Paladins Reaction and the issues I have with it.


Classes

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.

Silver Crusade

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

Or they're heroes that protect the weak. Or crusaders. or avengers. There's a bunch of different ways to play Paladins. Hunting down enemies of the faith was explicitly what the Inquisitor was about.

Tying Paladins to a deity is a mistake I'm beginning to believe more and more.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Imo paladins are much more like stalwart bulwarks of unfailing faith rather than avengers and murderers.

Yes, they kill their enemies, but their reason d'etre was always protecting the little folks.

It's just that dnd and PF are skewered towards offence>defence and that PF smite was incredibly strong that somehow they got switched from protectors to wrathful killers.

The class that's supposed to hunt evil was the inquisitors in pf, not the paladins, regardless how it worked out in the end.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

Or they're heroes that protect the weak. Or crusaders. or avengers. There's a bunch of different ways to play Paladins. Hunting down enemies of the faith was explicitly what the Inquisitor was about.

Tying Paladins to a deity is a mistake I'm beginning to believe more and more.

Crusader and Avenger are both attack orientated concepts, Protect the weak can be either, tying them to a mechanic that feels like it comes straight from an MMO grates on me, and doesn't fit most of the visions of the holy warrior (can you imagine a Paladin of Ragathiel who waits for the enemy to attack before striking with holy wrath? I can't)

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Retributive Strike is a decent class feature on its own. My issue is that it feels antithetical to the paladin. For example, I can't imagine a Mendevian crusader thinking, "Okay, just need that demon to strike my ally, and I'll be able to lash back even stronger".

Silver Crusade

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

Or they're heroes that protect the weak. Or crusaders. or avengers. There's a bunch of different ways to play Paladins. Hunting down enemies of the faith was explicitly what the Inquisitor was about.

Tying Paladins to a deity is a mistake I'm beginning to believe more and more.

Crusader and Avenger are both attack orientated concepts, Protect the weak can be either, tying them to a mechanic that feels like it comes straight from an MMO grates on me, and doesn't fit most of the visions of the holy warrior (can you imagine a Paladin of Ragathiel who waits for the enemy to attack before striking with holy wrath? I can't)

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.

”I strike enemies that attack my allies” feels more tabletop than MMO to me.

And yes? A Paladin of Ragathiel that guards a place or person. Ragathiel himself is known for manning a fortress that could withstand a thousand year siege.

Paladins don’t require deities in 2nd, 3rd, or Pathfinder, and In hosts of other media. Godless Paladins are not an outlier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Or they're heroes that protect the weak. Or crusaders. or avengers. There's a bunch of different ways to play Paladins. Hunting down enemies of the faith was explicitly what the Inquisitor was about.

Tying Paladins to a deity is a mistake I'm beginning to believe more and more.

Crusader and Avenger are both attack orientated concepts, Protect the weak can be either, tying them to a mechanic that feels like it comes straight from an MMO grates on me, and doesn't fit most of the visions of the holy warrior (can you imagine a Paladin of Ragathiel who waits for the enemy to attack before striking with holy wrath? I can't)

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.

”I strike enemies that attack my allies” feels more tabletop than MMO to me.

And yes? A Paladin of Ragathiel that guards a place or person. Ragathiel himself is known for manning a fortress that could withstand a thousand year siege.

Paladins don’t require deities in 2nd, 3rd, or Pathfinder, and In hosts of other media. Godless Paladins are not an outlier.

Then we fundamentally disagree, and have totally different interpretations of paladins, you see them as defenders..I don't, they can and do hold the line, but they do it by individual heroics and smashing the enemy (hell the iconic image of a paladin is the solo last stand, or dueling a great evil, something they are awful at now)

(Retributive strike feels like a 'threat' mechanic, and the Liberator reaction looks like a straight lift of wow blessing of Freedom [for instance])


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I literally never saw a Paladin in the hands of a player in PF1 who was tied to a specific deity. We had Paladins who were atheists, Paladins who were pantheists, Paladins who saw the gods as good examples but fundamentally equals, Paladins who were animists, Paladins who worshiped like 7 unrelated deities, Paladins who were questioning their own path, one Paladin who tried to do good by *every* god, etc.

Having a Paladin tied to a specific deity is the most boring kind of Paladin. A Paladin player should be no more expected to explain the mechanism through which they derive power than should any other class (no one ever asked the oracle where their powers come from, an angelic blooded sorcerer can say "Oh, my magic comes from special blood" but can't explain why every Aasimar can't do the same things.) It's not like Iomedae manifests right in front of you and explains the terms.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I literally never saw a Paladin in the hands of a player in PF1 who was tied to a specific deity. We had Paladins who were atheists, Paladins who were pantheists, Paladins who saw the gods as good examples but fundamentally equals, Paladins who were animists, Paladins who worshiped like 7 unrelated deities, Paladins who were questioning their own path, one Paladin who tried to do good by *every* god, etc.

Having a Paladin tied to a specific deity is the most boring kind of Paladin. A Paladin player should be no more expected to explain the mechanism through which they derive power than should any other class (no one ever asked the oracle where their powers come from, an angelic blooded sorcerer can say "Oh, my magic comes from special blood" but can't explain why every Aasimar can't do the same things.) It's not like Iomedae manifests right in front of you and explains the terms.

I have never seen one who wasn't, not even in ADnD 2e.. So anecdotes I guess? It never made sense to me that a divinely empowered champion didn't have a patron, and didn't follow a faith. I could see Pantheists, and that does need some support, for Clerics and Paladins both, but no patron at all? Does not compute.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


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.

Ragathiel and Iomadae provide easy counter examples to that, for a start, as do most paladins you see in the fiction, and Lawful Good is not a nice alignment, it is judgement and divine right, enforced at sword point and sentenced by anointed judges. You get legal representation, but you still hang if convicted. Being a race that doesn't fit, and is 'evil' the law says you get purged, and they will do it, they wont torture or torment you, they will kill all who resist and try those that surrender, maybe you get lucky and are only exiled (which is nicer than LN or LE would do, I admit)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the 3 variant paladins in the playtest are a good start. HOWEVER, I was hoping them more to be inline of the archons,angles and azatas ....

or at the least all of them have divine smite.

just my two zhents worth

archon: smite evil without mercy
angel: smite evil with mercy and redeem if able
azata: smite evil with stuff.

but.. shall wait and see for the end product.

looks at empty seat in boat jsut in case


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

Ragathiel and Iomadae provide easy counter examples to that, for a start, as do most paladins you see in the fiction, and Lawful Good is not a nice alignment, it is judgement and divine right, enforced at sword point and sentenced by anointed judges. You get legal representation, but you still hang if convicted....

depends on the fiction.

most fictions have the shining knight. That was also the original inspiration for paladin. And no, he's a hundred times more for protecting and salvation rather than destruction.

Even in classic dnd literature, you don't need to look far for such examples, like dragonlance saga and etc prominent paladins.

You make LG sound like a LE tyrant.

they are not.

Eradication should, by both law and good, usually be the last countermeasure if everything else failed.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the issue here is about what Paladins are in a philosophical way, the problem is tying that to specific mechanics and combat styles in a very odd way.

If the Paladin class stays as it is, the following scenes can and probably will happen a lot:

"Player: I want to be a protector of goodness and a warrior with divine grace.

GM: Great!

Player: And I want to have a big sword and punish evildoers by smiting them!

GM: Don't even try, you have to be a tank. A reactive tank. Maybe multiclass Fighter or... wait until level 12...?"

And similarly:

"Player: Ok, I'm fine with the reactive tank thing. Then... I'll be a champion of liberty, defend people's rights to live their own lives and fight tyranny, giving payback for those who harm innocents with my mighty weapon!.

GM: Oh... did I mention you got to be Lawful for that? As a Chaotic Champion you can only make people step a little bit, because... freedom?"

Both are very frustrating and the former actually happened in my party. The second one can be houseruled, I guess, but the first one can't unless your GM create a whole lot of other abilities for the class on their own. Also, why have a class that is so limited in the way they can fight in the first place? This is a core class, not a specialized archetype from a specific book, and nothing in its class fantasy says "you can only be a reactive tank".

I'm talking more about reactions because this is the topic, but the same issue also happens with armor. Apparently your deity doesn't want you to train using light armor, that got to be a blasphemy!

Ok, over with the sarcastic tone, but that's a serious issue for me and apparently for a lot of people here. I know perfectly balancing every fighting style for every class is hard, but restricting an entire class to using heavy armor and playing in a specific way unless they want to be heavily penalized isn't very fun for anyone, I guess.

Edit: Sorry if bad English happens, it's not my main language and I'm not very used to writing big posts in English.


dmerceless wrote:

I don't think the issue here is about what Paladins are in a philosophical way, the problem is tying that to specific mechanics and combat styles in a very odd way.

If the Paladin class stays as it is, the following scenes can and probably will happen a lot:

"Player: I want to be a protector of goodness and a warrior with divine grace.

GM: Great!

Player: And I want to have a big sword and punish evildoers by smiting them!

GM: Don't even try, you have to be a tank. A reactive tank. Maybe multiclass Fighter or... wait until level 12...?"

And similarly:

"Player: Ok, I'm fine with the reactive tank thing. Then... I'll be a champion of liberty, defend people's rights to live their own lives and fight tyranny, giving payback for those who harm innocents with my mighty weapon!.

GM: Oh... did I mention you got to be Lawful for that? As a Chaotic Champion you can only make people step a little bit, because... freedom?"

Both are very frustrating and the former actually happened in my party. The second one can be houseruled, I guess, but the first one can't unless your GM create a whole lot of other abilities for the class on their own. Also, why have a class that is so limited in the way they can fight in the first place? This is a core class, not a specialized archetype from a specific book, and nothing in its class fantasy says "you can only be a reactive tank".

i fail to see why the 1st example isn't feasible.

i mean, for starters you usually want a big weapon (reach) if you want to extort maximum benefit out of retributive strike.

you don't need to have sword and board, hell, there are even paths dedicated to your weapon or animal companion instead of a shield.

plus, you do get smite at level 12, and that scales better with a greatsword rather than a one handed weapon.

even with a two-hander you protect (grant DR) allies and punish (retributive strike) enemies.

add in judgements (litanies), holy weapons, and branding opponents, and you're set as a greatsweord wielding LG paladin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

i fail to see why the 1st example isn't feasible.

i mean, for starters you usually want a big weapon (reach) if you want to extort maximum benefit out of retributive strike.

you don't need to have sword and board, hell, there are even paths dedicated to your weapon or animal companion instead of a shield.

plus, you do get smite at level 12, and that scales better with a greatsword rather than a one handed weapon.

even with a two-hander you protect (grant DR) allies and punish (retributive strike) enemies.

add in judgements (litanies), holy weapons, and branding opponents, and you're set as...

Two main points here:

1 - The reactive playstyle in itself kind of forces you into being a tank. If you do not stand in almost-melee distance of your allies, you automatically lose one of your biggest class features, and that applies to all 3 "types" of Paladin. Also, why being reactive in the first place? What if I want to rush straight towards the evil wizard who killed an entire village and end his evildoings? I'm not complaining that the reactive playstyle exists, with the new update it's actually pretty cool, but why is it the only one? Can't you be an 100% proactive combatant as a Paladin? Of course the Paladin should be sure if the guy is Evil first, maybe give him a chance of redemption, but does he really need to stand there waiting for the BBEG to attack someone that is near him, and only then use all of his powers?

2 - Yes, you do get Smite Evil. At level 12. IF you are Lawful only. Again, restricting playstyles in a very odd way. Also, the "big two-hander smiter" was just an example. Why can't a Paladin be a light-armored, two-weapon fighter that likes to be quick on his feet, for another example? Maybe some people would argue that this goes against the "Paladin fantasy", but I really doubt they are a majority.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
dmerceless wrote:

I don't think the issue here is about what Paladins are in a philosophical way, the problem is tying that to specific mechanics and combat styles in a very odd way.

If the Paladin class stays as it is, the following scenes can and probably will happen a lot:

"Player: I want to be a protector of goodness and a warrior with divine grace.

GM: Great!

Player: And I want to have a big sword and punish evildoers by smiting them!

GM: Don't even try, you have to be a tank. A reactive tank. Maybe multiclass Fighter or... wait until level 12...?"

And similarly:

"Player: Ok, I'm fine with the reactive tank thing. Then... I'll be a champion of liberty, defend people's rights to live their own lives and fight tyranny, giving payback for those who harm innocents with my mighty weapon!.

GM: Oh... did I mention you got to be Lawful for that? As a Chaotic Champion you can only make people step a little bit, because... freedom?"

Both are very frustrating and the former actually happened in my party. The second one can be houseruled, I guess, but the first one can't unless your GM create a whole lot of other abilities for the class on their own. Also, why have a class that is so limited in the way they can fight in the first place? This is a core class, not a specialized archetype from a specific book, and nothing in its class fantasy says "you can only be a reactive tank".

i fail to see why the 1st example isn't feasible.

i mean, for starters you usually want a big weapon (reach) if you want to extort maximum benefit out of retributive strike.

you don't need to have sword and board, hell, there are even paths dedicated to your weapon or animal companion instead of a shield.

plus, you do get smite at level 12, and that scales better with a greatsword rather than a one handed weapon.

even with a two-hander you protect (grant DR) allies and punish (retributive strike) enemies.

add in judgements (litanies), holy weapons, and branding opponents, and you're set as...

reach does not alter reactions anymore, they are all 15ft whether with dagger or longbow (which is an improvement), mechanically but not thematically. But retributive strike is far to passive, and the others are worse. As to my favourite Paladin: Sparhawk or Mandorellan, with Preceptor Abriel in the Sparhawk series getting the most Paladin death ever: leading his Order in a doomed charge at a demon they cannot hope to defeat, because smiting it is the right thing to do. Or the Knights of the Cross from the Dresden Files, especially Micheal Carpenter, laying beatdowns on evil with holy swords, while offering the defeated the chance to repent, and face judgement. That would be the LG crew, I wont use RL examples, as that falls apart fast. All of them are 'offence is the best defence' types, and repent or die is in full effect. (Also I do view the Lawful Alignments as being totalitarian by nature, it might be a nice and pleasant totalitarianism, but absolute monarchies, theocracies and bureaucracy is inherently going to be like that, especially with alignment being an absolutely real thing, and none invasive magical interrogation being available. LG may be the most open to repentance and penance , LN the most predictable, and LE the most capricious, but all of them have that feel of order and law as prime virtues.


dmerceless wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i fail to see why the 1st example isn't feasible.

i mean, for starters you usually want a big weapon (reach) if you want to extort maximum benefit out of retributive strike.

you don't need to have sword and board, hell, there are even paths dedicated to your weapon or animal companion instead of a shield.

plus, you do get smite at level 12, and that scales better with a greatsword rather than a one handed weapon.

even with a two-hander you protect (grant DR) allies and punish (retributive strike) enemies.

add in judgements (litanies), holy weapons, and branding opponents, and you're set as...

Two main points here:

1 - The reactive playstyle in itself kind of forces you into being a tank. If you do not stand in almost-melee distance of your allies, you automatically lose one of your biggest class features, and that applies to all 3 "types" of Paladin. Also, why being reactive in the first place? What if I want to rush straight towards the evil wizard who killed an entire village and end his evildoings? I'm not complaining that the reactive playstyle exists, with the new update it's actually pretty cool, but why is it the only one? Can't you be an 100% proactive combatant as a Paladin? Of course the Paladin should be sure if the guy is Evil first, maybe give him a chance of redemption, but does he really need to stand there waiting for the BBEG to attack someone that is near him, and only then use all of his powers?

2 - Yes, you do get Smite Evil. At level 12. IF you are Lawful only. Again, restricting playstyles in a very odd way. Also, the "big two-hander smiter" was just an example. Why can't a Paladin be a light-armored, two-weapon fighter that likes to be quick on his feet, for another example? Maybe some people would argue that this goes against the "Paladin fantasy", but I really doubt they are a majority.

15ft range is not that bad, and Smite evil specifically allows you to basically use retributive strikes effects on your hit.

plus, even in a weird party composition that you somehow end up always seperated from your group and unable to capitalize on retributive strike, you can always pick up AoO as a reaction.

add in stuff like blade of justice, litanies, and etc, that don't really rely on allies being near you, and i still fail to see the issue.

If anything, feats like blade of justice and features like Retributive strike are a good way to be "offensively defender". What they do is that you force the enemy to attack you instead of your allies or you smack him harder.

All this is still in line with your player's original request and is even a very viable build.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i fail to see why the 1st example isn't feasible.

i mean, for starters you usually want a big weapon (reach) if you want to extort maximum benefit out of retributive strike.

you don't need to have sword and board, hell, there are even paths dedicated to your weapon or animal companion instead of a shield.

plus, you do get smite at level 12, and that scales better with a greatsword rather than a one handed weapon.

even with a two-hander you protect (grant DR) allies and punish (retributive strike) enemies.

add in judgements (litanies), holy weapons, and branding opponents, and you're set as...

Two main points here:

1 - The reactive playstyle in itself kind of forces you into being a tank. If you do not stand in almost-melee distance of your allies, you automatically lose one of your biggest class features, and that applies to all 3 "types" of Paladin. Also, why being reactive in the first place? What if I want to rush straight towards the evil wizard who killed an entire village and end his evildoings? I'm not complaining that the reactive playstyle exists, with the new update it's actually pretty cool, but why is it the only one? Can't you be an 100% proactive combatant as a Paladin? Of course the Paladin should be sure if the guy is Evil first, maybe give him a chance of redemption, but does he really need to stand there waiting for the BBEG to attack someone that is near him, and only then use all of his powers?

2 - Yes, you do get Smite Evil. At level 12. IF you are Lawful only. Again, restricting playstyles in a very odd way. Also, the "big two-hander smiter" was just an example. Why can't a Paladin be a light-armored, two-weapon fighter that likes to be quick on his feet, for another example? Maybe some people would argue that this goes against the "Paladin fantasy", but I really doubt they are a majority.

15ft range is not that bad, and Smite evil specifically allows you to basically use retributive strikes effects on...

at late game, of you are ine specific type, you get to be more than 'the tank' you are still locked into being 'the tank' for most of the adventure. If it was Paladins reaction OR debuff/ persistent damage to enemies straight out the gate (a persistent aligned damge ability that cost 2 actions would be pretty balanced with double slice or power attack for instance, especially given Paladins are less likely to hit due to MAD issues) something like that to allow the smiteadin to exist, and not be alignment locked would be nice, with some scaling at later levels ofc, and the ability to focus in with Spell Point based abilities. Making Paladins the tank is not what they are or should be, that is the point, so making them the best tank ever doesn't fix that problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
at late game, of you are ine specific type, you get to be more than 'the tank' you are still locked into being 'the tank' for most of the adventure. If it was Paladins reaction OR debuff/ persistent damage to enemies straight out the gate (a persistent aligned damge ability that cost 2 actions would be pretty balanced with double slice or power attack for instance, especially given Paladins are less likely to hit due to MAD issues) something like that to allow the smiteadin to exist, and not be alignment locked would be nice, with some scaling at later levels ofc, and the ability to focus in with Spell Point based abilities. Making Paladins the tank is not what they are or should be, that is the point, so making them the best tank ever doesn't fix that problem.

Yes, that's basically my point. I don't think they are a bad tank, after 1.6 they're great tanks and defenders (although I'd still like something that extended your reach for Ret Strike if your weapon doesn't have reach, so that it isn't required, something like an extention of your weapon made of holy energy). The problem isn't how good of a tank they are, the problem is what if the Paladin doesn't want to be a tank at all? What if instead of having a bunch of reactions he prefers just charging at the enemies and smacking them? Of course you can do that, but you will be ignoring core class features, and more important than that, you have to do a lot of fiddling just to not be something you don't want to. This is literally the opposite of flexibility in character creation/concept, something that this edition is doing very well in general, IMO, except for some edge cases like this one.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
dmerceless wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
at late game, of you are ine specific type, you get to be more than 'the tank' you are still locked into being 'the tank' for most of the adventure. If it was Paladins reaction OR debuff/ persistent damage to enemies straight out the gate (a persistent aligned damge ability that cost 2 actions would be pretty balanced with double slice or power attack for instance, especially given Paladins are less likely to hit due to MAD issues) something like that to allow the smiteadin to exist, and not be alignment locked would be nice, with some scaling at later levels ofc, and the ability to focus in with Spell Point based abilities. Making Paladins the tank is not what they are or should be, that is the point, so making them the best tank ever doesn't fix that problem.
Yes, that's basically my point. I don't think they are a bad tank, after 1.6 they're great tanks and defenders (although I'd still like something that extended your reach for Ret Strike if your weapon doesn't have reach, so that it isn't required, something like an extention of your weapon made of holy energy). The problem isn't how good of a tank they are, the problem is what if the Paladin doesn't want to be a tank at all? What if instead of having a bunch of reactions he prefers just charging at the enemies and smacking them? Of course you can do that, but you will be ignoring core class features, and more important than that, you have to do a lot of fiddling just to not be something you don't want to. This is literally the opposite of flexibility in character creation/concept, something that this edition is doing very well in general, IMO, except for some edge cases like this one.

all reactions have a range of 15ft now. Doesn't solve the core issues but you can be the 'no fun' bubble with you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
at late game, of you are ine specific type, you get to be more than 'the tank' you are still locked into being 'the tank' for most of the adventure. If it was Paladins reaction OR debuff/ persistent damage to enemies straight out the gate (a persistent aligned damge ability that cost 2 actions would be pretty balanced with double slice or power attack for instance, especially given Paladins are less likely to hit due to MAD issues) something like that to allow the smiteadin to exist, and not be alignment locked would be nice, with some scaling at later levels ofc, and the ability to focus in with Spell Point based abilities. Making Paladins the tank is not what they are or should be, that is the point, so making them the best tank ever doesn't fix that problem.
Yes, that's basically my point. I don't think they are a bad tank, after 1.6 they're great tanks and defenders (although I'd still like something that extended your reach for Ret Strike if your weapon doesn't have reach, so that it isn't required, something like an extention of your weapon made of holy energy). The problem isn't how good of a tank they are, the problem is what if the Paladin doesn't want to be a tank at all? What if instead of having a bunch of reactions he prefers just charging at the enemies and smacking them?

Make a fighter or barbarian with a paladin-like backstory. This isn't hard.

What if my rogue wants to hit people with a greatsword but can't use his sneak attack? Suck it up.

What if my cleric wants to be a blaster, but the spell list doesn't support it very well? Suck it up.

What if you can't handle a paladin that doesn't meet your idea of a paladin? Play a different class or system, I guess.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:


Make a fighter or barbarian with a paladin-like backstory. This isn't hard.

What if my rogue wants to hit people with a greatsword but can't use his sneak attack? Suck it up.

What if my cleric wants to be a blaster, but the spell list doesn't support it very well? Suck it up.

What if you can't handle a paladin that doesn't meet your idea of a paladin? Play a different class or system, I guess.

I don't really think this is a very constructive way of addressing things. Having options is always good, it lets people build characters that are mechanicaly satisfying for the character concept. I don't know if you wrote those examples as a joke, but having Rogues with greatsword with some feat investment would be cool. Also, 5e has Blaster Clerics and they are a blast (no pun intended) to play. I'm pointing out stuff that lack diversity and options, currently, in my opinion. You can disagree with them, but if we just use the "suck it up" philosophy we could just stay with 1st Edition D&D forever, why not?


dmerceless wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


Make a fighter or barbarian with a paladin-like backstory. This isn't hard.

What if my rogue wants to hit people with a greatsword but can't use his sneak attack? Suck it up.

What if my cleric wants to be a blaster, but the spell list doesn't support it very well? Suck it up.

What if you can't handle a paladin that doesn't meet your idea of a paladin? Play a different class or system, I guess.

I don't really think this is a very constructive way of addressing things. Having options is always good, it lets people build characters that are mechanicaly satisfying for the character concept. I don't know if you wrote those examples as a joke, but having Rogues with greatsword with some feat investment would be cool. Also, 5e has Blaster Clerics and they are a blast (no pun intended) to play. I'm pointing out stuff that lack diversity and options, currently, in my opinion. You can disagree with them, but if we just use the "suck it up" philosophy we could just stay with 1st Edition D&D forever, why not?

So while I wouldn't mind a more offensive paladin variant, update 1.6 lets me play a tank as a paladin, which is something that I cannot easily do in 5e (the barbarian is a better fit for this). I definitely want most of these abilities to stay as an option, if not as the default. I love being the defender of the meek style paladin, and this is the first time I've seen it implemented easily and not without a bunch of feat trees or mulitclass dips to get to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:


Yes, that's basically my point. I don't think they are a bad tank, after 1.6 they're great tanks and defenders (although I'd still like something that extended your reach for Ret Strike if your weapon doesn't have reach, so that it isn't required, something like an extention of your weapon made of holy energy)...

Well, with the Ranged Reprisal Feat at level 1, you get the extended range you wanted. :) It lets you Step towards anyone within 5ft of your reach to make a Retributive Strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think the big issue with the new class is its solely 'Bubble Master.'

Other classes are shaping up with choices in how they want to fill their function, but the paladin differences are... weird and non-mechanical.

If there was a choice between defensive and different offensive options
(and also not stuck limping around in heavy armor), the class wouldn't feel like such a limited caricature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
1 - The reactive playstyle in itself kind of forces you into being a tank. If you do not stand in almost-melee distance of your allies, you automatically lose one of your biggest class features, and that applies to all 3 "types" of Paladin. Also, why being reactive in the first place? What if I want to rush straight towards the evil wizard who killed an entire village and end his evildoings? I'm not complaining that the reactive playstyle exists, with the new update it's actually pretty cool, but why is it the only one? Can't you be an 100% proactive combatant as a Paladin? Of course the Paladin should be sure if the guy is Evil first, maybe give him a chance of redemption, but does he really need to stand there waiting for the BBEG to attack someone that is near him, and only then use all of his powers?

"Reactive playstyle" and "tank" don't really go together. True tanks are not reactive. They're proactive, in that they try to control the battle and what the enemies can do. They want the enemy coming after them and will do things to force that.

Reactive play is different. It's not really suited to tanking. If I was facing a Retributive Strike Paladin now, I'd use AoE if the group clusters up and then target anyone who gives me an opening where I can hit them and be out of range of Retributive strike (and in a party of 5 or 6, it will be hard to cover them all).

There's no sense targeting the Paladin directly because they're going to be among the hardest to kill and their solo offense isn't the most threatening. You leave them for last and then Retributive Strike isn't a factor... unless they have Channel Life. Then you have to focus them first because they're such good healers.

Compare to something like a 3.5 Lockdown Crusader build, which is as close to a tank as these games get. Those actually could force you to attack them by outright stopping you from moving, use their actions to shift their allies positions around, use strikes for big damage to be a legitimate threat in their own right, and they could even get a form of Retributive Strike (but with their own reach, so Enlarged Spiked Chain users were covering a lot of area). No taunt mechanics, just proactive battlefield control, action economy manipulation, and a dollop of big offense thrown in.

Quote:
2 - Yes, you do get Smite Evil. At level 12. IF you are Lawful only. Again, restricting playstyles in a very odd way. Also, the "big two-hander smiter" was just an example. Why can't a Paladin be a light-armored, two-weapon fighter that likes to be quick on his feet, for another example? Maybe some people would argue that this goes against the "Paladin fantasy", but I really doubt they are a majority.

Smite Evil is such an iconic ability that it feels a waste to have it way up at level 12.


Academic Chris wrote:
So while I wouldn't mind a more offensive paladin variant, update 1.6 lets me play a tank as a paladin, which is something that I cannot easily do in 5e (the barbarian is a better fit for this). I definitely want most of these abilities to stay as an option, if not as the default. I love being the defender of the meek style paladin, and this is the first time I've seen it implemented easily and not without a bunch of feat trees or mulitclass dips to get to it.

Well, I actually agree 100% with you, these abilities are pretty cool and they are great for fulfilling the role of a tank without being super video-gamey like 4e. I just wanted more options for people that don't like this style or like other styles as well, it could be more offensive base features, feats, archetypes, there are lots of ways to make both groups happy here.


Shady Stranger wrote:
dmerceless wrote:


Yes, that's basically my point. I don't think they are a bad tank, after 1.6 they're great tanks and defenders (although I'd still like something that extended your reach for Ret Strike if your weapon doesn't have reach, so that it isn't required, something like an extention of your weapon made of holy energy)...
Well, with the Ranged Reprisal Feat at level 1, you get the extended range you wanted. :) It lets you Step towards anyone within 5ft of your reach to make a Retributive Strike.

Well, kinda. Yes, with this Feat non-reach weapons can use Ret Strike from 10ft away, the thing is... reach weapons now can use it from 15ft away. It made things better for everyone, which is great, but the feeling of "if I want to have maximum range for this ability in which range is very valuable, I should definetly use a Polearm" still stays. But this is more of a nitpick, it isn't a big deal, at least not for me.


I learned tonight how you can turn off a paladin.

Make them paranoid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
at late game, of you are ine specific type, you get to be more than 'the tank' you are still locked into being 'the tank' for most of the adventure. If it was Paladins reaction OR debuff/ persistent damage to enemies straight out the gate (a persistent aligned damge ability that cost 2 actions would be pretty balanced with double slice or power attack for instance, especially given Paladins are less likely to hit due to MAD issues) something like that to allow the smiteadin to exist, and not be alignment locked would be nice, with some scaling at later levels ofc, and the ability to focus in with Spell Point based abilities. Making Paladins the tank is not what they are or should be, that is the point, so making them the best tank ever doesn't fix that problem.
Yes, that's basically my point. I don't think they are a bad tank, after 1.6 they're great tanks and defenders (although I'd still like something that extended your reach for Ret Strike if your weapon doesn't have reach, so that it isn't required, something like an extention of your weapon made of holy energy). The problem isn't how good of a tank they are, the problem is what if the Paladin doesn't want to be a tank at all? What if instead of having a bunch of reactions he prefers just charging at the enemies and smacking them?

Make a fighter or barbarian with a paladin-like backstory. This isn't hard.

What if my rogue wants to hit people with a greatsword but can't use his sneak attack? Suck it up.

What if my cleric wants to be a blaster, but the spell list doesn't support it very well? Suck it up.

What if you can't handle a paladin that doesn't meet your idea of a paladin? Play a different class or system, I guess.

except Rogues core identity in the last edition wasn't 'guy who sneak attacks with a great sword'. Paladins was 'offense oriented crusader'. Tho you are right, 5e is looking more and more attractive, for all its faults, and play another class just begs the question 'why have paladins at all'.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Paladins was 'offense oriented crusader'.

Paladins were/are a lot of things. You see them offense oriented because of their Smite Evil, but they also have Lay on Hands and Mercies, and Auras for helping their allies. Divine Grace is a purely defensive ability.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Paladins was 'offense oriented crusader'.
Paladins were/are a lot of things. You see them offense oriented because of their Smite Evil, but they also have Lay on Hands and Mercies, and Auras for helping their allies. Divine Grace is a purely defensive ability.

honestly I would rather LoH had gone than the Smite type mechanics, and I do not like the Reactions as a concept, they feel to much like a mocking blow/taunt/blessing of freedom effect for me to be comfortable with them, and remind me of what I didn't like about the 4e design philosophy, but I have said my piece, done my blood pressure no favours, and it's time to back away and chill a while.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have no issues with people who want to play a paladin as a defender who wears heavy armor, sticks close to their allies, and does their best to protect them from harm. I think that's a very acceptable playstyle choice for a paladin.

I *DO* have issues with the class flatly not supporting the "bring the fight to the enemy and lay them out before they can do more evil" playstyle.

I feel that going out and putting down evil creatures is more integral to the fantasy of the paladin than standing close to someone else and trying to protect them from anything that attacks them. In fact, I would be perfectly fine with the Fighter having a better build for the consummate defender role.

On more than one occasion, I've played a paladin that stood his ground against a big threat and urged the party to flee. What's more paladin-y than that? When that happens in PF2e, I lose all access to core class features, and would be far better off playing basically any other class.

I've also had players come across solo questing paladins who, in 2e, would frankly be out of their minds to even consider questing alone.

In summary:

1. Retributive Strike has a place in the paladin toolkit, but it shouldn't be front and center, and it should be optional. Choice in playstyle is the bread and butter of Pathfinder.

2. Paladins already make great team players with Lay on Hands, it's not like asking to be able to be good at smiting bad guys would make them a blood-crazed lone-wolf edgelord. No other class is forced to roleplay being in a three legged race with a team-mate to get use from their abilities.

3. No class should have armor type built into the class. This goes for weapon choice as well.


Steelfiredragon wrote:

the 3 variant paladins in the playtest are a good start. HOWEVER, I was hoping them more to be inline of the archons,angles and azatas ....

or at the least all of them have divine smite.

just my two zhents worth

archon: smite evil without mercy
angel: smite evil with mercy and redeem if able
azata: smite evil with stuff.

but.. shall wait and see for the end product.

looks at empty seat in boat jsut in case

ok I was mistaken

its smite evil not divine smite... all already have that


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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). If you want to an absolute melee wrecking ball, there are other classes that fit that role better.

Reactions by definition are going to be passive. You're "reacting" to something. If ret strike was made into a free action it'd clearly be unbalanced, but with the 1.6 changes, it looks like it's in a pretty good spot as both an offensive threat and defensive deterrent. Play a few games with and see how it feel.

Silver Crusade

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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, which is balanced by the fact that you'll have better staying power (thanks LoH) than the other offensive martials.

I just imagine an aspiring paladin heading to the local crusade headquarters and being like "Sign me up for all the classes that will teach me how to smash face." Whereupon the Sergeant-at-arms or whoever replies "Well that's 2nd-year stuff. First, we need to teach you how to be a crusader for justice which necessarily entails learning how to ascertain the difference between good and evil, how to protect the innocent from harm, etc."

Makes sense thematically, is better balanced, and doesn't seem that onerous to have paladins take some time to develop into the Avenging Wrath sort of character. I mean Paizo could add a 4th type of paladin that immediately goes the offensive route but that would need to be balanced and creates more role clutter for offensive martial.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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). If you want to an absolute melee wrecking ball, there are other classes that fit that role better.

Reactions by definition are going to be passive. You're "reacting" to something. If ret strike was made into a free action it'd clearly be unbalanced, but with the 1.6 changes, it looks like it's in a pretty good spot as both an offensive threat and defensive deterrent. Play a few games with and see how it feel.

I did. I hate retributive strike. I do not want retributive strike. I am asking to give it up, in exchange for being proactive, not reactive, I want an offense option instead of, not as well as. To quote Alfred Lord Tennyson

' My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.
The shattering trumpet shrilleth high,
The hard brands shiver on the steel,
The splinter'd spear-shafts crack and fly,
The horse and rider reel' That is the Champion, pure of faith.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.

I think the problem here lies mostly with this perception of a paladin being different then what I think is typically held by your average nerd these days. It has basis in arthurian myth sure but isn't really how the class has developed through modern RPG supplements. If I wanted "a Deities Wrath made flesh" from day one I'd make a barbarian and flavor him as a paladin.

As already stated you can take a paladin down the face smashy path through the things that already exist in the system. I don't think them saying "Hey, you can help the team with this neato reaction and hit people" is such a slight against a paladin's ability to smashy smash. One obligate reaction that still increases your damage output isn't the end of a bruiser's character concept to me.

It seems to me as though you're expecting paladins to be these unstoppable plated engines of war which is some great stuff for a crusades-era approach to the matter. Thanks to modern context and reflection on historical events though I just don't think crusader when I think paladin.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

I think we can all agree that paladins exist in Pathfinder and literature as both defenders and smiters of evil.

Keep in mind that the new core rulebook has space considerations and time considerations.

Pathfinder 1E focused on Archetypes. One of the reasons they started 2nd Edition was to introduce the archetype concept into the core rulebook.

So if you can potential modify a class through archetypes, feat choices, skill choices and even stat choices you pick a place to start introduce the class that way and then in further material introduce other variants of the class.

So we start with the tank paladin in the core rulebook. In the 2E advanced players guide you introduce an avenger type paladin, a ranged paladin that is dex based and maybe a healer based paladin trades some offense for even more protection.

The point is we are limiting the paladin class we are just limiting what goes in the first book.

Personally I think one thing I would like to see is to divorce the paladin reactions from alignment. Have them be different orders so you can choose alignment based on your paladin view, choose a reaction based on how you want to play the paladin (I love the debuffing variant) and then go into feat choices.

Plus Goblin Paladins are awesome. Fiery Justice for the Great Fire Goddess of Flaming Fiery Fire! (With some ancestral adoption to get produce flame for fun and ranged option)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Silver Crusade

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


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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).

Thats what I was getting at, thank you.


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.
Destruction grants a power that adds holy damage on the strike

When you make the choice, you can't get the other power.

Given that a power is limited times/day, and given that you give up your healing for it, that seems more balanced.

Add in some feats on the same tier as the lay on hands based feats, and it should be fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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 work poorly with archer paladins (who may well want to stay further away from the frontline than the range of their abilities), and for tank paladins who don't have any other melee combatants in the party (which can easily be the case in a 3 or 4 man party), meaning if I'm a paladin (of any kind) then I've got core class features that kinda depends on the other players building their characters around it, which is kinda bad.

It also kinda kills the idea of a Knight Errant style paladin, who wanders the countryside alone, helping people and fighting evil where they find it. Because most of your abilities are focused on aiding teammates in combat, and you can't really do that if you're on your own.

Silver Crusade

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

1 to 50 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.