Paladins Reaction and the issues I have with it.


Classes

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

But if you give a strong early offensive ability to a class that already has the best defence and good support, and the only trade off is a reaction that has no bearing in either it's core defence or offence, then you would end up with a much stronger class than the rest martials.

You can't really call a class with great self healing, the best defensive abilities, that can heal his allies, and a really strong offence vs the majority of your enemies (evil) as balanced.

Replacing lay on hand simultaneously hits the defensive capabilities by exactly as much as you can increase them with a respective "offensive" power though, keeping the balance in check but giving an offensive edge instead of a support/defence one.

Instead of negating (healing) X damage to yourself or your allies, now you get to deal X damage to evil.

Seems fair and offensive enough.

Silver Crusade

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

I despise the Paladin's heavy armor focus and would be extremely happy to see that jettisoned.

And then we have options, let them pick to be healers, let them pick smiting, let them pick defending.

And give Barbarians a cool Reaction while we're at it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Phicurious86 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Phicurious86 wrote:
If you want to be the avenging paladin, you absolutely can, but it's going to come on later in your character progression
And thus the issue.
I guess I don't see why that's a significant issue then. If you want to be an offensive martial character right out of the gate, you have other options. If you want to be an offensive paladin, that's an option too, it just requires some delayed gratification,

That’s the thing, we don’t want a jack of all trades/master of all type super class. In 1st Edition you could focus on smiting evil, you could be a defender, or you could be a buffer/healer. Now you’re a defender/healer and you maybe get to be a smiter later on.

It’s not about damage dealing, it’s about aesthetic. If someone wants to play a wandering knight that vanquishs evil and they’re told to play a Barbarian instead of a Paladin there’s... some serious disconnect going on.

*barring Champion of Gwynharwyfs.
**Or if you’re playing Lancelot (which we need an Archetype on).

The issue though is that the class already has many core defensive and supportive abilities

You can't just swap the reaction with something strong enough to appease the people who want the paladin to be an offensive powerhouse and be done with it.

At later levels, they already get offensive capabilities in the form of additional properties on weapons, adding extra holy damage on top of their attacks, giving vulnerabilities to enemies, smite, and etc

So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

To the point of power attack weak.

And I don't think anyone would be even more pissed if something like that happened.

So, in order to give strong offensive early on, it would need to be a tradeoff with something other than the reaction.

Maybe something like that:
At level 1 you choose either salvation or destruction:
Salvation grants the lay on hands power....

That could work, still dislike reactions as a concept, so them going was part if the goal, but trading out LoH is a possibility


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)

Which is solved by having more Reactions to pick from, which we got in the new update as well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)
Which is solved by having more Reactions to pick from, which we got in the new update as well.

Nope, it really isn't, Paladin Reaction or Retributive strike, do not like, do not want, which is why I said 'the reactions'


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)
Which is solved by having more Reactions to pick from, which we got in the new update as well.
Nope, it really isn't, Paladin Reaction or Retributive strike, do not like, do not want, which is why I said 'the reactions'

+to saves is pickable at 2

AoO is pickable at 6

There are alternatives already in place if you don't want to use a feature.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)
Which is solved by having more Reactions to pick from, which we got in the new update as well.
Nope, it really isn't, Paladin Reaction or Retributive strike, do not like, do not want, which is why I said 'the reactions'

+to saves is pickable at 2

AoO is pickable at 6

There are alternatives already in place if you don't want to use a feature.

Those would be reactions, and so included in 'the reactions'.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)
Which is solved by having more Reactions to pick from, which we got in the new update as well.
Nope, it really isn't, Paladin Reaction or Retributive strike, do not like, do not want, which is why I said 'the reactions'

+to saves is pickable at 2

AoO is pickable at 6

There are alternatives already in place if you don't want to use a feature.

Those would be reactions, and so included in 'the reactions'.

Wait... You're saying that you don't like reactions as a concept?

That's too bad then. 3 actions 1 reaction is the whole premise of the core system of the game.

You can't patch a single class to work outside of the core action system of the game.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)
Which is solved by having more Reactions to pick from, which we got in the new update as well.
Nope, it really isn't, Paladin Reaction or Retributive strike, do not like, do not want, which is why I said 'the reactions'

+to saves is pickable at 2

AoO is pickable at 6

There are alternatives already in place if you don't want to use a feature.

Those would be reactions, and so included in 'the reactions'.

Wait... You're saying that you don't like reactions as a concept?

That's too bad then. 3 actions 1 reaction is the whole premise of the core system of the game.

You can't patch a single class to work outside of the core action system of the game.

Not as the entire focus of a class no, I don't.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
So, in order to keep the class balanced, the initial offensive power would need to be weak.

I disagree.

I really like Retributive Strike, and don't think it's the issue. The issue is that it's the Paladin's only offensive ability starting out.

Playing a defensive character and then switching to offense halfway through your advancement is... jarring, to say the least.

i really don't like the reactions as a concept, they could cast Miracle and I still wouldn't like them, it's not the power, it's the role enforcement. (that role being the cRPG version of tank)
Which is solved by having more Reactions to pick from, which we got in the new update as well.
Nope, it really isn't, Paladin Reaction or Retributive strike, do not like, do not want, which is why I said 'the reactions'

+to saves is pickable at 2

AoO is pickable at 6

There are alternatives already in place if you don't want to use a feature.

Those would be reactions, and so included in 'the reactions'.

Wait... You're saying that you don't like reactions as a concept?

That's too bad then. 3 actions 1 reaction is the whole premise of the core system of the game.

You can't patch a single class to work outside of the core action system of the game.

Not as the entire focus of a class no, I don't.

But they are not.

My examples, getting either the +save or the AoO isn't "the entire focus of a class"

That's not even close.

Do you think that the entire focus of a fighter are his AoO too?

Reactions are nice little extras you get on top of your other features.

If you don't like "paladin reactions" as a concept, the very core rules allow you to switch to "fighter reaction" or to a simple survivability boost and etc.

As an example, he can grab domain at 1,grace at 2, Heal at 4, blade of justice at 6, double ally/AoO at 8, holy weapon at 10, smite/aura at 12, litany at 14, zeal at 16 and etc

And you have a purely offensive paladin

Litany is around +10-15 damage per strike for you and another +5-10 once per ally if you went with aura

Holy weapon is maybe the strongest property and you get it on top of your other properties

You get +2-6 good damage from blade of justice and extra crit damage and slow at 16

You get extra attacks if the enemy moves away, you get extra attack if the enemy hits someone nearby,

You have extra weapon dice from domain

Etc

Reactions are a nice bonus, and if you want to build defensively, like with a shield and guarding allies, a viable path. But no where near mandatory to work as a class.

Silver Crusade

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

Yep, plus we had Reactions as a thing previously as Immediate Actions. They've always been there, we just get more now.


Just want to add, that having extensively reading the paladin once more, since I'm making one for tomorrow's session, there is a single change that I feel will alleviate most issues asking for a vengeance focused paladin as opposed to a protector one:

Oath of vengeance is exactly what you're asking. Straying from the protection path towards the avenging one.

But I'll give that it's not that great due to not fitting thematically with using your weapon to do your vengeance but a paltry touch attack.

Switching Oath of vengeance to be a free action rider on your attack would bring back the vengeance paladin from level 2+ imo.


shroudb wrote:

Just want to add, that having extensively reading the paladin once more, since I'm making one for tomorrow's session, there is a single change that I feel will alleviate most issues asking for a vengeance focused paladin as opposed to a protector one:

Oath of vengeance is exactly what you're asking. Straying from the protection path towards the avenging one.

But I'll give that it's not that great due to not fitting thematically with using your weapon to do your vengeance but a paltry touch attack.

Switching Oath of vengeance to be a free action rider on your attack would bring back the vengeance paladin from level 2+ imo.

I'm not sure about the free action, but allowing you to deliver a lay on hands from Vengeful Oath with your sword is an excellent idea for paladins who want their smite back.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM OfAnything wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Just want to add, that having extensively reading the paladin once more, since I'm making one for tomorrow's session, there is a single change that I feel will alleviate most issues asking for a vengeance focused paladin as opposed to a protector one:

Oath of vengeance is exactly what you're asking. Straying from the protection path towards the avenging one.

But I'll give that it's not that great due to not fitting thematically with using your weapon to do your vengeance but a paltry touch attack.

Switching Oath of vengeance to be a free action rider on your attack would bring back the vengeance paladin from level 2+ imo.

I'm not sure about the free action, but allowing you to deliver a lay on hands from Vengeful Oath with your sword is an excellent idea for paladins who want their smite back.

That could work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the new Paladin aesthetic. People wanted a Good-restricted alignment-focused class, and that's what they got. It's fitting that the Goodest Guy emphasizes defending allies and support, with murder ability a distant second. The implication that the Goodest Guy can be a wrathful violence-obsessed murder machine is pretty uncomfortable to me. I'm glad that's gone.

Also, let's not pretend that there isn't widespread precedent for a fantasy "Paladin" having a defense or support focus, and not just in those darned newfangled MMOs.


NorthernDruid wrote:
jakjr15 wrote:

So please help me. I'm not following what seems to be the main point the keeps being brought up here. Why is it that having an ability that grants you a reaction automatically make it so you are a passive tank who sits there and waits for his trigger? Every character gets three actions and one reaction per round. So if I have a class ability that grants me a reaction, cool. I can use my one reaction per round. But that doesn't stop me from using my three regular actions during my turn to charge into the fight and start pounding someones face in. I see the two as two completely different things. Now if you have nothing but reactions granted by the class and no special actions then I could see the issue.

That being said I am not married to the idea of the Paladin gaining abilities according to his alignment. I would personally much rather see it be a special martial ability granted by your Deity. But that might just be me.

If you want to see a full description of my idea for the paladin, go to the thread...

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cwu?16-Paladin-Change-is-a-good-start

The short answer is that the Paladin has no core offensive ability against non-undeads, and has a core ability that is dead in a duel with an Evil Dark Lord (such as an antipaladin).

In some more depth;

You can get abilities that help your offense at higher levels, if you specialize correctly. The main one (Smite Evil) is quite high level since many campaigns don't last that long, or don't last much further.

Retributive Strike is a good option, much the same as Attack of Opportunity (except AoO still works when you're alone). But fails to help the Paladin actually be a tank, it just artificially helps them conserve aggro/threat in a kinda MMO-ish way. It's an ability that works best from the backline with a reach weapon, which goes very much against the idea of the champion of good who rushes in before anyone to face down the forces of evil.

All these ally focused reactions also...

Thanks for responding to my question. Even though I do not fully agree with this stance, I do fully understand where you are coming from. Yes a Divine Tank should have some ability or option to take abilities that grant them special offensive powers that don't rely on having allies in the fight, having abilities to help them assist their allies as an option is always a good thing for a Divine Fighter, especially if it is worded in such a way that allows it to trigger to protect NPCs and non-combatants as well as allies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Paladins do not make sense when not tied to a deity or Empy Lord (or Deamon/Demon/Devil for APs) Didn't make sense in ADnD 2e, wouldn't make sense now.

You mean aside from the ADnD 2e supplement entirely dedicated to paladins that explicitly unmarried them from deities by allowing them to be pledged to governments and knightly orders instead?


We just re-started testing a new party with a paladin, a figher and a sorcerer. Paladin was pulping enemies (did 22 and 30 points of damage with a maul against an orc and a kobold respectively, among other 11 point hits vs. giant lizard and giant weasel) and the synergy between paladin and fighter was excellent. In one situation Pali granted fighter resistance with whatever power he used, and fighter was able to block 6 points of dam with shield. It felt pretty cool. (I played the fighter). In the 4th encounter, the Pali went down. The fighter stabilized him, but using healer’s tools, crit failed so he got bolstered against the healing attempts. Oh, well.

After playing a group without a frontline tank (rogue, cleric, alchemist, wizard) it felt as if Pali and Fighter were worlds ahead in terms of survivability and combat effectiveness, at least at 1st level.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FedoraFerret wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Paladins do not make sense when not tied to a deity or Empy Lord (or Deamon/Demon/Devil for APs) Didn't make sense in ADnD 2e, wouldn't make sense now.
You mean aside from the ADnD 2e supplement entirely dedicated to paladins that explicitly unmarried them from deities by allowing them to be pledged to governments and knightly orders instead?

And that did not make sense. Having rules for something doesn't make it make sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Paladins Reactions are mechanically strong, and achieve the goal they set out to achieve, but that goal is totally antithetical to what being a Paladin means: they are not the 'holy tank' they are a Deities Wrath made flesh, standing alone if needed against any and all, destroying the enemies of the faith when ever and where ever they are found, with fire and sword. Paladins reactions are far to passive for this, they would fit the team work based inquisitor far better than the attack orientated Paladin.
The problem with the offensive paladin is it becomes very strong against evil enemies, and most PCs fight evil enemies. It blows up combat balance if the most effective class depends on a letter code appended to the opponents.
The problem with the defensive paladin is that it wipes out most visions of paladin. So the choice is defensive, narrow vision of paladin,(which I find boring) or don't play a Paladin...oh and the 'works better against evil/Undead' is an issue for all divine classes, from Cure-nuking undead to Holy Smite to demons/devils, to holy weapons, they all work against a narrow slice of monsters/NPCs.

that's like... your opinion dude.

literally everyone i know sees Paladins as the defenders of the weak.

In fact, we were laughing the other day at how you can simultaneously be the pragon of Law, Justice, and Good, and degrade that to something that's more or less a fanatical vengence focused dude.

"Avenging", "Vengeance", "Eradicating", "Eliminating" are words that you won't usually use to define what Good and Justice is.

that's like, CN at best.

no one I know sees paladins as defenders, they see them as fantasy Crusaders, with all the fanaticism and rage that implies, Iomodae and Ragathiel are prime in universe examples of that. Yes in peace they do good works, care fro people, heal, and take quests, in war they are the living embodiment of 'beware the nice ones'. Also the new paladin is flat awful at the iconic activities of the lone last stand, or holding the gate to buy time, or dueling the evil warlord.


I feel the complaints that paladin can't be offensive is just wrong. Just because some of the class features makes you good at protecting others doesn't mean that is the only viable playstyle. Give your paladin a greatsword and maybe take deity's domain zeal and you can weapon surge as a low-level smite ability and level two you get vengeful oath and you can use LoH to deal damage while holding your greatsword (sooo smite?) and later on you actually do get Blade of Justice and Smite.
The fact that a single reaction should determine your entire playstyle (and your character RP) is frankly ridiculous, you don't see Wizards complain that they took counterspell and now they aren't allowed to use their spell slots for anything but that.

The only complaint I find fair is the issue with paladin and heavy armor, since light/medium armor scales slower and doesn't give them the nice fortitude bonus at level 7. However I don't really see the paladin being all sneaky very often (if so I would rather just play a ranger or rogue with a paladin dedication or simply be lawful good), so the issues with heavy armor aren't that big. And at higher levels ACP can be pretty much reduced to almost nothing.
And I do find it pretty thematic that the paladin is an armored dude. If you want to use ranged attacks maybe just don't get an armor with the clumsy trait and you can still use your high dex for reflex and skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
I feel the complaints that paladin can't be offensive is just wrong. Just because some of the class features makes you good at protecting others doesn't mean that is the only viable playstyle. Give your paladin a greatsword and maybe take deity's domain zeal and you can weapon surge as a low-level smite ability and level two you get vengeful oath and you can use LoH to deal damage while holding your greatsword (sooo smite?) and later on you actually do get Blade of Justice and Smite.

Catch is, one of the most iconic ways to be a defender is to hold the enemy off while everyone flees, like Gandalf at the Bridge of Khazad-Dûm. But since your main class ability depends on having other allies with you, it... doesn't work.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
no one I know sees paladins as defenders, they see them as fantasy Crusaders, with all the fanaticism and rage that implies, Iomodae and Ragathiel are prime in universe examples of that.

There's a reason I keep bringing up the Worldwound. It may be canonically closed now, but that doesn't change the fact that the Mendevian Crusades were headed by paladins.

Dark Archive

RazarTuk wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
no one I know sees paladins as defenders, they see them as fantasy Crusaders, with all the fanaticism and rage that implies, Iomodae and Ragathiel are prime in universe examples of that.
There's a reason I keep bringing up the Worldwound. It may be canonically closed now, but that doesn't change the fact that the Mendevian Crusades were headed by paladins.

I'd like for some offensive options to be available earlier on as class feats, sure, but to be fair those crusades were largely failures. Compared to holding the line in Mendev against creatures capable of teleportation and Lastwall's paladins standing guard over the Gallowspire, I think there's sufficient examples of a defensive interpretation.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nettah wrote:

I feel the complaints that paladin can't be offensive is just wrong. Just because some of the class features makes you good at protecting others doesn't mean that is the only viable playstyle. Give your paladin a greatsword and maybe take deity's domain zeal and you can weapon surge as a low-level smite ability and level two you get vengeful oath and you can use LoH to deal damage while holding your greatsword (sooo smite?) and later on you actually do get Blade of Justice and Smite.

The fact that a single reaction should determine your entire playstyle (and your character RP) is frankly ridiculous, you don't see Wizards complain that they took counterspell and now they aren't allowed to use their spell slots for anything but that.

The only complaint I find fair is the issue with paladin and heavy armor, since light/medium armor scales slower and doesn't give them the nice fortitude bonus at level 7. However I don't really see the paladin being all sneaky very often (if so I would rather just play a ranger or rogue with a paladin dedication or simply be lawful good), so the issues with heavy armor aren't that big. And at higher levels ACP can be pretty much reduced to almost nothing.
And I do find it pretty thematic that the paladin is an armored dude. If you want to use ranged attacks maybe just don't get an armor with the clumsy trait and you can still use your high dex for reflex and skills.

You can't use the LOH as a Smite add on to a weapon, it's a separate Touch Attack (however with Channel Life it may be a fairly nasty one)


Rob Godfrey said wrote:
You can't use the LOH as a Smite add on to a weapon, it's a separate Touch Attack (however with Channel Life it may be a fairly nasty one)

But still a touch attack you can do while holding your weapon (so thematically it might as well be the weapon you use for the touch, of course you don't do any of the regular damage, but a one action touch attack with LoH damage is still pretty good).

My point still is that you can build a paladin with smite-like abilities from the very start, doing limited but powerful strikes against foes especially the evil kind. Btw LoH is better at dealing damage than channel life is, so I don't get your point there. And a weapon surge empowered attack is better than what the fighter does at that level.

RazarTuk said wrote:
Catch is, one of the most iconic ways to be a defender is to hold the enemy off while everyone flees, like Gandalf at the Bridge of Khazad-Dûm. But since your main class ability depends on having other allies with you, it... doesn't work.

Well nobody can really do that, except a caster that breaks the bridge like Gandalf. A fighter with AoO won't really do a much better job at it either. However the most durable character is likely still the paladin, so he doesn't need retributive strike to fight stuff 1v1, it's just a nice bonus.

Depending on your DM you could also get the very reasonable encounter where the rest of the party flees and the paladin remains behind and fighting an enemy which then wouldn't be spending his action chasing the party, he would likely be fighting the paladin first.


Nettah wrote:

I feel the complaints that paladin can't be offensive is just wrong. Just because some of the class features makes you good at protecting others doesn't mean that is the only viable playstyle. Give your paladin a greatsword and maybe take deity's domain zeal and you can weapon surge as a low-level smite ability and level two you get vengeful oath and you can use LoH to deal damage while holding your greatsword (sooo smite?) and later on you actually do get Blade of Justice and Smite.

And I do find it pretty thematic that the paladin is an armored dude. If you want to use ranged attacks maybe just don't get an armor with the clumsy trait and you can still use your high dex for reflex and skills.

I wouldn't say Paladin shouldn't be offensive, but as they are already a class with access to strong weapons, strong armour, and healing, throwing "lots of damage" into the mix has the potential of becoming OP, if the Paladin can deal as much damage as classes with weak weapons, weak armour, and no healing.


EberronHoward said wrote:
I wouldn't say Paladin shouldn't be offensive, but as they are already a class with access to strong weapons, strong armour, and healing, throwing "lots of damage" into the mix has the potential of becoming OP, if the Paladin can deal as much damage as classes with weak weapons, weak armour, and no healing.

I think we agree. I was talking to the fact that a lot of people in this thread have been complaining that the paladin lacks offensive capabilities. Which I actually kinda disagree with, since there is a lot of options to make them one of the highest damage dealers thanks to their spell power pool and blade ally.

Personally the only "buffs" they might consider is adding a class feat more aimed at a ranged weapon paladin that doesn't wear heavy armor. But such builds could also just be rangers with paladin dedication. Blade of Justice with their low MAP could do some serious damage at higher levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So the argument that it's impossible to let the paladin have the option for an offensive core ability because they're so powerful already doesn't make sense.

By properly using Retributive Strike, you will be dealing far more damage than many of the suggested offensive abilities, with the added benefit of giving your allies resistance.

Like, if you mathed out the exact expected damage contribution from Retributive Strike, and let an offensive paladin deal the same amount over a combat, it would still be inferior because of the lost resistance.

If Retributive Strike makes the enemy focus on you and it never triggers, then, well, I'll still campaign against it because that's a terrible design given how much keys off of it, and how unreliable it is compared to the other reactions.

If Retributive Strike does go off a lot, then the argument that the paladin shouldn't be doing damage because they're an MMO style tank falls flat.


RS to some people( myself included) think that it is garbage. Anything that either requires an AoO or being around a party member being attacked means that it requires a reaction to go off.

Alot of people would rather have Smite Evil even at lesser damage , it would be usable when its needed instead of a reaction.

you are right though, an offensive build can be made of each alignment paladin. however to some a paladin with no smite evil is no paladin. This can be nullified somewhat with Blade of Justice should it still be a thing.

Though I do not like the alignment paladins as for me 3 paladins that acted with the teachings formed to mimic the 3 celestial planes


Steelfiredragon wrote:


RS to some people( myself included) think that it is garbage. Anything that either requires an AoO or being around a party member being attacked means that it requires a reaction to go off.

Its not a raging dumpster fire any more, but it's still...not great.

So I guess its been upgraded from "dumpster fire" to "just trash"?


@ Nettah: I kind of feel that a light-armoured ranged weapon divine warrior should be its own class. The kind of class feats required to make a Paladin like that work would have little overlap with the typical Paladin and vice-versa, even worse than the Fighter's Ranged class feats. I can't imagine a character build that could make cherry-picking heavy armour and big weapon feats alongside light armour and ranged weapon feats profitable. Might as well separate them if they're never going to interact.

WatersLethe wrote:

So the argument that it's impossible to let the paladin have the option for an offensive core ability because they're so powerful already doesn't make sense.

By properly using Retributive Strike, you will be dealing far more damage than many of the suggested offensive abilities, with the added benefit of giving your allies resistance.

Like, if you mathed out the exact expected damage contribution from Retributive Strike, and let an offensive paladin deal the same amount over a combat, it would still be inferior because of the lost resistance.

If Retributive Strike makes the enemy focus on you and it never triggers, then, well, I'll still campaign against it because that's a terrible design given how much keys off of it, and how unreliable it is compared to the other reactions.

If Retributive Strike does go off a lot, then the argument that the paladin shouldn't be doing damage because they're an MMO style tank falls flat.

But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.


EberronHoward wrote:
But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.

The problem is that it fails to achieve this goal!

A paladin with no allies can't use RS, making the battlefield control useless.

Allies that go between the paladin and an enemy who choose to flank the enemy revoke the paladin's ability to RS.

Enemies that "go over there to smack the wizard" instead of "trying to kill this rogue and paladin" are in no way inconvenienced by RS (if anything, RS had a negative outcome: the rogue probably could've taken the hit better than the wizard if the paladin hadn't been there).

Paladin can't stop enemies from moving (unlike the fighter and to some degree the Barbarin (that reaction is weird and cool)).

Prior to 1.6 enemies could just...not be next to the paladin with a step and give the paladin the middle finger and attack his ally anyway.


yep trash.

but I dont think to highly of any of the divine strike abilities.
as I said I would have preferred paladins that based their actions off the mandates from the 3 celestial planes over 3 different alignment classed paladins.
and of the 3 DS abilities the one I can stomach is the NG one


Draco18s wrote:

The problem is that it fails to achieve this goal!

A paladin with no allies can't use RS, making the battlefield control useless.

Allies that go between the paladin and an enemy who choose to flank the enemy revoke the paladin's ability to RS.

Enemies that "go over there to smack the wizard" instead of "trying to kill this rogue and paladin" are in no way inconvenienced by RS (if anything, RS had a negative outcome: the rogue probably could've taken the hit better than the wizard if the paladin hadn't been there).

Paladin can't stop enemies from moving (unlike the fighter and to some degree the Barbarin (that reaction is weird and cool)).

Prior to 1.6 enemies could just...not be next to the paladin with a step and give the paladin the middle finger and attack his ally anyway.

If a Wizard keeps casting Fireball into enemies and allies alike, that does not make Fireball bad. If a Cleric kept using the 3-action Heal amidst living enemies and healing them, that does not make 3-action Heal bad. And if a foe uses its second action to walk past the Fighter after its first move action was disrupted, then that doesn't mean the Attack of Opportunity feature is bad.

If Paladins are not near to allies, or their allies put themselves in bad positions, then of course RS will be trash. Anything more complicated than a melee attack can become problematic or useless if the player doesn't play in a way that supports it. As a player of a Paladin, leveraging RS was more difficult than AoO or some Smite effect, but it had a bigger pay-off. RS inflicts enfeeblement on a foe, can disrupt an attack if RS kills the foe first, and can be used for as many rounds as the Paladin stays in melee reach.

RS will certainly suffer in a group who don't act like a cohesive unit, but like my previous 3 examples, most character options will suffer if the party doesn't coordinate their actions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
If a Wizard keeps casting Fireball into enemies and allies alike, that does not make Fireball bad. If a Cleric kept using the 3-action Heal amidst living enemies and healing them, that does not make 3-action Heal bad. And if a foe uses its second action to walk past the Fighter after its first move action was disrupted, then that doesn't mean the Attack of Opportunity feature is bad.

If the wizard is an idiot...

If the cleric is an idiot...
If the enemy wastes an action...

Quote:
If Paladins are not near to allies, or their allies put themselves in bad positions, then of course RS will be trash.

If everyone around the paladin that isn't the paladin acts badly...

One of these things is not like the others.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
EberronHoward wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

The problem is that it fails to achieve this goal!

A paladin with no allies can't use RS, making the battlefield control useless.

Allies that go between the paladin and an enemy who choose to flank the enemy revoke the paladin's ability to RS.

Enemies that "go over there to smack the wizard" instead of "trying to kill this rogue and paladin" are in no way inconvenienced by RS (if anything, RS had a negative outcome: the rogue probably could've taken the hit better than the wizard if the paladin hadn't been there).

Paladin can't stop enemies from moving (unlike the fighter and to some degree the Barbarin (that reaction is weird and cool)).

Prior to 1.6 enemies could just...not be next to the paladin with a step and give the paladin the middle finger and attack his ally anyway.

If a Wizard keeps casting Fireball into enemies and allies alike, that does not make Fireball bad. If a Cleric kept using the 3-action Heal amidst living enemies and healing them, that does not make 3-action Heal bad. And if a foe uses its second action to walk past the Fighter after its first move action was disrupted, then that doesn't mean the Attack of Opportunity feature is bad.

If Paladins are not near to allies, or their allies put themselves in bad positions, then of course RS will be trash. Anything more complicated than a melee attack can become problematic or useless if the player doesn't play in a way that supports it. As a player of a Paladin, leveraging RS was more difficult than AoO or some Smite effect, but it had a bigger pay-off. RS inflicts enfeeblement on a foe, can disrupt an attack if RS kills the foe first, and can be used for as many rounds as the Paladin stays in melee reach.

RS will certainly suffer in a group who don't act like a cohesive unit, but like my previous 3 examples, most character options will suffer if the party doesn't coordinate their actions.

RS Does not enfeeble any more. It does give the target damage resistance, which is nice I guess, but now Defenders (LG) have run off with the damaging ability (Smite), and left Redeemers and Liberators with nothing worth mentioning, terrible reactions, no damaging abilities worth talking about...yea (also is it me or is persistent damage terrible? You get one roll a turn, and any further hits don't get that bonus...yea)


Rob Godfrey wrote:
(also is it me or is persistent damage terrible? You get one roll a turn, and any further hits don't get that bonus...yea)

Its just you. Once you inflict persistent damage, GTFO. Persistent damage is very hard to get rid of (without spending about 3-4 actions). I've seen monsters die from persistent damage, heck one even did the job FOR us and teleported away.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
EberronHoward wrote:
But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.

If the ability literally never goes off, fulfilling its purpose perfectly, then I think it's highly unsatisfying and should be redesigned.

If it does go off now and again, the game designers should know roughly how often. Say, once per combat. If they haven't thought about it, then they should because it's a pretty big deal for the rest of the class's design.

Whatever number of attacks a paladin is expected to get from the ability, let me have an offensive option that deals damage at most on par with that, but without the need to play an MMO style tank.


They should just add a feat that's something along the lines of:

"If you are the only ally within 15ft of an enemy, you consider yourself your own ally for the purposes of triggering your Reaction ability against that enemy"

With the horse being excluded from the requirement if you picked that path.

Now you can charge in alone, get into a duel, or hold something off while your allies escape. If your allies are involved, then you focus on protecting them instead of yourself as protecting people is still more important than killing stuff - it's just not the only thing you can do.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zorae wrote:

They should just add a feat that's something along the lines of:

"If you are the only ally within 15ft of an enemy, you consider yourself your own ally for the purposes of triggering your Reaction ability against that enemy"

With the horse being excluded from the requirement if you picked that path.

Now you can charge in alone, get into a duel, or hold something off while your allies escape. If your allies are involved, then you focus on protecting them instead of yourself as protecting people is still more important than killing stuff - it's just not the only thing you can do.

I'd be somewhat okay with that, but it'd be seriously OP. Who wouldn't want a free AoO every time you're attacked?


WatersLethe wrote:
Zorae wrote:

They should just add a feat that's something along the lines of:

"If you are the only ally within 15ft of an enemy, you consider yourself your own ally for the purposes of triggering your Reaction ability against that enemy"

With the horse being excluded from the requirement if you picked that path.

Now you can charge in alone, get into a duel, or hold something off while your allies escape. If your allies are involved, then you focus on protecting them instead of yourself as protecting people is still more important than killing stuff - it's just not the only thing you can do.

I'd be somewhat okay with that, but it'd be seriously OP. Who wouldn't want a free AoO every time you're attacked?

I don't think it would be that OP, as it requires you to be off by yourself.

A shield Paladin (pre-8), a Paladin in a party with a Rogue/Barbarian, or a ranged paladin would have very little use for it.

It would only be a bit OP if you're locked in a 1-1 duel (which is where you'd expect Paladins to shine) or are the only melee fighter and terrain is preventing the bad guy from leaving the Paladin to go after the squishies - and that seems like a rather rare occurrence as well.


Zorae wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Zorae wrote:

They should just add a feat that's something along the lines of:

"If you are the only ally within 15ft of an enemy, you consider yourself your own ally for the purposes of triggering your Reaction ability against that enemy"

With the horse being excluded from the requirement if you picked that path.

Now you can charge in alone, get into a duel, or hold something off while your allies escape. If your allies are involved, then you focus on protecting them instead of yourself as protecting people is still more important than killing stuff - it's just not the only thing you can do.

I'd be somewhat okay with that, but it'd be seriously OP. Who wouldn't want a free AoO every time you're attacked?

I don't think it would be that OP, as it requires you to be off by yourself.

A shield Paladin (pre-8), a Paladin in a party with a Rogue/Barbarian, or a ranged paladin would have very little use for it.

It would only be a bit OP if you're locked in a 1-1 duel (which is where you'd expect Paladins to shine) or are the only melee fighter and terrain is preventing the bad guy from leaving the Paladin to go after the squishies - and that seems like a rather rare occurrence as well.

a)i'd expect the best duelist to be a fighter and not a paladin.

it makes sense that the guy that's whole purpose is combat and its tricks and applications to be THE duelist.

b)that said, i wouldn't mind such a feat myself if it was just a bit more resticted (like 20+ feet instead of 15) but:

there is already a dedicated feat for vengeance paladins. And it even has its name correct.

the only thing that's needed for "offence" paladins for early levels (since 6+ they are covered) is buffing Oath of Vengeance a bit and making it delivered through your weapon ala smite.


WatersLethe wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.
If the ability literally never goes off, fulfilling its purpose perfectly, then I think it's highly unsatisfying and should be redesigned.

As long as the Paladin is making foes perform sub-optimal choices based on RS, it's working. Whether the Paladin is making an extra attack each turn by foes ignoring them, encouraging foes to attack the person with heavy armour instead of light armour, or having foes waste a move action (which could have been used for an attack action) to get out of the Paladin's RS.

Quote:
If it does go off now and again, the game designers should know roughly how often. Say, once per combat. If they haven't thought about it, then they should because it's a pretty big deal for the rest of the class's design.

When I played a Paladin, my GM never risked a RS and always attacked me. As a GM, I'll probably trigger the RS just for the heck of it. RS is always going to useful; how often RS deals damage is up to the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
As long as the Paladin is making foes perform sub-optimal choices based on RS, it's working.

Working does not always mean Fun.

And I'd debate how "working" it really is if enemies go "eh, I'll move over here and hit this guy instead."


Draco18s wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
As long as the Paladin is making foes perform sub-optimal choices based on RS, it's working.

Working does not always mean Fun.

And I'd debate how "working" it really is if enemies go "eh, I'll move over here and hit this guy instead."

Fun is subjective.

I had tons of fun saying a big "nope" to the GM every time he tried to attack the rest, squishier, party members.

Also, from my experience, 15ft range means that either my party members are close enough to protect or further back that enemies can't reach with 1 move while zigzagging through the front line.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
EberronHoward wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.
If the ability literally never goes off, fulfilling its purpose perfectly, then I think it's highly unsatisfying and should be redesigned.

As long as the Paladin is making foes perform sub-optimal choices based on RS, it's working. Whether the Paladin is making an extra attack each turn by foes ignoring them, encouraging foes to attack the person with heavy armour instead of light armour, or having foes waste a move action (which could have been used for an attack action) to get out of the Paladin's RS.

Quote:
If it does go off now and again, the game designers should know roughly how often. Say, once per combat. If they haven't thought about it, then they should because it's a pretty big deal for the rest of the class's design.
When I played a Paladin, my GM never risked a RS and always attacked me. As a GM, I'll probably trigger the RS just for the heck of it. RS is always going to useful; how often RS deals damage is up to the GM.

which is great...for a hyper rare edge case vision of paladin as meat shield, that is never what they have been before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.
If the ability literally never goes off, fulfilling its purpose perfectly, then I think it's highly unsatisfying and should be redesigned.

As long as the Paladin is making foes perform sub-optimal choices based on RS, it's working. Whether the Paladin is making an extra attack each turn by foes ignoring them, encouraging foes to attack the person with heavy armour instead of light armour, or having foes waste a move action (which could have been used for an attack action) to get out of the Paladin's RS.

Quote:
If it does go off now and again, the game designers should know roughly how often. Say, once per combat. If they haven't thought about it, then they should because it's a pretty big deal for the rest of the class's design.
When I played a Paladin, my GM never risked a RS and always attacked me. As a GM, I'll probably trigger the RS just for the heck of it. RS is always going to useful; how often RS deals damage is up to the GM.
which is great...for a hyper rare edge case vision of paladin as meat shield, that is never what they have been before.

You're wrong actually.

Paladins were meat shields and protectors far longer compared to being damage dealers.


shroudb wrote:
I had tons of fun saying a big "nope" to the GM every time he tried to attack the rest, squishier, party members.

That would be RS triggering.

Did you have fun with the GM had everything attack you instead?


Draco18s wrote:
shroudb wrote:
I had tons of fun saying a big "nope" to the GM every time he tried to attack the rest, squishier, party members.

That would be RS triggering.

Did you have fun with the GM had everything attack you instead?

yes?

i had both higher AC and excellent self healing options, so it was always better to attack me than to attack my allies.

if they attacked me, i used the reaction of the holy property for self heal, if they attacked allies i had RS

paladin felt refreshingly good due to his very robust action economy:

both defensive (shield) and offensive (greatsword) builds have good "3rd actions" in the form of raise shield and blade of justice respectively. (and i guess AC paly has the command action, but everyone i know kinda /meh on the animal companions as a whole*)
Both have great, single action, heals as well to fill in their actions with.
maybe the only class to reliably get off a reaction every single round, either RS if they attack your allies, or block/heal from holy (again for defensive and offensive builds respectively) if they attack you.

It was one of the few martial characters where i had to struggle to decide what to do every round of more than enough actions that i could, one of the few that my positionig mattered even more, and etc.

and that (having options that are competitive with each other) felt great, and how every class should be designed.

*on a seperate matter, animal companions, for both the paladin but also the ranger and the driud should definately NOT need 99% of your class feats just to barely work...

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Paladins Reaction and the issues I have with it. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.