| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say all sorcerers. Archer sorcerers want to go fighter for point blank shot (courtesy of their new 6th level class feat) and there are a number of good weapon options for sorcerers for which we don't have deity options yet (such as bastard sword) so I think fighter dedication is still a strong pick for many builds.
However, the fact that you can take the paladin dedication line as a chaotic evil character while flagrantly ignoring the code of conduct is... more than a little weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot help but think that every sorcerer is going to multiclass into paladin, completely ignore the code of conduct due to the explicit lack of penalty for doing so, and then enjoy their medium armor. This seems like a ridiculous state of affairs for sorcerers.
I do not know how I would go about revising this, but it seems to me like the paladin multiclass feat should be for people interested in actually being a paladin, rather than sorcerers who want to wear medium armor for AC.
Armor use, bow use, shield use... And all I have to do is NOT follow the code of conduct? Ok. And you can even easily pick up 2 other feats, like basic benediction [divine grace], that you can use, while breaking the code, to finish up the archetype? Works for me.
Yes, I can definitely see bards and sorcerers multiclassing into paladin and actually following the code of conduct for that sweet, sweet Channel Life at 8th level. Channel Life is ridiculously good for bards and sorcerers to snatch up.
pg 109, Channel Life: "Prerequisites champion power (lay on hands)"
pg 106: "Champion powers are available only to paladins, and they can’t be learned by other characters."Though I would love for that option.
EDIT: I missed the Healing Touch feat for Lay on Hands. But it doesn't say that it gives Champion Powers, just Lay on Hands... I'd love if it worked.
Page 106 says it's a champion power.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a fan of part-time paladins with wishy-washy commitments.
IMO if you become a paladin you don't do anything else. Meaning all future class feats should be Paladin feats.
You're either on the Paladin path or you're not.
I don't like that part -- D&D 3E restricted monk and paladin multi-classing at the request of players, and as D&D 3.5 progressed they came up with various ways to get around a restriction that made no sense.
But I can think of a couple of things that might make the Paladin Dedication feat work better:
1) Include alignment and deity in the prerequisites. At some point, you need to qualify as a paladin to take this feat.
2) Rearrange the benefits of the paladin multi-classing feats so that violating the code of conduct actually causes you to lose abilities even if you only have the P. By the present scheme, none of the abilities granted by the Paladin Dedication feat are at risk if he falls.
Alternatively, it might make sense to cause a PC who violates the code to lose the benefit of all paladin multi-classing feats until he atones -- then only a character who intends to follow the paladin code would want to take paladin multi-classing feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a fan of part-time paladins with wishy-washy commitments.
IMO if you become a paladin you don't do anything else. Meaning all future class feats should be Paladin feats.
You're either on the Paladin path or you're not.
I don't like that part -- D&D 3E restricted monk and paladin multi-classing at the request of players, and as D&D 3.5 progressed they came up with various ways to get around a restriction that made no sense.
But I can think of a couple of things that might make the Paladin Dedication feat work better:
1) Include alignment and deity in the prerequisites. At some point, you need to qualify as a paladin to take this feat.
2) Rearrange the benefits of the paladin multi-classing feats so that violating the code of conduct actually causes you to lose abilities even if you only have the P. By the present scheme, none of the abilities granted by the Paladin Dedication feat are at risk if he falls. I don't see why we should be more restrictive than the classic method.
Alternatively, it might make sense to cause a PC who violates the code to lose the benefit of all paladin multi-classing feats until he atones -- then only a character who intends to follow the paladin code would want to take paladin multi-classing feats.
The thing is, pathfinder classic paladins didn't lose armor/weapon proficiencies either so it seems in step with that. I don't see why you SHOULD lose mundane abilities.
"Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)."
Note "but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies". Why should we be more restrictive than the pathfinder classic paladin?
I've taken the loh/champ powers question here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs42agi?Paladin-Dedication-and-Champion-Powers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Screw that. My Goblin Fey Sorcerer is going Cavalier for a Wolf pet. My dex is decent, so I will just grab Light Armor prof with a general feat and be happy with that.
I can heal. I can nuke. I got a cool puppy. Why would I be a Paladin M/C? For what? Armor and some healing ability I get WAAAAY later? No thanks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the issue is not Sorcs wanting to multiclass as paladins for AC, the issue is sorcs having such an awful AC themselves and martials having few ways to protect the squishies behind them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The code of conduct and alignment requirements are not left out.
If you don't follow both of them, you don't get any benefits from your Paladin archetype, except for weapon proficiency, armor and shields proficiencies and the use of Retributive Strike 1/day.
Paladins who would break their code of conduct and/or oaths in 1st edition would lose of all their class features but not their weapons and armor proficiencies.
As such, I take no issue with the current Paladin archetype.
You could be a Chaotic Neutral Paladin in 1st edition and you still kept your proficiencies in weapons and armors.
I see no reason to make this different in 2nd edition and that applies as well for multiclass characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if we're just talking about proficiencies the problem is the roleplay optics of choosing Paladin to get armor. If it were a generic "You can wear armor" archetype no one would have a problem (except when comparing its power against other feats)
The code of conduct and alignment requirements are not left out.
If you don't follow both of them, you don't get any benefits from your Paladin archetype, except for weapon proficiency, armor and shields proficiencies and the use of Retributive Strike 1/day.
But since alignment and deity are not part of the prerequisites for the Paladin Dedication feat, what is stopping a character who never met those requirements from taking the feat? All he loses are things he never got in the first place.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Requirement: 15 Charisma; Alignment -Lawful Good
Fixed it for ya'll.
Seriously though, the Armor and Weapon Training should be a different Feat and the Dedication needs to give the PC something with some actual, you know, Paladin flavor to it, not just mechanical benefits.
Or with taking the Paladin dedication, you become a Paladin with your whole heart.
If you break the code, in addition to losing your nonexistent paladin features you also lose all magic abilities and spells regardless of class.
Now Bards and Sorcerers will read the code.
Or with taking the Paladin dedication, you become a Paladin with your whole heart.
If you break the code, in addition to losing your nonexistent paladin features you also lose all magic abilities and spells regardless of class.Now Bards and Sorcerers will read the code.
So, as long as you don't have magical abilities you are fine? Like, say, a Brute Rogue that wants splint mail proficiency? A strength-monk that cares not for ki/stances, just likes that punching and speed? A barbarian that really only wants to get divine grace at 4 to compliment superstition totem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Losing all benefits from paladin multi-classing feats would be a more intuitive penalty for falling, even if it exceeds what an actual paladin who falls would lose.
So, as long as you don't have magical abilities you are fine? Like, say, a Brute Rogue that wants splint mail proficiency? A strength-monk that cares not for ki/stances, just likes that punching and speed? A barbarian that really only wants to get divine grace at 4 to compliment superstition totem?
Or you lose all class features and abilities. But that would be a bit much so we might need another limitation. :)
But if they go with paladin as so restricted, make the MC dedication also restricted.
The code of conduct and alignment requirements are not left out.
If you don't follow both of them, you don't get any benefits from your Paladin archetype, except for weapon proficiency, armor and shields proficiencies and the use of Retributive Strike 1/day.
But since alignment and deity are not part of the prerequisites for the Paladin Dedication feat, what is stopping a character who never met those requirements from taking the feat? All he loses are things he never got in the first place.
Yep. You can be a CE sorcerer, take the feat and walk away with armor, shield and a weapon proficiency... Seems like it's working just fine IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually kind of tickled by the idea of angelic or demonic sorcerers who take the paladin dedication feat and pretend to be paladins when actually being anything but. I've seen paladins in PF1 that basically used the class but not the code or alignment and this reminds me of them.
That seems really weird IMHO, failing Code never lost armor proficiency, and shouldn't.
Actually, I think one balance mechanism, if just losing a Class Feat isn't enough,
is Class Feats having "X Class Feat" requirement as well as Level (since Humans mess up that correlation).
This means choosing the Archetype Feat(s) means you really are that many Class Feats behind,
and can't just skip directly to the high level Feats, but must wade thru each tier of Feat, roughly.
(not every Class Feat needs same 1:1 correlation of Feat/Level requirement, allowing some more flexibility)
...OR, without imposing hard requirement, make every actual Class Skill more generically beneficial to have,
like ALL of them increasing Spell Point pool, not just the Spell Point powers (who would increase it more than generic Class Feats).
(the base Spell Point pool would need to be scaled down drastically to account for that, obviously)
Or having more mechanics based on how many of your own Class Feats you have.
So choosing not to take your Class Feats in favor of Archetype impacts your OVERALL Class power not just the detailed abilities you passed on.
But I think this whole debate is dancing around the issue: Armor on Casters. Droppping ASF% is experimental test, and I was never convinced of it myself.
(although I proposed betters mechanics for how it affects caster, more in tune with P2E paradigm)
Rather than tear our hair out about this, trying to find patch that damps down problem enough but doesn't become worthless,
just address the real Elephant in the room, and have reasonable trade-offs for armor with Arcane casters.
I think giving up Class Feat is (/should be) serious, and getting multiple proficiencies from Archtype is reasonable.
(but if ASF% exists, Arcane Caster may prefer their own armor feats only granting one tier but with ASF% reduction built in)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems really weird IMHO, failing Code never lost armor proficiency, and shouldn't.
Actually, I think one balance mechanism, if just losing a Class Feat isn't enough,
is Class Feats having "X Class Feat" requirement as well as Level (since Humans mess up that correlation).
This means choosing the Archetype Feat(s) means you really are that many Class Feats behind,
and can't just skip directly to the high level Feats, but must wade thru each tier of Feat, roughly.
(not every Class Feat needs same 1:1 correlation of Feat/Level requirement, allowing some more flexibility)...OR, without imposing hard requirement, make every actual Class Skill beneficial to have,
like ALL of them increasing Spell Point pool, not just the Spell Point powers (who would increase it more than generic Class Feats).
(the base Spell Point pool would need to be scaled down drastically to account for that, obviously)
So choosing not to take your Class Feats in favor of Archetype impacts your OVERALL Class power not just the detailed abilities you passed on.But I think this whole debate is dancing around the issue: Armor on Casters. Droppping ASF% is experimental test, and I was never convinced of it myself.
(although I proposed betters mechanics for how it affects caster, more in tune with P2E paradigm)
Rather than tear our hair out about this, trying to find patch that damps down problem enough but doesn't become worthless,
just address the real Elephant in the room, and have reasonable trade-offs for armor with Arcane casters.I think giving up Class Feat is (/should be) serious, and getting multiple proficiencies from Archtype is reasonable.
(but if ASF% exists, Arcane Caster may prefer their own armor feats only granting one tier but with ASF% reduction built in)
I REALLY don't want to go back to a point where we have class level and caster level independent of character level, TBH. I mean we kind of already do with the "take a feat from class but at half your level" multiclass feats.
I REALLY don't want to go back to a point where we have class level and caster level independent of character level, TBH. I mean we kind of already do with the "take a feat from class but at half your level" multiclass...
I've been playing around with what a more traditional multiclassing system might look like in PF2, and basically the only place you need to use class level is for what level you gain class features at and meeting feat prerequisites.
I honestly don't think there's anything standing in the way of just bringing back traditional multiclassing cold turkey and using character level for everything. I guess the tables would need to be changed to remove the reminders for general feats, skill feats, ability boosts, etc, but that needs to happen anyways. The tables are so cluttered currently that they're nearly useless. I had to create cleaner versions that only list actual class features so I can actually check the class at a glance.
Question on chaotic evil characters taking paladin dedication. Paladin dedication says to "choose a deity as you would if you were a paladin." (emphasis mine) Wouldn't that mean the deity has to be a deity that would have paladins and that you would need to be a legal alignment for said deity?
I mean, I guess you could start out neutral good or lawful good, take the dedication feat, and immediately go "mwahaha I am evil now," but I don't think you could start evil and take it because of the aforementioned line.
This brings up an interesting point. The Section that specifies that you must be lawful good is in the same section as the part that specifies that you must worship a deity that allows lawful good clerics. I guess it depends on the ruling as to whether a CE character can worship such a deity, which is probably a bit of a stretch, but it's not a hard and fast thing, because there's no rules which would specifically allow non-cleric Neutral worshipers of Sarenrae, for instance.
Additionally, it makes for an odd question of is "You must be Lawful Good" from the code of conduct a hard rule, or is it simply a necessity for following the code of conduct, which someone who only takes the feat for the armor doesn't care about. I.e is it an unlisted prerequisite, or not (aka, does the "you must abide by the code of conduct" part of the Paladin dedication apply before the character takes the feat or not, in the same way that a CE character can't choose to be a Paladin, and immediately fail the code of conduct for being CE).
Seriously though, the Armor and Weapon Training should be a different Feat and the Dedication needs to give the PC something with some actual, you know, Paladin flavor to it, not just mechanical benefits.
I liked this idea...
Question on chaotic evil characters taking paladin dedication. Paladin dedication says to "choose a deity as you would if you were a paladin." (emphasis mine) Wouldn't that mean the deity has to be a deity that would have paladins and that you would need to be a legal alignment for said deity?
You have to pick a "a deity that allows lawful good clerics." It doesn't say you have to worship the deity, just you have to pick from the same list. Alignment and worship are all listed under code: full stop.
Now look at the rest: "You become bound by your deity’s anathema and must abide by the paladin’s code of conduct and alignment requirements (though you might not lose any benefits for breaking it unless you take other paladin archetype feats)." You gain the deity’s anathema, the paladin’s code of conduct and alignment requirements after you pick the deity. Without any prerequisite other than stat, you don't gain the limitations until AFTER you take the feat meaning you immediately fall if you can't keep them up.
is it an unlisted prerequisite, or not
I think this is the wrong question. As written, it's not a requirement and doesn't stop any alignment from taking the feat. I think the question would be "it alignment intended to be a requirement to take it?" If so, they'll need to errata it and add that requirement.
I'm actually kind of tickled by the idea of angelic or demonic sorcerers who take the paladin dedication feat and pretend to be paladins when actually being anything but. I've seen paladins in PF1 that basically used the class but not the code or alignment and this reminds me of them.
It's like that old thing with a villain joining a heroic institution for corrupt reasons, which become clear when they later fail to have the pureness of heart to learn the true abilities of said faction.
I'm actually kind of tickled by the idea of angelic or demonic sorcerers who take the paladin dedication feat and pretend to be paladins when actually being anything but. I've seen paladins in PF1 that basically used the class but not the code or alignment and this reminds me of them.It's like that old thing with a villain joining a heroic institution for corrupt reasons, which become clear when they later fail to have the pureness of heart to learn the true abilities of said faction.
Yep. They join and start training but end up getting kicked out. Even better, the paladins might have been trying to redeem the character and knew they were CE by showing then the right way and it didn't work. ;)
Yep. They join and start training but end up getting kicked out. Even better, the paladins might have been trying to redeem the character and knew they were CE by showing then the right way and it didn't work. ;)I'm actually kind of tickled by the idea of angelic or demonic sorcerers who take the paladin dedication feat and pretend to be paladins when actually being anything but. I've seen paladins in PF1 that basically used the class but not the code or alignment and this reminds me of them.It's like that old thing with a villain joining a heroic institution for corrupt reasons, which become clear when they later fail to have the pureness of heart to learn the true abilities of said faction.
I feel like the one thing here I can't wipe from my head is that the sorcerer MCing into pally, is a demonic sorc goblin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's weird that there's no alignment requirement (though, a reformed scoundrel who decided to devote their life to others, and willinging changing their alignment and behavior when taking the MC is some great roleplay material), but tbh, I'm happy about it since I think the strictness of the paladin's alignment restrictions and conduct are an artifice of the past that need to get toned down and loosened.
Clerics, who get WAY more powers from their god, are allowed quite a bit of leeway in their behavior (even to the point of minor alignment deviance) before losing their powers from said god. Furthermore, both our main CG gods in Golarian would be great fluff for paladin candidates (Cayden having a group the strikes down tyrants and frees slaves, Desna smites nightmares and inspires hope). I'm actually glad paizo is going away from the old model
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could buffing Mage Armor be a reasonable change? I don't see a big reason for it not being +2 ac as the first level spell. And then just buff the rest of the AC effects by one in the heightened versions. (Btw reading Mage Armor made me think, does it really do nothing for your TAC, because that is just weird).
Page 292 : Anything that gives you a bonus or penalty to Armor Class also gives you an equal bonus or penalty to Touch Armor Class unless stated otherwise.
Mage Armor does improve both your AC and TAC.
However, the numbers really need a buff for it to become a viable alternative to using regular armour.
I'm kind of hoping there isn't a stipulated alignment restriction to the archetype prerequisites turns out to be a hint that the final version of the paladin will be loosened and restructured so that it can be the chassis for a divine champion of any deity. Were that the case, then it could reasonably expected that anybody thinking of multiclassing paladin could find a deity whose ethos they would want to emulate, and problem solved.
That being said, though, if they decide to leave the paladin restrictions in place, then they should probably just include the alignment as part of the prerequisites for the archetype to make it crystal clear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this as a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.
Might sorcerers dipping in order to gain armor and weapon proficiencies be a comment on the sorcerer's lack of armor and weapon options?
Mage armor used to have the stats of a basic chain shirt, +4 AC. Now it gets that only once heightened. It's no longer a true 1st level spell since the sorcerer has to heighten it kind of a lot in order to keep at least some relevance with the other PCs. And even then with the '+(num) to AC and +(num-1) to saves" it has the same stat-feel as a suit of leather armor with a level appropriate rune. Why wouldn't a sorcerer use their mandatory 18 charisma to dip into paladin for a level to get access to a suit of halfplate or chainmail? This is why spell failure existed, to prevent this kind of basic logic. It was a cost-benefit analysis in 1E whereas now it's simply a benefit, the cost is missing.
Then there's weapons. As a sorcerer you don't become an expert in your own magic until level 12. That's a long time to wait for a measly +1. And you never get anything other than 'trained in simple weapons' so once you're out of spells you can't even hit anything with your backup crossbow. You just, what, sit in the back? Contribute to the 10 minute adventuring day problem? The ability to be trained in a cool weapon is worth a feat for many sorcerers, I had one in a 1E game who burned a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) for the look and feel of it. If that same sorcerer realizes he could get armor out of it too with no extra cost then why wouldn't he take the opportunity?
Alignment as a prerequisite would be a start. Maybe giving paladins actual consequences for falling would be a start. Maybe making the sorcerers feel less like fresh numerical butts would be a start.
But a blanket ban to cure the symptom without addressing the underlying problem is not a start.
Yeah, I've posted how I feel ASF% still deserves a place in the game, also including some ideas on how it could work differently (not using d100 for one, but more than that, because when everybody just uses whatever they can get 0% in it feels strange).
I'm kind of hoping there isn't a stipulated alignment restriction to the archetype prerequisites turns out to be a hint that the final version of the paladin will be loosened and restructured so that it can be the chassis for a divine champion of any deity.
That was my first thought when I saw the lack of alignment prerequisites for the Paladin archetype.
I took it as a sign that Paizo may finally be considering doing away with the LG restriction.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I took it as a sign that Paizo may finally be considering doing away with the LG restriction.
They clearly are considering it, yes. It's in the Class Survey for Paladin to state your preferences in regard to available Paladin Alignments, and whether you prefer Paladin as the name of the Class as a whole, or only the LG variant.
So it'll probably depend fairly heavily on how that survey turns out what we wind up with. I voted for the '4 Corners' model, personally.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with the multiclassing as long as their is SOME stipulation of actually following Paladin codes.
I'm playing a Half-Orc Sorc/Pal who's background is this:
Krovash is an acolyte, he was found as a baby on an alter to some terrible thing by a Paladin of Iomedae who took me with them, potentially after killing the people who were going to sacrifice him/ were his parents, who knows. He was raised in a temple, and always wanted to be a Paladin, but eventually, his Demonic bloodline powers kicked in and it became clear he was a sorcerer. Rather than reject him though, the temple simply taught him to control the evil within his blood and use it to help the world. Whilehe never got to finish his training as a paladin, he uses what he had learned along with his growing magical powers to make the world at least a little better.(edited)
Krovash is comfortable using the tools of evil to fight for good, he wields a staff of necromancy and will frequently tap into his demonic blood's powers, but he knows only to do so in order to serve Good and never in anger.
As long as the player confines to LG (or whatever Paladin code they follow) I am very okay with it, especially since Sorcerer by itself is so... bland.
I strongly suspect that the final version of the Divine Champion multiclass will give you the abilities appropriate to whichever alignment you actually are; for characters multiclassing into alignments that don't exist yet, they probably simply won't have any abilities until some are printed.
Likely the archetype will say something like "choose a Champion path that matches your alignment, you gain [X ability] from that path".