Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previews


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

War Priest has way to much casting to fit that theme, the less casting and more 'champion powers' (or w/e) a 'holy warrior' has the more it feels like an actual holy warrior, not a gish,


PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

*shrug* we're kind of stuck with it when one of the cornerstones of the playtest is 'golarion infused'. I'd personally LOVE to see the new game be setting neutral but that doesn't seem to be what they are going for, and the setting is more strict on paladin = worships a god than it is on alignment...

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:

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.

Have you ever considered that your desire to have no alignment guidelines for characters, could be from your misunderstanding of what they are, what they mean, what alignment signifies?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Now we just have to work on getting rid of the 'good' requirement

I figure that "any evil" is inevitable for the Anti-P̶a̶l̶a̶d̶i̶n̶-Champion,and I can see LN and CN working, but I sincerely hope that we never get true neutral ones. Neutrality is a much harder path to walk, and if it does get its own signature champion it should probably be something fundamentally different. If there's one alignment which deserves a class unto itself because it is singular, it's tn.

I mean, if we do the other 8 alignments most true neutral deities will have a choice of 3 or 4 flavors of Champion.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Finally, we're one step closer to LE Paladins of Ragathiel with the Orphanage Scorcher archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:
graystone wrote:

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.

Have you ever considered that your desire to have no alignment guidelines for characters, could be from your misunderstanding of what they are, what they mean, what alignment signifies?

No, I understand them quite well. Understanding is a far different thing from like/dislike or feeling that said 'rule' should have a mechanical weight.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
Now we just have to work on getting rid of the 'good' requirement
I figure that "any evil" is inevitable for the Anti-P̶a̶l̶a̶d̶i̶n̶-Champion,and I can see LN and CN working, but I sincerely hope that we never get true neutral ones.

I personally don't care what we're naming things, so for me 'anti' is unneeded, with mechanics differing like clerics and channeling pos/neg. One rule set works for me.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Neutrality is a much harder path to walk, and if it does get its own signature champion it should probably be something fundamentally different. If there's one alignment which deserves a class unto itself because it is singular, it's tn.

*shrug* N seems fine to me. We have codes for true neutral gods and cavaliers, it shouldn't be too much of an issue for paladins. The wheel of fate, the circle of reincarnation, the balance of nature... these are all things that don't have a set alignment attached. IMO, a green faith paladin sounds like a perfect N paladin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Finally, we're one step closer to LE Paladins of Ragathiel with the Orphanage Scorcher archetype.

I want a paladin of asmodeus! Nothing is better than being techically corrrect. ;)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Finally, we're one step closer to LE Paladins of Ragathiel with the Orphanage Scorcher archetype.
I want a paladin of asmodeus! Nothing is better than being techically corrrect. ;)

That already exists, Tyrant Anti-Paladin. :p


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!

Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and having Paladins be LG only seems to be an excellent compromise. My main problem is that the Paladin class, as-is, leans extraordinarily to the defensive and healing spectrum to the point that it wouldn't make sense for there to be a Champion of Rovagug.

Most of the people who wanted to nix the alignment requirement seem to want a more generic Divine Mage-Knight than what we currently have. I'd personally like to see Retributive strike be made less restrictive and more useful in more situations, and I'd also like to see more power point options like casting Bless or Doom or something. I suppose that's what splats are for, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
john salb wrote:

The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!

Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and having Paladins be LG only seems to be an excellent compromise. My main problem is that the Paladin class, as-is, leans extraordinarily to the defensive and healing spectrum to the point that it wouldn't make sense for there to be a Champion of Rovagug.

Most of the people who wanted to nix the alignment requirement seem to want a more generic Divine Mage-Knight than what we currently have. I'd personally like to see Retributive strike be made less restrictive and more useful in more situations, and I'd also like to see more power point options like casting Bless or Doom or something. I suppose that's what splats are for, though.

My wish was for Champions to match their patrons alignments, it never made sense that Serenrae could be the Patron of a Paladin, but incapable of being one herself (or Irori..or Abadar), also given paladins as experienced, and as portrayed in some of the stories, LG is the LEAST good alignment, not the super special 'lightning in the bottle' but barely hang in their, with more in common with LE than with NG or CG.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
And originally elf was a class. Why is that statement even remotely relevant?

You know what? As I have been deep diving into the history of D&D and studying as many printings of every version of D&D as possible, I can wholeheartedly say with no doubt that this is not really true.

D&D White Box wrote:

Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch

class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the
course of a single game.

It was the 1977 D&D Basic Set that explicitly called out the demi-human races as classes.

AD&D 1e in 1978 just one year later already completely separated races and classes.
It was only the BD&D line that maintained race as class which amounted to an oversimplification of the original intent as printed.

Back on topic, what I'm most looking forward to the most in the 1.6 update is the new paths for Rangers. If I can finally take that damnable Hunted Target blight off my Ranger and burn it in a dumpster I'll be as happy as a clam at high water.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For mechanical distinctiveness between the three, I'm imagining something starting with these points and going from there:

Chaotic is the one with all the reactions, like Retributive Strike etc, and gets bonus reactions per turn. It is in the moment so better able to respond to what others do. It is probably more mobile.

Neutral is the one with much heavier casting, and by side effect is the best healer and buffer of the three. If only one of them gets Channel or Domains like a cleric, it's this one. They balance foresight with flexibility.

Lawful is the proactive Smiter, acting mostly in its own turn and in a more set way. It also is the one with Auras to enforce its principles over local reality, and Vows that power it up - but hopefully in a much more flexible and thematic way than the utterly awful ones from the Playtest Book!

Exo-Guardians

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:


My wish was for Champions to match their patrons alignments, it never made sense that Serenrae could be the Patron of a Paladin, but incapable of being one herself (or Irori..or Abadar), also given paladins as experienced, and as portrayed in some of the stories, LG is the LEAST good alignment, not the super special 'lightning in the bottle' but barely hang in their, with more in common with LE than with NG or CG.

Dude, not the right thread, you want to start a flame war take it elsewhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Something not noted in the OP: there's something in the 1.6 update for every single class, and it generally amounts to about 13 pages of new content. Who knows what that means for all the other classes?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
john salb wrote:

The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!

Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and having Paladins be LG only seems to be an excellent compromise. My main problem is that the Paladin class, as-is, leans extraordinarily to the defensive and healing spectrum to the point that it wouldn't make sense for there to be a Champion of Rovagug.

Most of the people who wanted to nix the alignment requirement seem to want a more generic Divine Mage-Knight than what we currently have. I'd personally like to see Retributive strike be made less restrictive and more useful in more situations, and I'd also like to see more power point options like casting Bless or Doom or something. I suppose that's what splats are for, though.

My wish was for Champions to match their patrons alignments, it never made sense that Serenrae could be the Patron of a Paladin, but incapable of being one herself (or Irori..or Abadar), also given paladins as experienced, and as portrayed in some of the stories, LG is the LEAST good alignment, not the super special 'lightning in the bottle' but barely hang in their, with more in common with LE than with NG or CG.

Jerk players playing Paladins did give LG a bad reputation. Mind you, I have seen jerk players playing CN (often as Rogue or some variation) and it was not a pretty sight either. But because Rogue did not require a specific alignment, it did not (too much) suffer from this.

In truth, I think CG paladin or NG paladin have also quite the potential for jerkitude, on par with LG. Maybe even worse actually. Not because these alignments are intrinsically worse than LG, but because people might argue than since they are playing Not-LG Paladins, surely they cannot be as bad as LG Paladins were.

Self-righteousness is far from being exclusive to LG


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
john salb wrote:

The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!

Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and having Paladins be LG only seems to be an excellent compromise. My main problem is that the Paladin class, as-is, leans extraordinarily to the defensive and healing spectrum to the point that it wouldn't make sense for there to be a Champion of Rovagug.

Most of the people who wanted to nix the alignment requirement seem to want a more generic Divine Mage-Knight than what we currently have. I'd personally like to see Retributive strike be made less restrictive and more useful in more situations, and I'd also like to see more power point options like casting Bless or Doom or something. I suppose that's what splats are for, though.

My wish was for Champions to match their patrons alignments, it never made sense that Serenrae could be the Patron of a Paladin, but incapable of being one herself (or Irori..or Abadar), also given paladins as experienced, and as portrayed in some of the stories, LG is the LEAST good alignment, not the super special 'lightning in the bottle' but barely hang in their, with more in common with LE than with NG or CG.

The thing that makes a Paladin more interesting, in a way, than clerics, is the paladin's code (and also a point of contention). It makes sense that a CG/NG god can have paladins in that every god has a set of laws or guidelines to be followed, and the paladin's deal is that he both follows and enforces those laws in a way that a cleric wouldn't. You can think of it like a cleric being a spiritual leader, while a paladin is a spiritual enforcer.

You could, in this manner, conceive of a Paladin of Calistria; someone who seeks vengeance for others, hunts down rapists, and protects those in revelry. While Calistria is not Lawful of Good, a Lawful and Good person could defend her principles. You could think of a Paladin as a sort of 'gift' to a deity's followers. Does a Paladin of Rovagug make sense? No, but that's what makes them different than clerics.

The main problem is that this is all fluff, and someone could very easily say "Hey, you're wrong!" and they'd have as much a point to make as I do. There's never going to be a consensus on the paladin because its thematics are not tied to mechanics (like a barbarian's rage).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Finally, we're one step closer to LE Paladins of Ragathiel with the Orphanage Scorcher archetype.
I want a paladin of asmodeus! Nothing is better than being techically corrrect. ;)

You can have those already with Paizo PF1 stuff


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The things that makes me hate the paladin as LG only is that I have to ban it in every single campain where the rest of that party isn't LG. That is because I like to give players meaningfull choices on witch direction to take in the campaign, and even witch of multiple faction to join. With a paladin in there, it's either his way or the highway. The third option would be havin a party with one of the pc being a high level commoner.
LG paladins work for a cliche filled AP on railoads, non for anything where meaningfull choices are presented, because those choice for a paladin where already made on character creation.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HWalsh wrote:
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.

Paladins are heroes, and they’re still Good. That’s all that matters.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Now if we could just get rid of the Heavy Armor shaped hole they’re stuck in and the Deity requirement.

And I’d be happy with Antipaladins of any evil, though I’m not sure on the Monitor Neutrals, definitely don’t want them being called Paladins at least.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Now if we could just get rid of the Heavy Armor shaped hole they’re stuck in and the Deity requirement.

And I’d be happy with Antipaladins of any evil, though I’m not sure on the Monitor Neutrals, definitely don’t want them being called Paladins at least.

Yes I do not like the required heavy armor and that is the main reason I feel the armor specialist should go into a different class entirely.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Now if we could just get rid of the Heavy Armor shaped hole they’re stuck in and the Deity requirement.

And I’d be happy with Antipaladins of any evil, though I’m not sure on the Monitor Neutrals, definitely don’t want them being called Paladins at least.

Yes I do not like the required heavy armor and that is the main reason I feel the armor specialist should go into a different class entirely.

*nods*

Stalwart Defender Archetype would be nice.


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 said no such thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Now if we could just get rid of the Heavy Armor shaped hole they’re stuck in and the Deity requirement.

And I’d be happy with Antipaladins of any evil, though I’m not sure on the Monitor Neutrals, definitely don’t want them being called Paladins at least.

Yes I do not like the required heavy armor and that is the main reason I feel the armor specialist should go into a different class entirely.

*nods*

Stalwart Defender Archetype would be nice.

Hmm yeah thats not bad. Mine was to make a generic "knight" class and he could do all the armoring and defending.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Now if we could just get rid of the Heavy Armor shaped hole they’re stuck in and the Deity requirement.

And I’d be happy with Antipaladins of any evil, though I’m not sure on the Monitor Neutrals, definitely don’t want them being called Paladins at least.

Yes I do not like the required heavy armor and that is the main reason I feel the armor specialist should go into a different class entirely.

*nods*

Stalwart Defender Archetype would be nice.

Hmm yeah thats not bad. Mine was to make a generic "knight" class and he could do all the armoring and defending.

*nods*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Archive wrote:
Of course though, whatever they do decide to do with paladin alignment-wise, that doesn't really matter if the class chassis itself isn't getting an overhaul.

Yeah. I've got to say, the reveal that the big, huge, bestest change was just opening paladins to any good was incredibly disappointing. I'm really hoping they're burying the lead and there is some actual functional improvement to make the paladin a paladin. But the fact that they're calling the LG version the Defender makes it sound like they're keeping the horrible idea that paladins are all about defense. Or even worse, tying each alignment to a specific arbitrary combat style.

It's not that I don't like the alignment change. I actually like the idea of paladins being Any Good and anti-paladins any evil. Neutral paladins is still a bit of a bridge too far to me. Although there is room for Hellknights for any lawful and maybe some similar any chaotic thing, but those are getting further from paladins. But the core of the class is in much bigger need of change than alignment options. And from the brief description, it sounds like they're making these sub-versions all have specific narrow focuses, limiting choice and options. Why would a NG paladin have to be about redemption? Why does LG have to be about defense? It just sounds arbitrary and unnecessarily limiting, which is one of the biggest problems that Paladin has currently, so it's just making it worse.

But then again, I haven't seen the actual update, so maybe there's actual improvements to the class. But based on what's been talked about, I'm not holding my breath.


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

Yeah, I've never seen that concept work out well. It usually just degrades to some absurd pseudo-philosophy where you need to kill orphans to 'balance' out for saving some. Or the Beige Knight: Champion of 'meh.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Something not noted in the OP: there's something in the 1.6 update for every single class, and it generally amounts to about 13 pages of new content. Who knows what that means for all the other classes?

That's what I want to know. The spellcasters have been left alone in this playtest for the most part, and that's been a problem for me because I'm most interested in them and they have some major issues.

So while I'm watching this update with interest, the preview makes me wonder if the changes I actually want to see just won't happen during the playtest.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
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
Yeah, I've never seen that concept work out well. It usually just degrades to some absurd pseudo-philosophy where you need to kill orphans to 'balance' out for saving some. Or the Beige Knight: Champion of 'meh.'

If you think killing orphans is a part of neutral your not understanding the alignment.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
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
Yeah, I've never seen that concept work out well. It usually just degrades to some absurd pseudo-philosophy where you need to kill orphans to 'balance' out for saving some. Or the Beige Knight: Champion of 'meh.'

I could easily see a champion of Phrasma or Gozrah that is dedicated neither to good or evil but simply the principles of their deity. I think that is why the class is better served by being relatively bare as far as core "magical" powers, and focused more on being the armored knight character, while the specific deity selection could bestow the powers and supernatural abilities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
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.
Paladins are heroes, and they’re still Good. That’s all that matters.

That's where I am on this, as well. When I DM, I've had more people want to play what amounts to the 3.5 Paladin of Freedom than the conventional Paladin. And they've tended to do a pretty good job of that, as someone who is relentless in the protection of the weak and fighting back against abuse of power by the strong. To us, that's just as much a "Paladin" as the conventional kind, they just go about it from a different mindset (and while they respect LG Paladins, they don't always agree with them).

If the law itself is allowing evil outcomes, then one of those Paladins isn't conflicted: The law is wrong and must be opposed, as are the people who slavishly enforce it. People in my group always had difficulty with figuring out what to do with a LG Paladin although as a DM I didn't want to particularly encourage that paralysis.

That might be just us, though. So for us, this change simply means I don't have to houserule something in because the rules now cover it. That they're called something else is a fair compromise for us.

For the people for whom this is a game breaking problem? I sympathize. This isn't one of them, but I have other aspects of the game that I feel so passionately about and if they changed them, it simply wouldn't be a game I enjoy anymore.

I feel for you, I truly do. Hopefully what does come out in the final rules is workable for you, and if not, hopefully you have a game that does.


4 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...

Hail, fellow traveler. I also began playing in September 1988, using an amateur translation of the AD&D PHB to French. I never managed to roll a 17 along with stats that would have made a paladin viable, but I was much more attracted to the wizard, so that was all right. I was envious of the paladin player, though.

Hwalsh, I'm sorry for the loss that you feel, and I admire the eloquence and honesty that you put in defending your viewpoint. This was never going to be something you can compromise over, and it was refreshing to see you didn't try to pretend otherwise.

That said, I think you have to accept the fact that you stand on one extreme of the spectrum of opinions on this matter. Maybe it is lack of imagination on my part, but I can't think of a way anyone would stand further out than you.

Not to restate the obvious, but it's impossible to make everyone happy, especially on one of the forum's most contentious topics (I don't have stats to say it was the highest number, but it certainly fostered a lot of thread locks). As keepers of the game, it's Jason and his team's duty to try and make the highest number of people happy or at least OK with the changes. By definition, extreme positions are the hardest to include in the big tent.

This is why I think you're being unfair to the Paizo team here. Jason's own paladin code is to always do what's best for the player community. He can't compromise on this principle any more than you can on yours. I'd think you can recognize that.

With that, I wish you all the best playing and GM'ing for paladins, using any combination of house rules, other games, etc, as you find suitable.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dekalinder wrote:

The things that makes me hate the paladin as LG only is that I have to ban it in every single campain where the rest of that party isn't LG. That is because I like to give players meaningfull choices on witch direction to take in the campaign, and even witch of multiple faction to join. With a paladin in there, it's either his way or the highway. The third option would be havin a party with one of the pc being a high level commoner.

LG paladins work for a cliche filled AP on railoads, non for anything where meaningfull choices are presented, because those choice for a paladin where already made on character creation.

Really it depends on the player and not the Class. I have seen Rogues played as the worst possible obnoxious and stupid would-be burglars and con-men who get the whole party in jail because of their shenanigans. I have seen Barbarians played as zero-INT and WIS trigger-happy brutes who will charge rather than have to think or wait, completely destroying any possible subtle plan the other players might have preferred.

And obviously all of this under the guise of "acting in character", aka My Class made me do it.

But even for the paladin, I do not think LG has anything to do with it. Really, whatever the alignment, the mere concept of holy warrior devoted to following a strict code of conduct opens the way for this kind of abuse


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
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
Yeah, I've never seen that concept work out well. It usually just degrades to some absurd pseudo-philosophy where you need to kill orphans to 'balance' out for saving some. Or the Beige Knight: Champion of 'meh.'
I could easily see a champion of Phrasma or Gozrah that is dedicated neither to good or evil but simply the principles of their deity. I think that is why the class is better served by being relatively bare as far as core "magical" powers, and focused more on being the armored knight character, while the specific deity selection could bestow the powers and supernatural abilities.

Trying to make a class that can work for the tenets of any given god would tend towards being non-distinct. For those specific cases, there should probably be specific solutions. They'd probably be best served by Prestige Archetypes for the particular gods (or aspects of those gods), so the abilities and tenets can be customized to just what is relevant to that particular god.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
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
Yeah, I've never seen that concept work out well. It usually just degrades to some absurd pseudo-philosophy where you need to kill orphans to 'balance' out for saving some. Or the Beige Knight: Champion of 'meh.'
I could easily see a champion of Phrasma or Gozrah that is dedicated neither to good or evil but simply the principles of their deity. I think that is why the class is better served by being relatively bare as far as core "magical" powers, and focused more on being the armored knight character, while the specific deity selection could bestow the powers and supernatural abilities.
Trying to make a class that can work for the tenets of any given god would tend towards being non-distinct. For those specific cases, there should probably be specific solutions. They'd probably be best served by Prestige Archetypes for the particular gods (or aspects of those gods), so the abilities and tenets can be customized to just what is relevant to that particular god.

Something like the Evangelist then?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
gwynfrid wrote:
That said, I think you have to accept the fact that you stand on one extreme of the spectrum of opinions on this matter. Maybe it is lack of imagination on my part, but I can't think of a way anyone would stand further out than you.

Actually, I saw several of those in the preview Alignment threads. HWalsh may have some strong views and he defends them tooth and nail, but he is not that dogmatic on pushing them on others and wanting to crush any dissenting view.

There were posters on both sides that took it much further and really harmed their cause not to mention any credibility they might have had. I think the worst offenders have not posted in some time now though thankfully


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

There were no long-standing traditions to disregard. Variant paladins are nothing new, they've existed in almost every version of D&D. Back when I started playing, Paladins were just better fighters with higher prerequisites (Rangers too); famously used as GMPCs by the uncreative to keep their party's in line. The reason those editions mechanically rewarded players for being Good (and preferably Lawful) was simple. The most practical alignment for an adventurer is Chaotic Evil, because we're glorified tomb-robbers. Not Stealing and Killing means not gaining experience points. Parties with a Paladin or Ranger needed the extra boost to compete with parties that could otherwise steal from and murder people for money and power. The Paladin's legacy died in 3rd edition, you're just a few decades late to the funeral.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

Seriously tho this was just me jotting down some notes on the stream. There’s plenty to talk about, and there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Now, the stream hinted at making Ki Strike ‘feel powerful’ and we already know powers are in for a general boost with the Focus mechanic, so what’s everyone thinking? A damage boost feels a bit flat, maybe some sort of conditional effect?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Demanding others value what you do because "tradition" is silly.

To me, the point is not "tradition" for the sake of tradition. It's that I, and I suspect many others like me, enjoy PF1e because it's clearly in and part of the D&D tradition. I chose to play Pathfinder instead of D&D5e because I saw Pathfinder as more D&D-like and thus more appealing to me. It appears as though PF2e is firmly cutting that link to what I see as an enjoyable D&D-style of gaming. The various changes to the paladin are just one of many significant alternations that mark PF2e as a qualitatively different game from PF1e/D&D. And as a result, PF2e is not a game that I'm particularly interested in playing.

Data Lore wrote:
You selected "play another game." Cool, best of luck to you.

I should note that you too have the option of "play another game" instead of encouraging Paizo to change one that I and many others enjoy in its current form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see the Paladin Alignment Thread has taken over again as usual. We really ought to quarantine that thing.

I'm interested in the Alchrmist changes personally, as it's probably my favorite PF1 class between the CRB and APG. The Research Fields sound like they may provide some direction for the class at early levels, which would be nice. I hope some higher-level Elixirs get added too!


Arssanguinus wrote:
It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

The things that makes me hate the paladin as LG only is that I have to ban it in every single campain where the rest of that party isn't LG. That is because I like to give players meaningfull choices on witch direction to take in the campaign, and even witch of multiple faction to join. With a paladin in there, it's either his way or the highway. The third option would be havin a party with one of the pc being a high level commoner.

LG paladins work for a cliche filled AP on railoads, non for anything where meaningfull choices are presented, because those choice for a paladin where already made on character creation.

Really it depends on the player and not the Class. I have seen Rogues played as the worst possible obnoxious and stupid would-be burglars and con-men who get the whole party in jail because of their shenanigans. I have seen Barbarians played as zero-INT and WIS trigger-happy brutes who will charge rather than have to think or wait, completely destroying any possible subtle plan the other players might have preferred.

And obviously all of this under the guise of "acting in character", aka My Class made me do it.

But even for the paladin, I do not think LG has anything to do with it. Really, whatever the alignment, the mere concept of holy warrior devoted to following a strict code of conduct opens the way for this kind of abuse

(Bolding mine) *Nods*

Yep, because the specific kind of Sword of Damocles ("any good plus Code of Conduct" passes while "LG plus Code of Conduct" is a step too far) looming over the player's head isn't the problem so much as having a Sword of Damocles of any kind at all (you know, beyond the whole "don't be a jerk to the other people at the table" and "be a participant in the adventure" that every player should follow, independent of class). The 3.5 Tome of Battle Crusader had no Code of Conduct and his only restriction was "can't be TN". And that was too much. That's why, while I'm thankful the Paladin is opened up, I'll still push for further.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

Seriously tho this was just me jotting down some notes on the stream. There’s plenty to talk about, and there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Now, the stream hinted at making Ki Strike ‘feel powerful’ and we already know powers are in for a general boost with the Focus mechanic, so what’s everyone thinking? A damage boost feels a bit flat, maybe some sort of conditional effect?

flat footing maybe? Or even a to-hit bonus?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.


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

As for True Neutral Champions, they could follow the Aeon philosophy: Everything has a destiny and anything that interferes in that destiny must be fought. This would mean fighting against those who kill as that ends the destiny to soon. I see preservation of life as being highly important to them and killing only if necessary; not out of compassion but out of a sense of duty to the principles of destiny.


Feros wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

...and since no one else has put it out there, let's here it for Liberators of Cayden Cailean and Milani! :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Feros wrote:


I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

I like many of the changes they have made though far from all (Resonance, the Hero Point system, much more are on my "Yech" list). I have gone through all the edition changes over the years and have found things that are good and not-good in each version. I admit to being willing to let go of traditions if they restrict games choice, so I rather like the new changes.

All that said, I get where the traditionalists are coming from: wanting to play the game they have been playing for a long time with just continual support. It would be great if that was viable, but sadly it looks as if that model is not economical going forward. As Jason Bulmahn put it in his post upthread, they understand the price for making any of the changes they are making. Finding the balance of what has to change with what they can keep the same is what the Playtest is all about.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Thanks for the update!

101 to 150 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