Paladins Reaction and the issues I have with it.


Classes

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

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
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.

The ADnD 2e Paladin was a knight errant riding out to crush evil beneath his chargers hooves, or if it yeilded take it to trial, didn't play 1st so can't talk about that, 3e they got smite to improve the 'crush evil' meat shield was some 2e kits, skipped in 3e, reappeared in some PF archetypes.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
shroudb wrote:
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.

The ADnD 2e Paladin was a knight errant riding out to crush evil beneath his chargers hooves, or if it yeilded take it to trial, didn't play 1st so can't talk about that, 3e they got smite to improve the 'crush evil' meat shield was some 2e kits, skipped in 3e, reappeared in some PF archetypes.

2nd edition paladin had almost nothing offensive and everything was defensive and aura based.

Because you liked to role play him as a "crusher" that doesn't make it be so either conceptually or mechanically.

3rd edition gave a very limited smite for that "once per day" blaze of glory and all the other abilities were defensive and auras.

It was only pf that made them truly offensive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Phicurious86 wrote:

Reads like lots of paladins want to have their cake and eat it immediately.

If you want to be the avenging paladin, you absolutely can, but it's going to come on later in your character progression and you're not going to be as deadly generally as a fighter or barb (for balance reasons if not theme).

So. A paladin should be worse at avenging evil things than fighters are?

I can understand not being able to bash everything in the face as hard as a fighter (or barb) can.

I mean, why can't a paladin be amazing and better than the "middle of the road, does nothing special" fighter against some things?

Smite is "be as good as a fighter against one thing."

Thing is, the PF1 paladin was way better than the fighter against the one thing. And the one thing was the vast majority of stuff you fight.

I tended to think of the PF1 paladin more by its amazing defensive features than Smite, because those tended to be on all the time. But smite spiked the damage curve in a pretty absurd way.

The PF2 paladin actually functions more like what you are describing. If you snag blade of Justice, you really shred against one thing: enemies with weakness good. Which is a much smaller category than any evil. But the worst of the worst evil creatures, literal agents of hell, are still harmed more by a paladin than anyone else.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
shroudb wrote:
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.

The ADnD 2e Paladin was a knight errant riding out to crush evil beneath his chargers hooves, or if it yeilded take it to trial, didn't play 1st so can't talk about that, 3e they got smite to improve the 'crush evil' meat shield was some 2e kits, skipped in 3e, reappeared in some PF archetypes.

2nd edition paladin had almost nothing offensive and everything was defensive and aura based.

Because you...

They had the same offense as the fighter (weapon specialization and the possibility of getting 18/00 strength , and the single most powerful weapon in the system (well, short of artifacts) was the paladin only Holy Avenger, yes they had an aura (in fact Protection from Evil 10ft radius iirc) which was a huge buff, and battlefield control in it's effects on evil outsiders.


I'm gonna have to echo sentiments about tying mechanics to fluff being not so great. Like, even the per-god spell lists and weapon proficiencies for clerics annoys me both as a player and as a GM, as it's basically the same problem we had with Traits. People aren't picking what's good flavor or interesting, they're picking based on a build, and you can't really blame them. They're just too big an influence on combat for people to feel like they actually have a choice if they're trying to be effective.

If a player wants to play a chaotic good paladin, they're not really making a declaration that they don't want to play a tanky paladin. They just don't want to RP someone that necessarily respects authority. If you want to play a classic LG Paladin, you might want to play something more offensively focused and you're going to find it extremely dumb that your character concept has to be compromised to fit with the mechanics.

Or, more likely, the GM will just say the rules are dumb and ignore that bit. Or maybe they won't, and the player and GM are gonna sit there and argue about it. And I just don't see how the rule benefits anyone. It doesn't balance the game, it doesn't really add any flavor that makes any sense. It's just kind of there, since Paladins are supposed to have alignment restrictions apparently even though D&D 5e does pretty well with just setting some vague tenets. If players aren't arguing with GM's about whether they're rebellious enough to qualify for their reaction, how could we possibly tell a Paladin apart from a Fighter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The paladin's battlefield role has changed immensely, from cruise missile that charges the main baddie on round 1 and then keeps it engaged until the rest of the party has cleaned up the bodyguard, to an AEGIS anti-missile system that tries to intercept attacks against the rest of your fleet task force (party).

The new paladin is an acceptable tank concept. It is even acceptable as a holy champion. But it is NOT a continuation of what paladins were in PF1. Converting a PF1 paladin to PF2 does NOT work conceptually. There is no class in PF2 that resembles the PF1 paladin enough to make a conversion make sense. The closest is likely a fighter with cleric dedication.

I'd keep the class as it is, generalize it to all alignments, and NOT call it paladin. No aspect of this class is like a PF1 paladin. This gives the option for creating a prestige archetype or even a class for paladins, that emulate how they worked in PF1. This would allow PF1 paladins to remain paladins in PF2.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Starfox wrote:

The paladin's battlefield role has changed immensely, from cruise missile that charges the main baddie on round 1 and then keeps it engaged until the rest of the party has cleaned up the bodyguard, to an AEGIS anti-missile system that tries to intercept attacks against the rest of your fleet task force (party).

The new paladin is an acceptable tank concept. It is even acceptable as a holy champion. But it is NOT a continuation of what paladins were in PF1. Converting a PF1 paladin to PF2 does NOT work conceptually. There is no class in PF2 that resembles the PF1 paladin enough to make a conversion make sense. The closest is likely a fighter with cleric dedication.

I'd keep the class as it is, generalize it to all alignments, and NOT call it paladin. No aspect of this class is like a PF1 paladin. This gives the option for creating a prestige archetype or even a class for paladins, that emulate how they worked in PF1. This would allow PF1 paladins to remain paladins in PF2.

actually I thought I had was: let paladins take the 'Align Weapon' feat at lvl 1, takes an action, adds 1d6 'alignment damage' to all other strikes that round, and can be replaced with or used in addition to Blade of Justice later on. (addition to is most likely, given that the 3rd action is basically the utility action each round anyway)


Rob Godfrey wrote:
actually I thought I had was: let paladins take the 'Align Weapon' feat at lvl 1, takes an action, adds 1d6 'alignment damage' to all other strikes that round, and can be replaced with or used in addition to Blade of Justice later on. (addition to is most likely, given that the 3rd action is basically the utility action each round anyway)

Tricky feat, just saw it in action in Red Flags. It has no specified duration...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Starfox wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
actually I thought I had was: let paladins take the 'Align Weapon' feat at lvl 1, takes an action, adds 1d6 'alignment damage' to all other strikes that round, and can be replaced with or used in addition to Blade of Justice later on. (addition to is most likely, given that the 3rd action is basically the utility action each round anyway)
Tricky feat, just saw it in action in Red Flags. It has no specified duration...

we just assumed until your next turn, but you are right, it doesn't explicitly state that.

101 to 109 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.
Recent threads in Classes