Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previews


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And originally elf was a class. Why is that statement even remotely relevant?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

I mean a thing I'm going to be watching closely is whether the CG champion is an inconveniently chaotic as the Paladin has historically been inconveniently lawful.

Like let's do "Disrespect every authority, flout every convention or social more, and break every rule or law unless it would directly harm an innocent or would cause you to violate a higher tenet" or something. We'll always have the NG "Just do good" one for easymode.


I am not fine with necromancers at my table.

I can just say summoning undead is evil and you can't expect to do that nonsense at my table without repercussions. I make those repercussions up as I see fit. The rpg police won't come in and tell me I can't do that.

If you want paladin to mean the Sturm Brightblade LG trope and only that, then at your table can just do that. Its not a hard thing to do. It actually super easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I'd prefer paladins to be a LG-only thing, but after the messageboard debate from a few months back, I ended up thinking that this change is the direction they should go (or perhaps the "4-axis" route).

Honestly, it's not a surprising change. PF2 is quite revolutionary. Clinging on to old conventions like that would almost be against the spirit of the new game, imo.


All of these changes sound excellent to me. I'm hoping they go with something more like Knight for the overarching name of the class rather than champion and give it some options for being non divine, just tried good as well. That's probably farther than they're going to go though.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm happy about all classes getting their own sub-specialization, and am cautiously optimistic about Defenders of Goodness for each of the Upper Planes.

At first I was disappointed, as in, "Wait, you can sign on for that class and not necessarily be a Forthright Vanguard of Honour & Justice?"
Then, later, I could understand the benefits of including other sub-class paths in Core: just like celestials are better at co-operation than fiends, you can have three people in sanctified armour, the LG one actively fighting evil, the NG one working to redeem evildoers, and the CG one protecting the good people from Hellknights who ask, "Are you a paladin? 'Cause you gotta tell me if you are."

Really, the only letdown for me is them having to be monotheistic. I like it when paragons of virtue get to practice moral pluralism: Enemies attacking? Torag's dogma can help out! The enemy surrendered? Sarenrae knows all about mercy and redemption! In the meantime, Irori helps with self-improvement, and so on. (Also, if you're fighting someone spec'd for disarms, it helps to have multiple holy symbols)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the only significant difference is code, then it’s majorly disappointing.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea that a champion of good and "Forthright Vanguard of Honour & Justice" shouldn't be allowed holy powers and defensive abilities just because they're not lawful is a ridiculous restriction and I'm glad they're removing it.

Also I am very happy with alchemist getting the choice to not be a bomber focused character.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

I mean, you haven't playtested the 1.6 verson, let alone the final. How the heck do you know that the class chassis wont be changed to be more like how you want it, or that the Paladin won't be different enough from the other sub-classes to fit your idea of a Paladin? You said that the chassis of the current Paladin isn't Paladin-like for you but this update is said to be a major change so for all you know it could be adjusting more to your liking rather than less.

It's kinda hard taking any decrying of the 1.6 Paladin seriously, let alone the final version, when you haven't even seen either yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

I mean, you haven't playtested the 1.6 verson, let alone the final. How the heck do you know that the class chassis wont be changed to be more like how you want it, or that the Paladin won't be different enough from the other sub-classes to fit your idea of a Paladin? You said that the chassis of the current Paladin isn't Paladin-like for you but this update is said to be a major change so for all you know it could be adjusting more to your liking rather than less.

It's kinda hard taking any decrying of the 1.6 Paladin seriously, let alone the final version, when you haven't even seen either yet.

I don't think you understand that the exclusivity of the class was important. To you the important bits were the abilities. To us it was a combination of things, a perfect storm, and widening it so that there are others who are only a slightly bit different... That's enough to damage one if the main elements that made a Paladin a Paladin.

It is honestly like saying, "You guys played LG this whole time? Dealt with all that BS for years? Ha! Suckers! It never mattered! Losers! Now we're giving them to CG and NG no strings."

Yeah. No thanks.


22 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

I mean, you haven't playtested the 1.6 verson, let alone the final. How the heck do you know that the class chassis wont be changed to be more like how you want it, or that the Paladin won't be different enough from the other sub-classes to fit your idea of a Paladin? You said that the chassis of the current Paladin isn't Paladin-like for you but this update is said to be a major change so for all you know it could be adjusting more to your liking rather than less.

It's kinda hard taking any decrying of the 1.6 Paladin seriously, let alone the final version, when you haven't even seen either yet.

I don't think you understand that the exclusivity of the class was important. To you the important bits were the abilities. To us it was a combination of things, a perfect storm, and widening it so that there are others who are only a slightly bit different... That's enough to damage one if the main elements that made a Paladin a Paladin.

It is honestly like saying, "You guys played LG this whole time? Dealt with all that BS for years? Ha! Suckers! It never mattered! Losers! Now we're giving them to CG and NG no strings."

Yeah. No thanks.

Yeah, how dare other people have fun!


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm obsessed with paladins in any game system and I very much prefer them to be lawful good, to such an extent that I've ranted about the nuances available to explore in even that restricted alignment space. Paladins are a Big Deal for me.

That being said, it boggles my mind how worked up people are getting over Paladins sharing a class chassis with other good, divine champions. I cannot fathom the reasoning. Roleplay is the important part, why get hung up on sharing some mechanics so other character concepts can see the light of day?

What concerns me FAR MORE is the current design of paladins forcing heavy armor down your throat and saddling you with the hideously terrible retributive strike. Paladins are a divine blade weilded by the fundamental forces of good to strike down evil, not bodyguards.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:
Yeah, how dare other people have fun!

Ya, that's my take on it. Nothing is stopping folks from making an extremely easy house rule to limit paladin alignment. Demanding other tables be subject to their lore based whims seems way off to me.

I have been reading through my rpg catalogue and I really like how 13th Age did paladins. They give an intro and said that at some tables they are only good, at others only lawful good, at some they can be evil too. Its for the table to decide. Similarly, clerics there can pray to a single deity, a pantheon, an ideal, or whatever makes sense for the world the DM has crafted.

This is, IMHO, the BEST way to handle this sort of non-mechanical stuff. Just lay out a wide range of lore possibilities and let people know that its ok to run it as they see fit.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

And it's about dang time. Classes with narrow flavor don't belong in the core rulebook of a roleplaying game meant to work for multiple settings. The Paladin, as it has existed, belonged in some setting-specific splatbook. Hopefully this mistake won't be repeated and we'll get only generic, broad fantasy tropes for the hardcover line.

The people saying that there should be only one divinely-powered full martial class and it should be restricted to a single alignment boggle my mind. Your aesthetic preferences are not gospel, and other people should be allowed to play and enjoy things outside your personal preferences. It is because of this mentality that I am so pleased to see the LG restriction going away. I hate to see that mentality concerning a cooperative, shared experience.

I also appreciate how the Paladin specializations all emphasize different ways of doing good deeds. I've always found it weird that so much of the Paladin flavor was doing violence to evil. The Goodest Guy should focus on helping people first and killing people when necessary, not the other way around.

I like the class specializations too. Gives the core book more character diversity and scratches a little bit of that class archetype itch. Also front loads abilities a little more so that players have more to do at level 1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's about other people having fun. It looks more like those most offended by non-LG paladin-alikes are those who still feel that LG is the best, most 'good' alignment, and who are deeply offended by anything which might imply otherwise.


Frankly, I think every alignment should be represented but that may take too much space. Maybe for some "champion" splat book or whatever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
I don't think it's about other people having fun. It looks more like those most offended by non-LG paladin-alikes are those who still feel that LG is the best, most 'good' alignment, and who are deeply offended by anything which might imply otherwise.

Or we're offended by disregarding long established traditions. There is no reason to try putting words in our mouths to try to belittle our stance.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Demanding others value what you do because "tradition" is silly.

Not everyone buys that this is a "tradition" worth continuing. I certainly don't. Its clear from Paizo's decision that their survey data likely suggested that most folks wanted to move away from the LG Paladin too.

The LG Paladin is a dying trope. You can keep it going with a house rule or play another game.

You selected "play another game." Cool, best of luck to you.


Getting away from the Paladin debate, I am quite curious about the chirurgeon research field. From the sounds of it, it will probably be like the vivisectionist alchemist from pf1, which was one of the most popular archetypes for the class. Will this mean that there are classes aside from rogue that can still gain access to sneak attack without the rogue dedication feats?

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

22 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there folks,

This update was one that I have been looking forward to for a while now as it is drawn almost entirely from our playtest and survey data, looking at ways we could make the core classes of the game better.

It's a small step on that road, but one I felt was critical to show the progress we are making.

That said, I knew some of these decisions would leave a few folks feeling out in the cold.

To those getting what you want, understand that change comes at a price, that for some that price is too big to bear. Give them space to come to terms with the change. It is not your job to convince them of its merits.

To those seeing shifts they dont like, we understand your frustration. We hope that you will still give us a look when the final version comes together to see the ways in which we are trying to honor our past, as we move into the future.

Have a good weekend folks. Update 1.6 drops monday!


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. I love the classic paladin. I think having the other forms having a different name and slightly different mechanics is probably the best compromise that could of been made. That and them keeping it to form of good. As long as I can still play the pally classic I am ok with the changes. I don't feel I need to demand everyone else be forced to play it my way. Who knows I might even like the other types if the lore and mechanics are right.

To me with that change its not like there taking anything away there just adding something for others.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The suffering of those who lament the loss of the LG-specific Paladin is real. Belittling it and, even worse, implying that those people are some kind of tyrants is far from graceful on the part of those who feel like they have "won" here

If the game is losing players, I do not see it as a cause for celebration

The little info we are given on the new Paladin does make it sound like a Class chassis shared by all with only the codes to differentiate. That is such a far cry from Alignment-embracing Class (which many people saw in the classic Paladin for LG) that it is hard to hope otherwise

I personally am for a Class with supernatural abilities and that embraces being a specific alignment (whatever the alignment). We had a basis for this for ages in the classic LG Paladin. I am sad that we are apparently losing this

Maybe Update 1.6 will prove me wrong. I really hope so. But I do not really believe it

ÉDIT- Jason said it better than me. Thank you Mr Bulmahn


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it.

I feel like the PF2 Paladin was always kinda the Warpriest since the PF2 Paladin was required to be devoted to a single deity, something which defined the PF1 Warpriest but certainly not the PF1 Paladin.

Not a single Paladin I saw at a PF1 table was an advocate for or representative of a single god. We had atheist Paladins, polytheist Paladins, animist Paladins, pantheist Paladins, Paladins of pantheons, Paladins of weirdly diverse groups of deities, Paladins of concepts or philosophies, Paladins who viewed the gods as good examples but fundamentally as no better or more worthy of worship than anybody else, Paladins who are shopping for the right philosophy or deity, Paladins who believe everything at once, etc. If you wanted to be the fightery guy for a single god or goddess, you went Warpriest since that's what that class was for.

I had the opposite experience, haven't seen a Paladin (or Anti-Paladin) who wasn't the champion of a single deity, in years, ao much so that I for a long time thought they had to be. On the subject or War Priest, they never felt like Champuons to me, to much casting, to little imbued blessings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ofcourse I do still think all the armor mastery and defensive stuff should be its own class (Knight!) The paladin should retain more pally classic themed abilities and stuff copying outsiders but maybe that can be done with neutral-ish pallys.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
avr wrote:
I don't think it's about other people having fun. It looks more like those most offended by non-LG paladin-alikes are those who still feel that LG is the best, most 'good' alignment, and who are deeply offended by anything which might imply otherwise.
Or we're offended by disregarding long established traditions. There is no reason to try putting words in our mouths to try to belittle our stance.

fine what would you call the full martial divine champions of other alignments and faiths then? As their is no logical reason for them not to exist, what would they be called? (Since Paladin is stated to be remaining the LG one at release)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ofcourse I do still think all the armor mastery and defensive stuff should be its own class (Knight!) The paladin should retain more pally classic themed abilities and stuff copying outsiders but maybe that can be done with neutral-ish pallys.

TN is the only alignment I have a problem seeing a Champion of, simply because I draw a blank on what on earth they would stand for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
The suffering of those who lament the loss of the LG-specific Paladin is real. Belittling it and, even worse, implying that those people are some kind of tyrants is far from graceful on the part of those who feel like they have "won" here

I don't think it's reasonable to hold a position of "everyone must do things my way and only my way" and then expect sympathy when you don't get your way. That position inherently devalues the opinions of others, and it's far from surprising that some people aren't thrilled by it. Not everyone who liked that particular Paladin aesthetic held that position, but some very vocal people on this board did.


Universal balance.


Wow, non-LG paladins in the playtest, I had not anticipated this. I'm kinda conflicted here. I didn't ever like the LG-only paladins, and the idea that there is a class that can eventually encompass LN/CN only warriors excites me. I do support the non-LG paladin even if it is currently only-good since it means non-LG paladins can get a better treatment than I felt they ever did in PF1 (looking at you, LG chaos knights).

On the other hand, I'm curious if putting it in the playtest is the wisest decision. Maybe they are gathering feedback to see if cutting the LG out of paladin will cause a lot of players to go away from the game or if it is going to increase support. I just always saw it as a purely thematic change and figured it'd be better to finish mechanical changes (that are being released publicly at least) and have a survey just for the change. But, I'm not a game designer, nor an experienced playtester, so my critique probably misses something important.

As for the rest, Alchemists having a poisoner spec is exciting, more magical ki monks looks great, the stance change seems neat, the rogue stuff is neat, ranger stuff is probably neat for ranger fans.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pandora's wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
The suffering of those who lament the loss of the LG-specific Paladin is real. Belittling it and, even worse, implying that those people are some kind of tyrants is far from graceful on the part of those who feel like they have "won" here
I don't think it's reasonable to hold a position of "everyone must do things my way and only my way" and then expect sympathy when you don't get your way. That position inherently devalues the opinions of others, and it's far from surprising that some people aren't thrilled by it. Not everyone who liked that particular Paladin aesthetic held that position, but some very vocal people on this board did.

Thing is I never read it that way. I saw it as defensive even overly at times, but then all sides have been guilty of hyperbole


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Universal balance.

assuming that was a replay to me: that would lead to either a side switching joke character, or inaction... Mind you it would be suitably tricky to pull off. Hmmm


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Universal balance.
assuming that was a replay to me: that would lead to either a side switching joke character, or inaction... Mind you it would be suitably tricky to pull off. Hmmm

I think it could work but it would be touchy. So like you join a party on a quest to undo some evil or good ruler that is gaining to much power. but once its done it would be hard pressed to stay with the party. hmm actually might not be much more complex then the classic pally running around with a party with random alignments. It would have to be big picture balance not little picture balance. so you wouldn't swap sides mid combat or anything silly like that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

I mean a thing I'm going to be watching closely is whether the CG champion is an inconveniently chaotic as the Paladin has historically been inconveniently lawful.

Like let's do "Disrespect every authority, flout every convention or social more, and break every rule or law unless it would directly harm an innocent or would cause you to violate a higher tenet" or something. We'll always have the NG "Just do good" one for easymode.

That definition of chaotic is.. A bit skewed, challenging every law or more would work, breaking them leads to a pants on head joke character, but asking why constantly, working to break down social constraints and constructs that do harm, even if that harm itself isn't driven by malice (asking 'why' nobles are privileged, working to forment peaceful evolutionary change against laws that have no purpose other than tradition, etc) we have CE for break all the rules, screw everyone but me, CG needs to be different, not just break and burn for a 'good' end. The CG would work against unearned privilege and pointless prejudices, while doing as little harm as possible, that is hard, hulk smash it is not. Convince, cajole, reform, and if needed, if Evil raises its head,or Law refuses change and reaches for the sword then the smack down commences.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

This update was one that I have been looking forward to for a while now as it is drawn almost entirely from our playtest and survey data, looking at ways we could make the core classes of the game better.

It's a small step on that road, but one I felt was critical to show the progress we are making.

That said, I knew some of these decisions would leave a few folks feeling out in the cold.

To those getting what you want, understand that change comes at a price, that for some that price is too big to bear. Give them space to come to terms with the change. It is not your job to convince them of its merits.

To those seeing shifts they dont like, we understand your frustration. We hope that you will still give us a look when the final version comes together to see the ways in which we are trying to honor our past, as we move into the future.

Have a good weekend folks. Update 1.6 drops monday!

I'm going to be brutally honest Jason.

I like you, you're a good guy, nothing in my heart but hope that you see great success.

I don't, honestly, think that you understand what the Paladin means, or I should say meant, to some of us.

This isn't just a shift some of us don't like. This goes far beyond that. This change is taking one of the most endearing and enduring things about the game out for no real reason.

And yes. This is taking it out. This change is stripping the Paladin of one of the key things that made a Paladin a Paladin.

I was willing, personally, to support everything else.

Did I utterly hate Retributive Strike? Absolutely. I hated the very idea and concept of a forced playstyle based solely on class choice.

Did I stick with it after that? Yes. I ran at DragonCon putting players through 2e games literally until I hospitalized myself. I ran through home scenarios, I ran through printed scenarios, I knew DragonCon was my last con and I gave it everything I had left.

I ran my first game at 8 years old on September 10th 1988. I was playing the D&D redbox that I bought at a flea market with money I earned from picking up pinecones for our next door neighbor. (My family was poor, so we learned early to earn what we wanted.)

So it was nearly 30 years as a gm. Granted those early games were, uh, very bad. Regardless, in time I worked my way up, improved my skills, and eventually got 2nd Edition AD&D.

I got to be a player, and through the grace of RNGesus I rolled 3d6 down the line and the GM gasped seeing 16, 13, 12, 11, 16, 17. He whispered, "Well, that's a Paladin for sure."

That was the first character I ever played. I was hooked, even if the 2nd Ed AD&D Paladin kind of sucked mechanically.

The years passed and 3.X came around. I still played Paladins, and they still sucked.

4th ed... Lost me... I hated it.

5th ed was... Just no.

The idea of Paladins of any alignment was just repulsive.

Then a friend suggested Pathfinder.

I was hooked again. Pathfinder had REAL Paladins. Not only that, but for the first time ever, they didn't mechanically suck.

The Paladin, to me, was not about the mechanics. It wasn't about the deity. It wasn't even just the alignment. It was the special aspect of what a Paladin was.

They weren't just a class. They were lightning in a bottle. They were amazing because they were the closest thing you can do in a game to be a destined hero, chosen by the universe, a living embodiment of Order and Justice.

The Lawful part that people often scoff at? That was the promise of the natural order of the universe. That when evil would rise, a champion would come. The Paladin represented a hero who restored the natural order to the universe when things went wrong.

You can't do that as Chaotic Good. You can't represent the universal order when you dont actually believe in that order.

You can't do that as Neutral Good. You dont have the dedication to it. You dont really have an investment in doing things the way they are done because it is the way it is supposed to be done.

That is the promise of the Paladin.

Now sure, there are other heroes out there who aren't Paladins. And it isn't about the most good, but Paladins stand for more than just good. They stand for that divine order, that conviction, and that Mr. Bulmahn is the source of a Paladin's power.

It's not something a God can give. A God can give spells. A God can do a lot of things. What a God can't do is make a Paladin.

The universe makes Paladins. The agents of the universal order.

If the powers granted to the Paladin as the Agent of its will can be gotten without being a representation of that order then I suspect you can see how it tarnishes the very concept.

That is what this change does.

The only, and I mean straight out only, way this can be palatable to me and those like me is if you can promise us that the NG and CG versions will be radically mechanically different to a degree that they don't even resemble members of the same class aside from: "They wear armor and use weapons while having powers."

I mean CG? No LoH. No smite. They get other stuff. NG? Complete early different stuff. That's the only way I see this playing out in a way I can personally accept.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
To those getting what you want, understand that change comes at a price, that for some that price is too big to bear. Give them space to come to terms with the change. It is not your job to convince them of its merits.

As someone who feels completely and utterly marginalized by the design choices surrounding the playtest's magic changes, I'd like to say... this is very, very compassionate, understanding, mature, helpful and... nice.

I still feel screwed. But at the same time, this whole post of yours makes me feel, not just know that your team regrets the consequence of what you view is necessary.

It's the hand on the back glass of the departing vehicle leaving me behind.

So hey. No matter what happens in the future, for this particular post I'd like to offer you my deepest thanks. Really, really classy.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

True Neutral divine champion ? Common sense

Beware of the extremes, as they blind you to reality

See the worth in every position but do not let it steer you away from your own path

When others act against you, seize their unbalance and use it against them. They are blinded where you are not


14 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

This update was one that I have been looking forward to for a while now as it is drawn almost entirely from our playtest and survey data, looking at ways we could make the core classes of the game better.

It's a small step on that road, but one I felt was critical to show the progress we are making.

That said, I knew some of these decisions would leave a few folks feeling out in the cold.

To those getting what you want, understand that change comes at a price, that for some that price is too big to bear. Give them space to come to terms with the change. It is not your job to convince them of its merits.

To those seeing shifts they dont like, we understand your frustration. We hope that you will still give us a look when the final version comes together to see the ways in which we are trying to honor our past, as we move into the future.

Have a good weekend folks. Update 1.6 drops monday!

I'm going to be brutally honest Jason.

I like you, you're a good guy, nothing in my heart but hope that you see great success.

I don't, honestly, think that you understand what the Paladin means, or I should say meant, to some of us.

This isn't just a shift some of us don't like. This goes far beyond that. This change is taking one of the most endearing and enduring things about the game out for no real reason.

And yes. This is taking it out. This change is stripping the Paladin of one of the key things that made a Paladin a Paladin.

I was willing, personally, to support everything else.

Did I utterly hate Retributive Strike? Absolutely. I hated the very idea and concept of a forced playstyle based solely on class choice.

Did I stick with it after that? Yes. I ran at DragonCon putting players through 2e games literally until I hospitalized myself. I ran through home scenarios, I ran through printed scenarios, I knew DragonCon was my last con and I gave it everything I had left.

I ran my first game at 8 years old on September...

I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I like the classic paladin and removing it would of been pretty terrible for me but they are just making other similar classes that have a different focus then the paladin. I'm sure you've read it all so I won't bother going to into details but I think your position borders on unhealthy fanaticism. I'm not saying this to taunt you or be mean its out of worry. I just want you to know so that maybe you can internally process this better. Where your at is far beyond the normal nerd obsession and to a completely other place. Your level of emotional investment in this one facet of a game looks unhealthy from my perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I like the classic paladin and removing it would of been pretty terrible for me but they are just making other similar classes that have a different focus then the paladin. I'm sure you've read it all so I won't bother going to into details but I think your position borders on unhealthy fanaticism. I'm not saying this to taunt you or be mean its out of worry. I just want you to know so that maybe you can internally process this better. Where your at is far beyond the normal nerd obsession and to a completely other place. Your level of emotional investment in this one facet of a game looks unhealthy from my perspective.

You're quite incorrect.

All my "fanaticism" translates to is I won't financially support Paizo. Worst case scenario?

I play other games.

Literally that's my plan. With the consideration of spending some of my time publishing a d20 compatible game to create a PF2 alternative that respects the older traditions.

As I've said before, I've got tons of other games to play, but it's important to understand why people get so hot about this topic. The reason is as I said.

To call this a "slight shift" is pure hogwash.

Making the Warproest was a slight shift, this is demolishing the building's foundation.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to say something that may sound like heresy: maybe people should actually wait to see what the change looks like before proclaiming doom and gloom upon it.


Im happy that paladins are now any good.
that said , Id like to point out that the 5e paladin did not scream any alignment to me but any good.

so now atleast it will be interesting to see howthe playtest pf2 looks monday.
same chassis with different other class feats that can be taken to add the flavor of the characters alignment.( IE say a smite evil like ability now has a feat that will add more damage done to target if its evil alignment is opposite of the palyer. LG doing more damage against CE whereas a CG would smite the tyrants of LE and yes the NG would still likely have to chose 1 and only 1, should any player chose to take sch a feat to modify a smite evil like power ) but all 3 would still have access to abilties like divine grace

oh and Hwalsh, don't walk out the door without looking at the final product first and don't make up your mind without doing so first. though you can if you want, im not stopping you.

Funny thing though, I wanted paladins to open up to any good and I could not end up liking the final product and end up only buying the inner sea guide 2.0...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

Im happy that paladins are now any good.

that said , Id like to point out that the 5e paladin did not scream any alignment to me but any good.

so now atleast it will be interesting to see howthe playtest pf2 looks monday.
same chassis with different other class feats that can be taken to add the flavor of the characters alignment.( IE say a smite evil like ability now has a feat that will add more damage done to target if its evil alignment is opposite of the palyer. LG doing more damage against CE whereas a CG would smite the tyrants of LE and yes the NG would still likely have to chose 1 and only 1) but all 3 would still have access to abilties like divine grace

oh and Hwalsh, don't walk out the door without looking at the final product first and don't make up your mind without doing so first. though you can if you want, im not stopping you.

Funny thing though, I wanted paladins to open up to any good and I could not end up liking the final product and end up only buying the inner sea guide 2.0...

While I will look at 1.6, I'm not confident that Paizo will make it mechanically different enough to retain the exclusivity aspect that was fundamental to the class.

This game is built on excruciatingly incremental differences. It's been a core legitimate complaint since day one.

There isn't even a significant difference between attack rolls for Wizards and Fighters (a maximum of +3 at level 13+).

So what do you think the odds are for major extremely significant differences between 2 members of the same class.

I even feel like keeping the name "Paladin" for LG ones is kind of just giving us a pat on the head. It feels like a token gesture. We won't know until 1.6 hits Monday, but I would think if significant and dramatic differences were a key factor they'd be emphasized and they certainly haven't been.

Paizo was well aware that this would shove a lot of us over the edge and away as customers. Jason knew and said as much. I'm only haunting around at the moment because I want to ensure our position and the reasons for it are heard and understood.

Then well, as I said. I wish Paizo success even if I won't be financially supporting them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

And here I am, sitting in the middle of a storm, with popcorns.
Good thing I said not to smite the messenger.

Ps. I have this friend who every time I mention a new update keeps asking whether paladin is now any good.
I can’t wait.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If anything, this whole situation reminds me of Apollo from that episode of the Original Series of Star Trek (the one with the giant green space hand). He was from a race of advanced alien beings who had come to ancient Earth and shared various philosophical and other advancements with the Greeks (and in Peter David's New Frontier series, we find out it was with other ancient Earth civilizations). So when the Enterprise found him on a distant world, he was proud of humanity's advancement and ready to take them under his wing again, share further insights into the universe, and make their lives easier.

Trekkies out there familiar with the series and franchise, take a moment to imagine how that could have played out. What kind of threat would the Borg really have been in the face of a god? Or the Dominion? And not just warfare, either. What kind of scientific or medical advances could have come from Apollo? I mean, he was the god of healing; in real life, our doctors still swear by his name.

So what went wrong? His price. Apollo in the episode expects the crew of the Enterprise (and, had he returned to Earth, the rest of humanity) to completely and unquestionably give themselves and their right to self-determinacy to him. They are to deliver unto him fatted calves, let him handle all their problems, never experience strife, never strive for anything, and accept their role as playthings, all while being expected to trust him to be a good steward on his say-so alone.

So it's no wonder that Kirk's response progressed from "Thank you, no" to "No", "Hell, no", "Screw you, sir", and eventually to "Enterprise, fire phasers". There is nothing out there worthwhile enough to make up for being packaged with that. What Apollo wanted to offer in and of itself was never objectionable, but his insistence on packaging it with obligatory stifling made it a hateful and ugly thing. At the end of the episode, Kirk wonders whether it would have been so harmful to gather even a few laurel leaves. And unfortunately, I think the answer was "Yes". Apollo was never going to accept that his relationship with humanity had changed, that they had "grown up" even the slightest amount. Even a few laurel leaves would only be an affirmation to continue stifling them.

The Paladin's identity as the quintessential good guy was never at issue or objectionable. The forced marriage to falling was always the hateful thing, to be rejected again and again, as long as it took, to this edition or the next, just on moral principle. But the concept of the Paladin doesn't deserve to be so hated, to be cast into the wind as Apollo was in Star Trek. It shouldn't have to be this dreadful thing, the death of gaming groups and ruiner of friendships. Obviously, there is good in the Paladin concept. Good that has been held back by previous editions' treatment of how it must be expressed or even that its expression is something that MUST be enforced rather than just allowed, at the player's own discretion.

It's the very reason for the expression "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". The baby is precious and to be preserved. But we still have to get rid of the bathwater some time, right?

The Federation missed out because Kirk rejected Apollo the way he absolutely had to. I don't want P2E to miss out. That's why I think letting the Paladin finally be free (or at least, freer) of what tainted it previously is so necessary.


"Maximum of +3 at level 13+..."

Not arguing the deeper point one or the other but I didn't realize the Trained Wizard with 10 STR and the Legendary Fighter with eventually 24 STR were only +3 apart...

I think MINIMUM of +3 t 13th level + is what you may have meant...

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dear HWalsh,
Your words are strong and passionate, I too share a similar history with D&D playing Red Box and AD&D in the 80s. My best friends favorite character was a Paladin. He still plays a weekly campaign with me to this day, and we are using PF2, I am the GM. So here is my advice to you. One old school'r to another. We have lost nothing. The Paladin is Most assuredly Lawful and absolutely Good. It would not matter if Paizo, WOTC, Donald Trump, or the TTRPG police told me otherwise. It's my game, it's my world and in my world Paladins are Holy, Warrior, they are role played as seeking holiness and truth, they serve LG Deities Period, full stop. So my point being, do not be shackled by a few rules, run your PF2 game the way you want, just make sure the players are well informed of your guidelines. My players playing a Paladin have to be LG. My monks have to be Lawful, my Barbarians cannot be Lawful. These are simple adjustments, they are essentially fluff, its the crunch that can ruin a game, the fluff can be anything you want. If your a player, tell your GM I want to play a Paladin, I want to be LG. Paizo is in no way at fault in this matter, it is impossible to make everyone happy, in fact trying to make everyone happy is a recipe for disaster. Play your game, Play PF2, play your PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer the multiple alignments for Paladin.

Paladin is a warrior of a religion/faith.

And depending on what faith he defends or conquers in it's name, will determine his/hers alignment.


I usually actually don't choose a deity for mine but I guess its very golarion to have a paladin be backed by a specific deity instead of just abstract forces.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, that's a good start for paladins... Now we just have to work on getting rid of the 'good' requirement and we can start on what's wrong with the chassis...

We are SO close to getting rid of unneeded alignment anchors for classes. With this I might even think about playing a pathfinder paladin for the first time in a non oneshot.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I usually actually don't choose a deity for mine but I guess its very golarion to have a paladin be backed by a specific deity instead of just abstract forces.

I wonder, if we're going to do the Oracle as a thematic alternative to the Cleric as "Holy person devoted to a pantheon, a concept, a philosophy, their ancestors, etc.", if we couldn't similarly get a holy warrior alternative to the "martial champion of this one deity in particular" which is not tied to a deity.

Personally it would be my preference for "holy warrior for this one deity in particular" to be a Warpriest and the other one to be the Paladin/Champion though.

51 to 100 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previews All Messageboards