|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was was wary about Paladins being touted as the masters of armor, and after reviewing over the weeks, my opinion hasn't lightened. Putting my bias out there, I've played Heavy Armor characters before, but the only Heavy Armor Paladin I've ever played is my most recent one, a Vindictive Bastard hilariously enough (they're a Fallen Paladin Archetype). I like being mobile, or simply just tanking hits (Barbarian is my favourite class). I know "Knight in Shining Armor" is a saying, but I've never envisioned that to be literally clad in heavy cumbersome armor, just be a hero.
Looking over the forums about them being masters as well it readily seems that, plainly, no one cares (watch this thread get a deluge of posters saying they love the Paladin being the Heavy Armor class). Note, I don't take issue with them getting Armor/defense related boosts, I just don't like it being a core of them, specifically Heavy Armor being integral.
This was exemplified when the Paladin Multiclass package was released, with very few people talking about it in regards to gaining Paladin abilities while an overwhelming majority of people are discussing it solely in order to take the Armor Proficiencies with pretty much full disregard for the Paladin package itself. In a way this is worse than previous Editions' "How do I get Divine Grace onto my Character...".
Not throwing shade at the people doing so however, since that's the most effective and efficient way to get Heavy Proficiency (among other goodies), as early as level 2 rather than spending 3 General Feats solely for Heavy Armor Proficiency and having to wait till 11th level at the earliest to get it. Then there's the fact that this train of thought seems to be encouraged as well, "Want Heavy Armor? Multiclass into Paladin!" ????? Even stranger is this is why so many people were taking the Fighter Multiclass and they removed the shortcut to Heavy Armor for it.
If someone said to me (and I was unaware) that there was a feat line you could take to get Paladin abilities Heavy Armor Proficiency would certainly be the last thing on my mind, and it certainly wouldn't be on a list of wants.
Paladins are limited in armor choice due to their reliance on charisma. Since they have charisma to worry about (unlike the fighter or barbarian), they have less leeway to get the decent dex needed to make light and medium armor work.
Ironically this is mostly an issue at the lowest levels before the first ability boosts kick in and you hardly have much heavy armor at those levels.
I'm really not sure why paladins can't simply become legendary in all armor types.
As for the multiclassing, I don't think paladin needs heavy armor. They already get shield proficiency, one weapon proficiency and two skills. Reducing them to next higher armor proficiency like the fighter would probably be reasonable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe add;
Divine protection: while you are not wearing any armor or using a shield you can add charisma bonus to AC.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should make a class called Knight and have it be the heavy armored figther type class. Change the paladins up and change some of their abilities. make them a bit more like pally classic. basically split what is currently the paladin into 2 different classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should make a class called Knight and have it be the heavy armored figther type class. Change the paladins up and change some of their abilities. make them a bit more like pally classic. basically split what is currently the paladin into 2 different classes.
Since they moved the Cavalier mounty stuff to an Archetype I wouldn't mind there being a Knight Class introduced that builds off the good parts of the Samurai and Cavalier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the best shield in the game thanks to shield ally and easily accessible one action self healing, I'd say paladins are already among the hardest to kill characters.
Having their armor mastery not tied to heavy armor would be nice so we can have more agile/mobile paladins. Other than that I don't thinks Paladins need much help for tanking.
(At least in terms of durability. Threat management is another story.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone else pointed out, had the archetype for heavy armor proficiency been based on a class not as thematic as the Paladin no one would mind so much. If, for example, rather than Paladin we had Cavalier, with an Order that granted the various Paladin abilities in its line, and you had to multiclass into Cavalier, I doubt anyone would have cared.
But as you suggest, being a Paladin has, or should have, a meaning... and being "the way to be best in heavy armor" has never been that meaning.
The Pathfinder 2.0 Playtest doesn't describe what Chain Mail or Half Plate must look like, only its benefits and costs. There's nothing stopping you, or any player, from saying that their paladin's Half Plate is a pair of heavy steel boots and matching gauntlets.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder 2.0 Playtest doesn't describe what Chain Mail or Half Plate must look like, only its benefits and costs. There's nothing stopping you, or any player, from saying that their paladin's Half Plate is a pair of heavy steel boots and matching gauntlets.
Verisimilitude?
Some people are perfectly fine with their armor type not actually matching up to their outfit like that, I'm not one of them.
Verisimilitude?
Some people are perfectly fine with their armor type not actually matching up to their outfit like that, I'm not one of them.
Okay, well if you want verisimilitude then warriors should wear armour, and not doing so should make you more vulnerable. If you want to be mobile nothing stops you from wearing Hide armour. It you want to tank hits then invest in a high Constitution and invest in shields.
You can't have mobility AND durability AND wear no armour AND verisimilitude. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Maybe add;
Divine protection: while you are not wearing any armor or using a shield you can add charisma bonus to AC.
This makes the baseline for unarmored paladins better than monks.
1) I said verisimilitude, not realism.
2) I very well can, thank you very much.
3) The phrase is "eat your cake and have it too"
1) Verisimilitude: "the appearance of being true or real." (OED)
2) Cool. Give me an example of a highly mobile, very durable Paladin wearing no armour being "the appearance of being true or real."
3) The phrase is correct when spoken in either direction, check Wikipedia.
|
|
1) I said verisimilitude, not realism.
2) I very well can, thank you very much.
3) The phrase is "eat your cake and have it too"
1) Verisimilitude: "the appearance of being true or real." (OED)
2) Cool. Give me an example of a highly mobile, very durable Paladin wearing no armour being "the appearance of being true or real."
3) The phrase is correct when spoken in either direction, check Wikipedia.
1) Correct, the "appearance" of being realistic, not actually being realistic.
2) I'm not sure what the last part of your question even means in this context? In 1st there was plenty of archetypes that allowed you to be mobile and durable, Paladin had two that I know of, the Iroran Paladin and Virtuous Bravo. Neither of those are verisimilitude breaking.
3. Okies (it still bugs me when I see it)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it makes sense to me that Paladins are the most defensive class- they have to be able to defend themselves in order to defend others.
But I really wish the "critical path for heavy armor proficiency" were something other than "multiclass paladin." If we insist on carrying on in this direction, it's probably best to eliminate the Paladin entirely and replace it with a similar class with less baggage of which the Paladin is one.
But yeah, PF2 does this strange thing where we lock classes into certain types of armor based on how we hand out proficiencies. For me "fighters are strongly encouraged to go for heavy armor" is even more jarring since the fighter class is basically the catch-all for "all martially inclined people who don't fit into any of the other boxes", not all of which want heavy armor.
I think we might just need to rethink how armor works in PF2. Heavy armor feels most appealing for spellcasters who don't want to put points in dex, honestly.
1) I said verisimilitude, not realism.
2) I very well can, thank you very much.
3) The phrase is "eat your cake and have it too"
1) Verisimilitude: "the appearance of being true or real." (OED)
2) Cool. Give me an example of a highly mobile, very durable Paladin wearing no armour being "the appearance of being true or real."
3) The phrase is correct when spoken in either direction, check Wikipedia.
1) Correct, the "appearance" of being realistic, not actually being realistic.
2) I'm not sure what the last part of your question even means in this context? In 1st there was plenty of archetypes that allowed you to be mobile and durable, Paladin had two that I know of, the Iroran Paladin and Virtuous Bravo. Neither of those are verisimilitude breaking.
3. Okies (it still bugs me when I see it)
I don't think it's very fair to say that fluffing heavy armour's appearance is unacceptable, but letting someone block sword strikes and dodge arrows with their roguish good looks follows 'verisimilitude'. Why do you get to decide what's verisimile and what isn't? And why should the Paladin get to add their Charisma to their unarmoured AC? Monks don't add their Wisdom to their unarmoured AC in this edition. Barbarians don't add their Constitution to their unarmoured AC either.
If you want your Paladin to feel mobile and tough, give them hide armour, high constitution, and a shield. Ask your GM if you can have their Heavy Armour training apply to medium instead. Heck, you could ask for it to apply to Unarmored Defence instead like the Monk. I'd say yes to both of those requests at my table. Just don't ask for Heavy Armour-level AC while wearing no armour, because that would make you sound like you just want the protection of heavy armour with none of the costs, and obviously you wouldn't start a thread just to complain about that.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's very fair to say that fluffing heavy armour's appearance is unacceptable,Reflavouring the style/look of armor is one thing, completely abstracting it into something else not even remotely the same is a completely different thing. Whether it’s bulky Full Plate that’s just gauntlets and boots, or a bikini, or a necklace, or a geataxe that’s turned into a butter knife by the player/GM wanting that flavor (glamor’s a whole other sofry), that completely breaks my suspension of disbelief.
but letting someone block sword strikes and dodge arrows with their roguish good looks follows 'verisimilitude'.Having a palpable force of personality/will/aura is a common trope in fantasy.
Why do you get to decide what's verisimile and what isn't?*blink* whoa, whoa, calm down please. Verisimilitude limits and preferences is different for every person. I thought that was a given so that’s why didn’t I bother specifying “my” verisimilitude.
And why should the Paladin get to add their Charisma to their unarmoured AC?It was a suggestion.
Monks don't add their Wisdom to their unarmoured AC in this edition.That’s sad, i’d suggest they would.
Barbarians don't add their Constitution to their unarmoured AC either.
Also something to suggest.
If you want your Paladin to feel mobile and tough, give them hide armour, high constitution, and a shield.That doesn’t address the issue inherent in the class though.
Ask your GM if you can have their Heavy Armour training apply to medium instead. Heck, you could ask for it to apply to Unarmored Defence instead like the Monk. I'd say yes to both of those requests at my table.Good suggestions after the fact, but we’re still in the Playtest where everything is I being worked on.
Just don't ask for Heavy Armour-level AC while wearing no armour, because that would make you sound like you just want the protection of heavy armour with none of the costs, and obviously you wouldn't start a thread just to complain about that.
I... haven’t?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll reiterate, since I need to apparently otherwise assumptions start popping up about what I really intended when I made this thread. Or something. I’m so confused.
Anyway. I’m fine with Paladins being tanks, I’m fine with them wearing heavy armor. I’m not fine with them being the heavy armor class, that you have to Multiclass into if you want to be good with heavy armor.
As for actual AC, isn’t everyone about the same in regards to the scale of Dex vs Armor and it’s only the Proficiency increases that raise the Paladin’s AC higher than others? Those only start to kick in past level 10.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize if I came off as overly confrontational. I just, well, fundamentally disagree with most of your views here. I don't think roleplaying plate armour as smaller pieces is a huge suspension of disbelief, since it's just a small visual change that doesn't impact the functionality whatsoever. On the other hand, I think add your Charisma modifier as an Armour bonus to AC is preposterous unless it's from a clearly supernatural source, like how Mage Armour works. Having a winning personality should not make my character harder to hit with weapons. Having a supernatural armour made from my own faith made manifest, sure, it's magic so whatever.
I'd also argue against the balance of allowing your attribute modifier to AC since heavy armour only grants up to +7 (base 6 plus max dex mod of 2) while a character with Charisma Armour could easily start with that much while ignoring the dex cap, check penalty, speed penalty, and bulk that comes with heavy armour. It's not exactly fair to tell Paladins "Hey, you can wear this big heavy expensive steel armour, or you can just go shirtless into battle and have the same AC." It makes investing in actual armour suck - and remember, even if you don't get better training in this Charisma Armour, your Dex and Cha modifiers can still go up as you level so it'll probably be the same or better.
There is one thing we both agree on, we don't like Paladins being the heavy armour class. I think that martial characters' training should be a lot more flexible, let them invest in weapons and armour the same way they invest in and improve their skills. What if I want to play a Monk who uses exotic martial arts weapons instead of unarmed strikes? How about a Fighter who brawls with the best of them, or a Ranger who uses a bladed whip to slice and ensnare foes? Instead of getting specific training, martials should get Combat Increases, which work like Skill Increases but are only applied to your proficiency in weapon and armour groups.
I'd rather see them divorce armor proficiency from class. Provider a set about of proficiency increases and let players put them where they will. Want a heavy armor Rogue, go for it but you'll miss out on saving throws. Want a light armor Paladin, go for it and boost that sword to legendary instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestions to fix the paladins need heavy armor issue:
1) First, fix heavy armor up a bit. The benefit is you don't need as much Dex to keep a good AC. The penalties include a large penalty on strength or dexterity based skills (bigger for dex, since you also have a lower dex), a much slower move speed, a higher bulk (I guess offset by having higher strength since you don't need dex) and a lower TAC anyways. Considering how easy it is to up dexterity as you level, it just seems logical (to me) to up your dex a couple times and eventually outgrow your fullplate. Instead, make heavy armor better. Options include giving some trait-like advantage (like weapons have good traits, armor could and should too), a slightly higher AC (max 8 or 9 perhaps), or simply cutting the penalties back a decent bit if the game is unbalanced by armor giving some small bonuses. At least make it no longer worse than medium.
2) Now move anything that upgrades heavy armor proficiency to upgrading all armor proficiencies. Since there is a reason to wear heavy armor independent of proficiency, it doesn't have to be the best. A paladin thus can wear light armor with full proficiency if they prefer the aesthetic and invest in dex-based fighting, or they can wear full plate and ignore dex all the way, and they aren't punished either way, just benefit in different ways.
3) Change fighter and paladin dedications to be more similar. Fighter dedication gives all armors and martial weapons, Paladin gives all armors and martial weapons, and their deity's weapon. Paladin also gives Lay on Hands as an innate spell 1/day, giving them a reason to follow the code of conduct instead of being the best option for paladins of all alignments. EDIT: and make it clear that violating the paladin restrictions takes away lay on hands, and perhaps replace the 1/day Retributive Strike.
With the above changes, people don't MC paladin simply because it is the best path for heavy armor, stick around for divine grace, then go about doing the exact opposite of the paladin code because they can. Similarly, paladins can wear whatever armor they feel like investing in without feeling penalized for their choice. The heavy armor has definite benefits over medium/light armor, ones which actually outweigh the penalties, and yet the light and medium armor also have benefits over heavy armor (or at least, a lack of the penalties).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind the Paladin being the heavily-armored base class. However I wish for the core rulebook to have reasonably generic archetypes for becoming legendary in a given proficiency.
Grey Maiden has too much baggage, Stalwart Defender would have been preferable.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe add;
Divine protection: while you are not wearing any armor or using a shield you can add charisma bonus to AC.
with the tightening of math Paizo aren't allowing two stats to add to AC. Perhaps a feat that allows the user to use charisma instead of dex when calculating AC.
|
|
I apologize if I came off as overly confrontational.S'okay.
I just, well, fundamentally disagree with most of your views here. I don't think roleplaying plate armour as smaller pieces is a huge suspension of disbelief, since it's just a small visual change that doesn't impact the functionality whatsoever.Yep, we fundamentally disagree here, as saying this single gauntlet or bikini bottom (which I don't believe is a "small" visual change) is equal to full plate in protection without magic.
On the other hand, I think add your Charisma modifier as an Armour bonus to AC is preposterous unless it's from a clearly supernatural source,[ like how Mage Armour works. Having a winning personality should not make my character harder to hit with weapons. Having a supernatural armour made from my own faith made manifest, sure, it's magic so whatever.And we're back to fundamentally disagreeing, though I will point out that the Monk's Wisdom to AC is an Extraordinary ability as well.I'd also argue against the balance of allowing your attribute modifier to AC since heavy armour only grants up to +7 (base 6 plus max dex mod of 2) while a character with Charisma Armour could easily start with that much while ignoring the dex cap,Could it actually start out like that though with with the way stat generation works? And if even if it did they would have to neglect all their other stats to do so.
and remember, even if you don't get better training in this Charisma Armour, your Dex and Cha modifiers can still go up as you level so it'll probably be the same or better.This would be a legitimate concern, yes.
There is one thing we both agree on, we don't like Paladins being the heavy armour class.Agreed.I think that martial characters' training should be a lot more flexible, let them invest in weapons and armour the same way they invest in and improve their skills. What if I want to play a Monk who uses exotic martial arts weapons instead of unarmed strikes? How about a Fighter who brawls with the best of them, or a Ranger who uses a bladed whip to slice and ensnare foes? Instead of getting specific training, martials should get Combat Increases, which work like Skill Increases but are only applied to your proficiency in weapon and armour groups.
Also agreed, I would love for the classes to have a pool of Proficiency points or something at character creation similar to skills that they can dole out to customize what all they use. I'm a Wizard, I don't wanna use crossbows, I'll put it in light armor or boost unarmored. I'm a Paladin but I want to be sneaky so I'll put them in shields and light armor rather than heavy, etc
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if we're just looking at weapon and armour proficiencies (and treating some martial weapons as all martial weapons for simplicity:
Total Combat Increases by class by level 20:
Barbarian: 7
Bard: 4
Cleric: 4
Druid: 4
Fighter: ~21
Monk: 7
Paladin: ~18
Ranger: ~10
Rogue: 6
Sorcerer: 1
Wizard 1
Assume that characters need Simple weapon proficiency before they can take Marital weapon proficiency, and they need Light armour before shields or medium armour, and medium armour before they can take heavy armour. I'm counting increases to one type of weapon as a combat increase, as well as increases to the entire field of simple/martial weapons. For the rogue I'm counting rogue weapons as their own category since it's fairly wide, but I' m not counting the cleric's deity weapon or the druid's scimitar proficiency.
This isn't taking into account saving throw proficiency or spellcasting proficiency, since their of them uses weapons.