, I can manipulate the NPC's movements and put them in more compromising situations, like flanking. I'd much rather keep my spot and take a RS than move around so that I can be flanked. There's nothing that stops your ally from moving to a position that precludes the NPC from attacking without fear of retribution.

Quote:
I'm not sure how this doesn't fall into the category of "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back."

Because you're statement isn't in good faith. Anyone sentient creature that stands there and gets hit by a RS, is going to modify their behavior, barring some narrative reason to the contrary. RS affects the combatants and provides a measure of battle field control. As soon as the GM starts modifying the NPCs behavior, you're making the NPC less efficient.

Is it world beating at level 1? Of course not. It's not mean to be world beating at any level. Do you have to like it? Of course not. Does it change the feel of the Paladin in PF2? I think it does. Is that an improvement? Technically, no. But it could be worse. I play Rangers. So I'll trade you RS for Hunt Target, straight across.

My point is that it's an ability that absolutely can influence NPCs to attack the Paladin. The fact that it doesn't work 100% of the time does not invalidate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
OK, let's imagine an encounter where the paladin and his allies is fighting a bad guy....

Sure, we can come up with an infinite number of scenarios where RS does not help. And? It's a signature ability that is granted at 1st level. It's not intended to be 100% useful 100% of the time.

I ran next a Paladin at 1st and 5th level. At level 1, he never hit with it and probably only got two or three attacks. At level 5, it accounted for about 20% of his total encounter damage and that was with no one trying to take advantage of it (except my Animal Companion) and his not remembering to use it about 1/3 of the time.

Quote:
If by some luck he does figure it out, the most likely outcome is that the bad guy moves away from the paladin to avoid getting hit and continues to attack the ally.

And as a GM, I see a great opportunity to justify attacking the heavily armed Paladin instead of the lightly armed Rogue or Ranger. RS is a mechanics that helps me out as a GM because it allows me a legitimate tool to help the Paladin feel like s/he is doing their job.

You want to make the NPCs run around just to avoid RS? Great, as player, I can manipulate the NPC's movements and put them in more compromising situations, like flanking. I'd much rather keep my spot and take a RS than move around so that I can be flanked. There's nothing that stops your ally from moving to a position that precludes the NPC from attacking without fear of retribution.

Quote:
I'm not sure how this doesn't fall into the category of "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back."

Because you're statement isn't in good faith. Anyone sentient creature that stands there and gets hit by a RS, is going to modify their behavior, barring some narrative reason to the contrary. RS affects the combatants and provides a measure of battle field control. As soon as the GM starts modifying the NPCs behavior, you're making the NPC less efficient.

Is it world beating at level 1? Of...

All I will say is this:

The second you need to make the Paladin feel like he's doing his job, the Paladin isn't doing his job.

The Paladin in 1e did NOT need the GM to make him feel like he was doing his job. Nuking down evil made him fe like he was doing his job.

If the Paladin's job is to get hit so his allies don't have to then give me a way to control it.

If that is actually the goal, let me spend a reaction to force the enemy to attack me.

Better yet, don't force me to defend.

Rogues aren't being forced to go dex to damage why are we being forced to go defender?

Give us more options. Just like Paizo did for Rogues.

(And yes, I'm salty over rogues, the Operative in Starfinder has permanently turned me off to them.)


N N 959 wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
OK, let's imagine an encounter where the paladin and his allies is fighting a bad guy....
Sure, we can come up with an infinite number of scenarios where RS does not help. And? It's a signature ability that is granted at 1st level. It's not intended to be 100% useful 100% of the time.
N N 959 wrote:
But the nature of this game and the pejorative concept of meta-gaming, introduce a lot of problems when it comes to determine what any individual/NPC understands/believes to be true. The game doesn't make it clear that PCs/NPCs know about feats

This isn't an infinite number of scenarios, this is the likely outcome for the scenario you were proposing (I think).

N N 959 wrote:
You want to make the NPCs run around just to avoid RS? Great, as player, I can manipulate the NPC's movements and put them in more compromising situations, like flanking. I'd much rather keep my spot and take a RS than move around so that I can be flanked.

This is an interesting take on combat. My experience is that moving allows you to get out of being flanked and also to move into a flanking position. Not moving means that you are often flanked and you will be unlikely to achieve a flanking position.

N N 959 wrote:
There's nothing that stops your ally from moving to a position that precludes the NPC from attacking without fear of retribution.

While this may occasionally be true. It seems unlikely to be consistent unless the paladin has a reach weapon.

Snickersnax wrote:
I'm not sure how this doesn't fall into the category of "successfully hit my friends, so I can hit you back."
N N 959 wrote:
Because you're statement isn't in good faith. Anyone sentient creature that stands there and gets hit by a RS, is going to modify their behavior, barring some narrative reason to the contrary. RS affects the combatants and provides a measure of battle field control. As soon as the GM starts modifying the NPCs behavior, you're making the NPC less efficient.

You basically placed your low AC animal companion next to the paladin to maximize the paladin's RS chance of successfully hitting. Even if your opponent realized the threat of the paladin's RS, there is nothing that would cause your opponent to attack the paladin rather than reposition away from the paladin and attack someone else. I don't believe this is the advantage you think it is. Moving and attacking twice is often a better tactic than attacking 3 times because:

1) It can move you out a situation in which you are being flanked.
2) It can move you into a position in which you are flanking
3) It forces some of your opponents to move just to stay in melee range.


HWalsh wrote:
All I will say is this:

"The second you need go out of your way to make the Paladin feel like he's doing his job, the Paladin isn't doing his job."

Fixed that for you.

Quote:
The Paladin in 1e did NOT need the GM to make him feel like he was doing his job. Nuking down evil made him fe like he was doing his job.

I'm not here to debate whetherRS is an improvement to the Paladin. I don't play Paladin's in PF1, outside a pregen. I said from the get-go that I'm not telling anyone who plays a Paladin in PF1 that they have to like what PF2 is doing to the class.

What I am saying is that RS is effective. Either by forcing NPCs to deal with it or simply allowing the Paladin to kill them quicker. IMO, it's better than a straight defensive power because the player gets to do damage instead of preventing it. Now, I'm not saying it integrates with the rest of the class or class abilities, but as a stand alone signature ability as compared with what everyone else got? I'd put it right up there with getting an AoO, and honestly, since RS imposes the Enfeebled condition, it's arguably better than straight AoO's (a lot of that depends on how often the GM meta-games the NPCs to avoid doing things that trigger an AoO).

Quote:
Give us more options. Just like Paizo did for Rogues.

Nothing I am saying precludes or justifies Paizo not doing that.


Snickersnax wrote:
This is an interesting take on combat. My experience is that moving allows you to get out of being flanked and also to move into a flanking position. Not moving means that you are often flanked and you will be unlikely to achieve a flanking position.

In arguably every combat I've had in PFS, the GM will invariably try to position the NPCs so that they can't be flanked. The sentient PCs always move to avoid being flanked. That movement ends when they position themselves in a corner so that they cannot be flanked. I'm acutely aware of this as I play weapon & shield Ranger with a companion.

Well, guess what happens now? Said NPC backs themselves into a corner and every time they attack someone who is not the Paladin, they get whacked. GM wants to move them? Great, you're going to have to come out of that corner or move away from the wall and you run the risk that you get surrounded. Checkmate.

Now, as a Rogue, Ranger, Monk, I'm going to pay more tactical attention to how I position myself so that anyone who attacks me is going to be hit by RS. It's not going to be 100% effective, but it shouldn't be, either.

Quote:
...there is nothing that would cause your opponent to attack the paladin rather than reposition away from the paladin and attack someone else

There are a whole lot of things that stop that. Terrain and NPC motivation are two of the biggest. All I can tell you is that in the playtest, the Paladin had a LOT of opportunities to RS and NPCs don't always have the ability to avoid it.

Quote:
Moving and attacking twice is often a better tactic than attacking 3 times because

You're making a general assumption which is false if the creature has abilities that take two actions. It's false if the creature can't make normal movements. It's false if the creature has an extremely high modifier and that third attack is still likely to hit someone. Put a Paladin and a Fighter side by side? Good luck running around.

Again, you act as if RS not working 100% of the time means it's broken. Who says it has to be triggered every fight? That's right, sometimes it won't work. But I can tell you that it worked a helluva lot in the playtest we ran. And the longer the fight lasts, the more chances you get to use it.

None of that means people have to like it thematically or that it's an "improvement" to the Paladin. I'm saying that it does work and it is beneficial. Way more than Hunt Target. And I'd take it over Rage and AoO (mainly because I think GMs are already conditioned to avoid doing things that trigger AoO's). Sneak Attack is better, imo. Such is life.

EDIT: Sneak attack is better out of the gate. When you start getting extra damage dice and better magic weapons, RS is probably going to be a lot better.


N N 959 wrote:

In arguably every combat I've had in PFS, the GM will invariably try to position the NPCs so that they can't be flanked. The sentient PCs always move to avoid being flanked. That movement ends when they position themselves in a corner so that they cannot be flanked. I'm acutely aware of this as I play weapon & shield Ranger with a companion.

Well, guess what happens now? Said NPC backs themselves into a corner and every time they attack someone who is not the Paladin, they get whacked. GM wants to move them? Great, you're going to have to come out of that corner or move away from the wall and you run the risk that you get surrounded. Checkmate.

We've had a few combats that have ended up like you describe, but I wouldn't call it the most common. As I think back most of the situations where the fights would have ended up like this we handled diplomatically instead. Lately we have been fighting large and bigger monsters with reach and very high mobility. Their most effective tactics have been move, attack from reach avoiding AoO or RS, and then move away to safety by flying, swimming, etc. It is a very difficult tactic to deal with and very different from the NPC who has pretty much already lost the fight and has backed himself into a corner to try to make the best of a bad situation.

N N 959 wrote:
Again, you act as if RS not working 100% of the time means it's broken. Who says it has to be triggered every fight? That's right, sometimes it won't work. But I can tell you that it worked a helluva lot in the playtest we ran. And the longer the fight lasts, the more chances you get to use it.

I'm not saying that RS can't be effective for helping do damage. I do think it is an effective deterrent to Paladins moving into flanking positions on their foes. They usually need to stay next to their allies instead of across from them. This causes paladins to avoid gaining flanking positions (or "dishonorable backstab positions"). I don't think that is a bad thing. All I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily incentivize opponents to attack paladins rather than their allies.


Snickersnax wrote:
Lately we have been fighting large and bigger monsters with reach and very high mobility. Their most effective tactics have been move, attack from reach avoiding AoO or RS, and then move away to safety by flying, swimming, etc.

Opponents that can fly or swim away are a completely different ball of wax. That is going to screw over other every signature ability except Hunt Target with a ranged weapon.

Quote:
It is a very difficult tactic to deal with and very different from the NPC who has pretty much already lost the fight and has backed himself into a corner to try to make the best of a bad situation.

I was not talking about NPCs who are cowering in the corner. In PFS, the scenario typically puts the NPCs in the most favorable starting position. In addition, GMs will instinctively have sentient NPCs move out of flanks and into positions to prevent themselves from being flanked,....and then stay there.

Quote:
I do think it is an effective deterrent to Paladins moving into flanking positions on their foes. They usually need to stay next to their allies instead of across from them.

I don't see how this is true. The Paladin can RS on anyone who attacks an ally. The ally need not be next to the Paladin, the Paladin just needs to be next to the attacking creature.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily incentivize opponents to attack paladins rather than their allies.

I think this is about GMs reflexively metagaming more than the limitations on RS. There are a whole lot of creatures that shouldn't necessarily be tactically minded. I also think once players get more cognizant of tactical positioning, they'll find RS to be quite an ally. And unlike sneak attack and Smite Evil, you won't have whole categories of creatures immune to it (except ranged flyers, obviously).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
I do think it is an effective deterrent to Paladins moving into flanking positions on their foes. They usually need to stay next to their allies instead of across from them.
I don't see how this is true. The Paladin can RS on anyone who attacks an ally. The ally need not be next to the Paladin, the Paladin just needs to be next to the attacking creature.

Yeah, I must have been really tired when I wrote that last night. I've played two paladins and we've played it the way you describe, not the way I was writing about it. I don't know what I was thinking there


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I think Retribution Strike should just go. It's not that its weak, because its potentially quite strong. It's an interesting idea but there is just a whole host of issues around it that make it ill-suited to be the Paladin's defining class feature.

Off the top of my head
-It overwhelmingly favors reach weapons atm.

-It doesn't work with even some Paladin deities favored weapons. Paladin's of Erastil, sorry guys either use Erastil's favored weapon and lose these feature or take a melee weapon even if it isn't ideal for roleplaying. Its understandable though, because ranged weapons + ret strike wouldn't be balanced.

-It forces the Paladin to act as a 4th edition defender. It forces the whole class into a reactionary playstyle which some people will hate. I don't feel this is give me a tool kit and I'll pick how I want to play, instead this makes the class feel very much like 'you will play the Paladin this way.'

-Its use is highly dependent on the positioning and the DM giving you opportunities to use it. If the DM wants to deny you too many opportunities they can.

-Its worth will vary from table to table based on party compositions and DMs. That also means whatever assumptions Mark, Jacob, and crew are using to balance this ability are ultimately wrong, because assumptions are just assumptions and won't be accurate table to table.

-Limits room for abilities like Smite Evil because if you overload the class with offensive powers its likely going to be too strong.

-If you succeed if actually tanking and taking the hits, you effectively lose you class feature for that round + any class feats you invested into it. Somehow this is considered to be ideal?

-If you want to actually use Ret Strike you are hoping for one of your party members to be attacked. That is kind of a disconnect between what a guardian should actually be wanting which seems to be how Paizo wants people to see the Paladin.

-Action Economy. The Paladin potentially has a lot of features competing for a reaction.

IMO I think Paizo would be better served by scraping Ret Strike or making it a feat than the class defining feature. If Paizo does then it opens up a whole lot of room to accommodate different playstyles rather than marrying the class to one idea, supported by a clunky class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm considering the Paladin class for chapter 5 and I was kinda floored that "Sense Evil" is an 8th level feat. I mean, WTF? how is a paladin ever expected to make it that far without some ability to tell evil creatures and people from good ones? It just feels wrong. It should be a 1st level class feature and follow the Detect Magic model for Illusions vs your level.

Retributive Strike is melee only. As an Elf demon hunter worshiping Erastil and using a Longbow, this class feature is completely unusable. For such a key pillar of the class, this just seems wrong. I say go back to the drawing board and make this feature into an optional feat.

Blade Ally: Again melee only unless you invest in the 6th or 10th level feats, the 16th and 20th level feats again are melee only.

I don't think the current paladin fits the roll of 'Destroyer of Evil', and instead feels more like a 'Holy Speed Bump'

If the game needs a Guardian class, then just make it and leave the Paladin be..


Zamfield wrote:
If the game needs a Guardian class, then just make it and leave the Paladin be..

I'd be happy if we had options. The Rogue got 3 options that it didn't need (seriously - Rogue worked freaking fine) but we get:

1. Tied for least number of class feats.
2. The most rigid role in the game.


HWalsh wrote:
Zamfield wrote:
If the game needs a Guardian class, then just make it and leave the Paladin be..

I'd be happy if we had options. The Rogue got 3 options that it didn't need (seriously - Rogue worked freaking fine) but we get:

1. Tied for least number of class feats.
2. The most rigid role in the game.

Indeed, I like options on my paladins. Most often I play an avenging warrior of the gods which is would be more of a striker than a defender, or a diplomatic champion of righteousness who leads by example, which is not exactly a defender either.


The Lay on Hands MODIFYING Champion Feats don't add any Spell Points. You can actually spend MANY Feats on supposedly improving your LoH, but not actually gain any LoH usages from doing so. I don't see why just because they are "modifying" existing Spell Point Power, and not adding "new" Power... why that justifies not granting a Spell Point. This of course MOST heavily hits Paladins with less than stellar CHA (like Dwarves) ...Who even if they take LoH-improving feats of Tiers 1,2,4,8,12,18, would not have gained AND Spell Points to use LoH with (potentially ZERO until Level-based Stat Raise gives them a little bit).

Relatedly, Hospice Knight and Vengeful Oath both modify LoH yet don't state LoH as Pre-Req which seems an over-sight. Other LoH-modifier Feats state Mercy as Pre-Req yet don't re-iterate LoH Pre-Req, which I'm not sure about.

ALSO: Auspicious Mount increases it's INT and let's it speak language, so should it now be able to act freely as NPC rather than subject to action limitations and rule restrictions for Companions/Command an Animal?


Quandary wrote:
The Champion Feats that MODIFY existing Spell Point powers (like Lay on Hand, but any really) don't seem to add any Spell Points. You can actually spend MANY Feats on supposedly improving your LoH, but you don't actually gain any LoH usages from doing so. I don't see why just because they are modifying existing Spell Point Power, and not adding new Power, why that justifies not granting a Spell Point. This is IMHO an egregious over-sight, of course MOST heavily hitting Paladins with less than stellar CHA (like Dwarves) ...Who even if they only dedicate themselves to LoH-improving feats, would barely have any Spell Points to use LoH (potentially ZERO until Level-based Stat Raise gives them a little bit).

a quick workaround for terrible Cha paladins is grabbing a spell pool with a different stat from an archetype.

like Wis based from monk or cleric, or Int based from wizard

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Paladin Playtest Feedback All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes