Are you your own ally for the purposes of those reactions? I've seen the question asked in some other threads, but have not been able to find a firm answer. The opinions I've seen go either way (as tends to be the case in most rule questions).
Does anyone if this has been answered somewhere?
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
I feel like it can't possibly be true because getting a beefed up attack of opportunity every time an enemy strikes you is so incredibly strong it would totally distort the game, and turns the ability into an "avoid the paladin at all costs" ability rather than its intended *shudder* "tank" ability.
I do wonder if any other places in the rules suggest the opposite assumption. I know spells like Bless target: "You and allies".
Pretty sure you don't count as your own ally based on the wording of stuff like. Bless.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Alarox wrote: Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.
FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”
I'd be hesitant to use 1e precedence to answer rules questions about the playtest/2e. It's a completely different game, after all.
Well, ally is defined(Webster/Merriam) as a person or group that gives help to another person or group.
So no, you are not your only ally.
Alarox wrote: Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.
FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”
Even if this precedent is the case, an ability like Retributive Strike isn't intended to work for yourself.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It would be pretty strange for Paranoia to state outright that you are your only ally during the effect if it weren't the case that you are also your own ally normally. It would also be strange for a druid or monster with Magic Fang to not be able to cast that on itself.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Alarox wrote: Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.
FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”
Even if this precedent is the case, an ability like Retributive Strike isn't intended to work for yourself. Why do you think that?
As a general rule, I tend to find it odd when you can affect an ally but not yourself with an ability. It should be harder to affect someone else with an ability than yourself.
Druids can't use/benefit from magic fang anyways. Their forms are only enhanced by condition/circumstance bonus which magic fang is not. As well as the fact they can't cast spells while shaped.
Monsters also work differently than PCs for their stats and I doubt we'll see a creature that needs magic fang for itself
Paranoia makes you your own ally while affected with it because you are paranoid. You only trust yourself and no one else explicitly. You effectively become Gollum.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
FiddlersGreen wrote: Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Alarox wrote: Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.
FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”
Even if this precedent is the case, an ability like Retributive Strike isn't intended to work for yourself. Why do you think that?
As a general rule, I tend to find it odd when you can affect an ally but not yourself with an ability. It should be harder to affect someone else with an ability than yourself. For some abilities, yes. For Aid Another and "defend others so the enemy attacks me" abilities like Retributive Strike, it doesn't make sense to also apply to oneself.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
WizardoftheNorth wrote: Well, ally is defined(Webster/Merriam) as a person or group that gives help to another person or group.
So no, you are not your only ally.
Dictionary definitions have no use here. For instance, enervate is defined by Meriam-Webster as "to reduce the mental or moral vigor of." PF2 defines it entirely differently. Simply put, general language dictionaries are really awful things to bring to a more specific field. You would argue the definition of chemistry terms using the general language dictionary, you'd use a record of word usage pertinent to chemistry. Same as here; you don't use general language, you'd use Pathfinder 2's vernacular. As it currently sits, the word "ally" doesn't have a formal definition provided by the people who dictate what the word will mean. It's very valid to ask them to do so, because it does and will affect a legalistic (aka "RAW") understanding of gameplay.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
No.
You can see in the spell section plenty of spells clearly having:
Target: you or an ally
While others simply
Target: ally
So, it's clear that you are not your ally by default.
Although, a clear stated rule is indeed better than having to use conjecture.
As for PF1 faq, it has already been stated by devs that all rulings of PF1 are 100% irrelevant of pf2.
Different system, different rules.
Johnico wrote: Alarox wrote: Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.
FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”
I'd be hesitant to use 1e precedence to answer rules questions about the playtest/2e. It's a completely different game, after all. Absolutely agree that we need to go by 2E > 1E, but in the absence of any 2E definition, for the playtest I would rule toward the previous edition. It seems like there are a few things in 2E that rely on definitions from 1E, like the "line of sight" discussion.
|
18 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You are *not* your own ally, but there are probably a few places, such as paranoia noted by Fuzzypaws, that do 1E style and weren't caught.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Logan Bonner wrote: You are *not* your own ally, but there are probably a few places, such as paranoia noted by Fuzzypaws, that do 1E style and weren't caught. Thank you Logan, if perhaps the team could find a way to squeeze the term "Ally/Allies" into the Reference Index in the back of the book to indicate this I think it would prove quite helpful.
Even if you are not your own ally, you are a creature that is friendly to yourself, unless your character is emo.
sherlock1701 wrote: Even if you are not your own ally, you are a creature that is friendly to yourself, unless your character is emo. Friendly doesn't apply on Player characters. p.322 conditions: friendly
i think that since the devs themselves clarified it we can safely say that no, you do not react to getting hit yourself.
you protect your allies
It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
It fell flat because "friendly creature" is indeed how the text refers to a creature with the friendly condition. Nice try, though.
The paladin has plenty going for her, she doesn't need to be saved.
sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. I am hoping it is not so pigeonholed into heavy armour and a defender role, upon release.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. I didn't realize this edition had any strong classes.
Alarox wrote: Johnico wrote: Alarox wrote: Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.
FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”
I'd be hesitant to use 1e precedence to answer rules questions about the playtest/2e. It's a completely different game, after all. Absolutely agree that we need to go by 2E > 1E, but in the absence of any 2E definition, for the playtest I would rule toward the previous edition. It seems like there are a few things in 2E that rely on definitions from 1E, like the "line of sight" discussion.
It's actually been mentioned in several streams that there are a lot of people trying to rule 2E by using 1E reasonings and that it ends up getting them to wrong conclusions. Do not do that. It's a different system and uses different rules.
The book clearly refers to "you or allies" and "you and your allies" several times in Target spell entries.
You are not your own ally in 2E.
sherlock1701 wrote: shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. I didn't realize this edition had any strong classes. 1.0 Cleric.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. The Defender is, being the only one with Smite Evil (and that at mid game) the others...not so much, they are fine if you want a heavy armour damage sponge, with some debuffs, but that's about it
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. The Defender is, being the only one with Smite Evil (and that at mid game) the others...not so much, they are fine if you want a heavy armour damage sponge, with some debuffs, but that's about it Ehh, this Saturday I played a NG one and he was quite brutal.
We were level 13 and giving simultaneously 15 DR and 4 persistent and -2 on his iteratives or an automiss on an ally as a reaction was simply amazing.
For offense I had both blade of justice and holy on my weapon, double slice and charge from fighter multi.
It basically forced opponents to attack me, who had one of the best AC of the party plus 5 one action heals if needed and heals from the holy property.
Due to opponents attacking me, I almost always had an enemy on me, meaning I could more easily double slice and blade of justice on the same turn. If I didn't have an opponent on me, it meant my blade of justice was still going on so I could move (25ft) and double slice.
All in all, it was a pretty good proactive (made opponents want to attack him instead of my allies) tank that also dealt nice damage if he wasn't focused.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. The Defender is, being the only one with Smite Evil (and that at mid game) the others...not so much, they are fine if you want a heavy armour damage sponge, with some debuffs, but that's about it Ehh, this Saturday I played a NG one and he was quite brutal.
We were level 13 and giving simultaneously 15 DR and 4 persistent and -2 on his iteratives or an automiss on an ally as a reaction was simply amazing.
For offense I had both blade of justice and holy on my weapon, double slice and charge from fighter multi.
It basically forced opponents to attack me, who had one of the best AC of the party plus 5 one action heals if needed and heals from the holy property.
Due to opponents attacking me, I almost always had an enemy on me, meaning I could more easily double slice and blade of justice on the same turn. If I didn't have an opponent on me, it meant my blade of justice was still going on so I could move (25ft) and double slice.
All in all, it was a pretty good proactive (made opponents want to attack him instead of my allies) tank that also dealt nice damage if he wasn't focused.
which is great, if you want enforced cRPG roles on the TT game...and also Multi classing as a basic requirement of making characters functional, neither sounds at all fun.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. The Defender is, being the only one with Smite Evil (and that at mid game) the others...not so much, they are fine if you want a heavy armour damage sponge, with some debuffs, but that's about it Ehh, this Saturday I played a NG one and he was quite brutal.
We were level 13 and giving simultaneously 15 DR and 4 persistent and -2 on his iteratives or an automiss on an ally as a reaction was simply amazing.
For offense I had both blade of justice and holy on my weapon, double slice and charge from fighter multi.
It basically forced opponents to attack me, who had one of the best AC of the party plus 5 one action heals if needed and heals from the holy property.
Due to opponents attacking me, I almost always had an enemy on me, meaning I could more easily double slice and blade of justice on the same turn. If I didn't have an opponent on me, it meant my blade of justice was still going on so I could move (25ft) and double slice.
All in all, it was a pretty good proactive (made opponents want to attack him instead of my allies) tank that also dealt nice damage if he wasn't focused.
which is great, if you want enforced cRPG roles on the TT game...and also Multi classing as a basic requirement of making characters functional, neither sounds at all fun. A) your post makes 0 sense since you specifically are NOT a cRPG tank.
You are the OPPOSITE of a cRPG tank in fact.
You don't artificially force people to attack you. There is no aggro. There is no taunts. You're just so damaging and disrupting if left alone, that like the usual "focus the caster first" now it is "focus the paladin first"
If anything, PF1 with feats like antagonise was the definition of a cRPG.
B) multiclass in pf2 is archetyping.
So yeah, if I want to use my weapons more, I'll pick the martial archetype of the paladin.
I see no problem with that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.
Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).
if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?
wut?
paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively. The Defender is, being the only one with Smite Evil (and that at mid game) the others...not so much, they are fine if you want a heavy armour damage sponge, with some debuffs, but that's about it Ehh, this Saturday I played a NG one and he was quite brutal.
We were level 13 and giving simultaneously 15 DR and 4 persistent and -2 on his iteratives or an automiss on an ally as a reaction was simply amazing.
For offense I had both blade of justice and holy on my weapon, double slice and charge from fighter multi.
It basically forced opponents to attack me, who had one of the best AC of the party plus 5 one action heals if needed and heals from the holy property.
Due to opponents attacking me, I almost always had an enemy on me, meaning I could more easily double slice and blade of justice on the same turn. If I didn't have an opponent on me, it meant my blade of justice was still going on so I could move (25ft) and double slice.
All in all, it was a pretty good proactive (made opponents want to attack him instead of my allies) tank that also dealt nice damage if he wasn't focused.
which is great, if you want enforced cRPG roles on the TT game...and also Multi classing as a basic requirement of making characters functional, neither sounds at all fun. A) your post makes 0 sense since you specifically are NOT a cRPG tank.
You are the OPPOSITE of a cRPG tank in fact.
You don't artificially force people to attack you. There is no aggro. There is no taunts. You're just so damaging and... So it's mocking blow, or sunder armor, not taunt, and designing classes so they don't work to core concept as a standalone class, then patching it with a locked in multiclass system (instead of general feats that are actually worth it)? Not a fan.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm pretty sure that the double slice would be about the same amount of damage with a greatsword.
Even more if I went with Zeal and advanced domain for a purely offensive build.
I find the current multiclass system heaps better than the old archetype system. More freedom what to lose and what to gain and how to flavor it compared to set in stone, rigid, archetypes.
But each to his own.
shroudb wrote: I'm pretty sure that the double slice would be about the same amount of damage with a greatsword.
Even more if I went with Zeal and advanced domain for a purely offensive build.
I find the current multiclass system heaps better than the old archetype system. More freedom what to lose and what to gain and how to flavor it compared to set in stone, rigid, archetypes.
But each to his own.
Zeal is nice, as long as you have the right deity as patron, having combat feats as, well, feats that you could chose without having to multiclass (and pay a feat just as the price of entry) is freer (ok, all strength builds took Power Attack, but is that any different or worse than everyone who wants twf multiclassing for Double Slice [because the Ranger one is truly awful])
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The ranger one is great... What's wrong with it? It works really well with hunt target.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: I'm pretty sure that the double slice would be about the same amount of damage with a greatsword.
Even more if I went with Zeal and advanced domain for a purely offensive build.
I find the current multiclass system heaps better than the old archetype system. More freedom what to lose and what to gain and how to flavor it compared to set in stone, rigid, archetypes.
But each to his own.
Zeal is nice, as long as you have the right deity as patron, having combat feats as, well, feats that you could chose without having to multiclass (and pay a feat just as the price of entry) is freer (ok, all strength builds took Power Attack, but is that any different or worse than everyone who wants twf multiclassing for Double Slice [because the Ranger one is truly awful]) But once more, multiclass in this edition has 0 things to do with old multiclass.
Multiclass now is 100% identical to archetypes.
You swap our features for features.
So, you aren't forced to multiclass any more than any and all builds in pf used archetypes instead of vanilla classes.
That's why they exist.
Picking up, cleric as an example, mc on your paladin doesn't make you any less paladin than the vanilla one, or the raging paladin, or the dual wielding paladin or etc
The thing is, there really is only a handful of what would have been considered a "combat feat" in the old edition. I mean, there's just like 5 of them tops. Power attack, double slice, sudden charge. Do we need a whole separate set of feats for 3-5 feats instead of just picking them with your archetype?
Plus, Zeal doesn't actually need any combat feats from fighter now. If anything, going sorc for Magical striker is way better.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm curious what a Paladin with the Rogue archetype would play like. I think it would do well with the CG Liberator.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Logan Bonner wrote: You are *not* your own ally, but there are probably a few places, such as paranoia noted by Fuzzypaws, that do 1E style and weren't caught. Is there any chance that "ally" makes it into the glossary in the final release? This debate was hot within PF1 and the conclusion was opposite of PF2's usage of the term. Being as though "ally" will be used in feat and spell descriptions often, it seems like a necessity to define exactly what it is in game terms.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
GM OfAnything wrote: I'm curious what a Paladin with the Rogue archetype would play like. I think it would do well with the CG Liberator. Depends really on what you pick from the multi.
You could be just a mechanical savvy paladin, or a really cautious one, or even someone who accompanies the clerics and the acolytes of your religion into lost temples in search for old lore.
It's not like you get finesse striker, or that you have to pick up the watered down version of sneak attack.
Even a LG paladin of erastil, with sneak for hunting in the forest and etc can be justified easily.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: shroudb wrote: I'm pretty sure that the double slice would be about the same amount of damage with a greatsword.
Even more if I went with Zeal and advanced domain for a purely offensive build.
I find the current multiclass system heaps better than the old archetype system. More freedom what to lose and what to gain and how to flavor it compared to set in stone, rigid, archetypes.
But each to his own.
Zeal is nice, as long as you have the right deity as patron, having combat feats as, well, feats that you could chose without having to multiclass (and pay a feat just as the price of entry) is freer (ok, all strength builds took Power Attack, but is that any different or worse than everyone who wants twf multiclassing for Double Slice [because the Ranger one is truly awful]) But once more, multiclass in this edition has 0 things to do with old multiclass.
Multiclass now is 100% identical to archetypes.
You swap our features for features.
So, you aren't forced to multiclass any more than any and all builds in pf used archetypes instead of vanilla classes.
That's why they exist.
Picking up, cleric as an example, mc on your paladin doesn't make you any less paladin than the vanilla one, or the raging paladin, or the dual wielding paladin or etc
The thing is, there really is only a handful of what would have been considered a "combat feat" in the old edition. I mean, there's just like 5 of them tops. Power attack, double slice, sudden charge. Do we need a whole separate set of feats for 3-5 feats instead of just picking them with your archetype?
Plus, Zeal doesn't actually need any combat feats from fighter now. If anything, going sorc for Magical striker is way better.
On multiclassing: yes it does make you less of a Paladin, and it comes with a feat tax, you can state it's the same as old archetypes, that does not make that statement true, it is a horrendous kludge because clever builds using multiclassing were for some reason hated (I imagine it's to stop people breaking free of the horrific levels of role enforcement in this system, again, not an MMO, the concept of 'tank' or 'striker' is utterly inimical to a table top game, and was the main problem with 4e, why adopting and enforcing the very problem that gave us the 4e/PF split is beyond me, if you loved that arm twisting RP killing idea so much, why make PF in the first place? Classes are being forced into playstyles and gear choices,which is the opposite of fun)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
I'm happy to hear some positive feedback on the paladin/champion. I've been one of the people on the fence about Retributive Strike as the core class feature, but I also haven't gotten the chance to play or run a champion, so hearing someone say they did and were kicking butt is good data.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MaxAstro wrote: I'm happy to hear some positive feedback on the paladin/champion. I've been one of the people on the fence about Retributive Strike as the core class feature, but I also haven't gotten the chance to play or run a champion, so hearing someone say they did and were kicking butt is good data. That first level feat that allows them to move first and then take a strike (and also the fact that it's a 15 ft range now to begin with.) is a huge buff. Retributive strike in 1.0 wasn't that bad, it's just you could never consistently use it unless the creatures you were fighting would line themselves up for it, and your allies had to stick right next to you.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rob Godfrey wrote: On multiclassing: yes it does make you less of a Paladin, and it comes with a feat tax You can keep repeating that, it won't make it true. If you want a Paladin with Fighter features, trade out your Paladin features for 'em.
GM OfAnything wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: On multiclassing: yes it does make you less of a Paladin, and it comes with a feat tax You can keep repeating that, it won't make it true. If you want a Paladin with Fighter features, trade out your Paladin features for 'em. And become less of a paladin for it. That's the point, you cannot make a decent character without 'multiclassing' (aka paying the tax to get what should be general feats, most of the time) and even when you do, you are nailed to horrible core mechanics like the incredibly passive Paladins reaction (if I could swap that out, I would, in a heartbeat, it is thematically trash,) and heavy armour bonuses..aka trying to make someone actually wear heavy armour, as it is in a terrible state right now. Either put everything up for grabs...or bake more variety in.
Rob Godfrey wrote: GM OfAnything wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: On multiclassing: yes it does make you less of a Paladin, and it comes with a feat tax You can keep repeating that, it won't make it true. If you want a Paladin with Fighter features, trade out your Paladin features for 'em. And become less of a paladin for it. That's the point, you cannot make a decent character without 'multiclassing' (aka paying the tax to get what should be general feats, most of the time) and even when you do, you are nailed to horrible core mechanics like the incredibly passive Paladins reaction (if I could swap that out, I would, in a heartbeat, it is thematically trash,) and heavy armour bonuses..aka trying to make someone actually wear heavy armour, as it is in a terrible state right now. Either put everything up for grabs...or bake more variety in. as much less as any and all archetypes in pf1 are.
you still advance as paladin exactly the same.
you still have the option to pick up everything you want for your build at the exact same level any and all paladins get it.
"feat tax" for getting something you want for your build is the most ridiculous description i've heard.
shroudb wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: GM OfAnything wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: On multiclassing: yes it does make you less of a Paladin, and it comes with a feat tax You can keep repeating that, it won't make it true. If you want a Paladin with Fighter features, trade out your Paladin features for 'em. And become less of a paladin for it. That's the point, you cannot make a decent character without 'multiclassing' (aka paying the tax to get what should be general feats, most of the time) and even when you do, you are nailed to horrible core mechanics like the incredibly passive Paladins reaction (if I could swap that out, I would, in a heartbeat, it is thematically trash,) and heavy armour bonuses..aka trying to make someone actually wear heavy armour, as it is in a terrible state right now. Either put everything up for grabs...or bake more variety in. as much less as any and all archetypes in pf1 are.
you still advance as paladin exactly the same.
you still have the option to pick up everything you want for your build at the exact same level any and all paladins get it.
"feat tax" for getting something you want for your build is the most ridiculous description i've heard.
So, build, is it? That's where I think some of these conversations go awry.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
|
