Champion Class


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Do you mean the Asterisk?
I can't see apostrophes.

Champions have, as any other classes, their free reaction.

by hitting lvl 8 they can afford quick block as class talent ( 1 extra reaction, meant to use "only" shield block ).

by hitting lvl 14, they can take Divine Reflexes ( 1 extra use of their champion's reaction ).

About stances, https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=152

They last till something ( explained on the stance description ) appears.

If you want not to use the stance on your first round, you can take

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=419

Which allows you to put on a stance on the initiative roll.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:

Just for clarity.

Elven chain is a chain shirt made of mithral (page 579) that glitters in even the faintest light. It grants a +2 item bonus to AC and has no check penalty.

Created by elven artisans employing ancient crafting techniques, elven chain is exceptionally quiet. Unlike other chain shirts—even other mithral chain shirts—elven chain does not have the noisy trait. This suit of armor can be etched with runes like any other mithral chain shirt.

So basically it is a chain mail shirt with a +2 item bonus on it. You can put runes on to it but the only armor improvement you could do on it would be to etch a +3 armor rune. Adding a +1 or +2 ac rune would have no effect.

This is incorrect because item bonuses don't stack, and all armor gives an item bonus to start with. It grants a +2 Item Bonus to AC, sure, but that's not on top of the normal Chain Shirt bonus, it's instead of (or, to be more accurate, a restatement of) the standard chain shirt bonus. If it increased the bonus a Chain Shirt gave it would be worded like Armor Potency Runes, and they say 'increase the item bonus to AC' not '+2 item bonus to AC'.

Those two statements are very mechanically different.

The only mechanical benefits of Elven Chain are that it has no check penalty and lacks the noisy trait.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
kaid wrote:

Just for clarity.

Elven chain is a chain shirt made of mithral (page 579) that glitters in even the faintest light. It grants a +2 item bonus to AC and has no check penalty.

Created by elven artisans employing ancient crafting techniques, elven chain is exceptionally quiet. Unlike other chain shirts—even other mithral chain shirts—elven chain does not have the noisy trait. This suit of armor can be etched with runes like any other mithral chain shirt.

So basically it is a chain mail shirt with a +2 item bonus on it. You can put runes on to it but the only armor improvement you could do on it would be to etch a +3 armor rune. Adding a +1 or +2 ac rune would have no effect.

This is incorrect because item bonuses don't stack, and all armor gives an item bonus to start with. It grants a +2 Item Bonus to AC, sure, but that's not on top of the normal Chain Shirt bonus, it's instead of (or, to be more accurate, a restatement of) the standard chain shirt bonus. If it increased the bonus a Chain Shirt gave it would be worded like Armor Potency Runes, and they say 'increase the item bonus to AC' not '+2 item bonus to AC'.

Those two statements are very mechanically different.

The only mechanical benefits of Elven Chain are that it has no check penalty and lacks the noisy trait.

And it can trigger silver weaknesses, as it's also made of mithril.

Silver Crusade

Quote:
Divine grace... Is not good but it's not the worst having +2 on every save for a reaction is pretty great it's like getting +rank on it.

It's not all saves, just vs. spells.

Spoiler:

DIVINE GRACE [REACTION]FEAT 2
Champion
Trigger You attempt a save against a spell, before you roll.

You call upon your deity’s grace, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to the save.


darrenan wrote:
Quote:
Divine grace... Is not good but it's not the worst having +2 on every save for a reaction is pretty great it's like getting +rank on it.

It's not all saves, just vs. spells.

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah... Agreed but a lot of saves are spells. Like about 1/3rd at least...


So now that we understand that elven chain isn't actually more proective than plate, I have to say that I'm kinda bummed with the Champion class as well. I don't like mechanics being tied to specific fluff, and I don't like the reactions being that thematically tied to an alignment. I don't like that Champions are essentially shoehorned into using a shield, I don't like that they're extremely defense/reaction focused, I just don't like how inflexible they are in general. The Ranger was the other martial to really get a big change, but with Rangers mutliclassing seems to actually work pretty well and there's enough in their class feats to build a couple different styles of Ranger.

A lot of the Champion meanwhile feels like it just should have been a type of Fighter. So much of its focus is on a very specific kind of melee combat that isn't really tied to the class's identity.

Like just playing a 2h champion seems overly difficult to set up despite that being a classic. Sure, you COULD dip into Fighter to get a few feats to better enable 2h weapons, but the Fighter dedication is an absolute dumpster fire for other martials. Same for bows, or really anything that isn't a gnome flickmace.

It seems like we'd need a whole new class to really get the sorts of Paladins people think of. I'm fine with them not having "real" spellcasting a la Rangers since MC'ing is so much easier, but anything that doesn't make that hard an assumption of your role in the party would be great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are champions shoehorned into using a shield? I was planning on playing a Paladin with a polearm, what am I really missing out aside from "2 AC" (since my AC is already going to be fine.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why are champions shoehorned into using a shield? I was planning on playing a Paladin with a polearm, what am I really missing out aside from "2 AC" (since my AC is already going to be fine.)

The core chassis doesn't have anything more to do with using a shield than the fighter does, but Champions have a bunch of shield-related feats and features and don't really have any feats that directly promote other combinations of held weapons (TWF, two-hander, free-hand). You're not punished for not using a shield or anything, you just don't have much of anything that provides a mechanical incentive for doing otherwise. (Unless you really don't want to use a flickmace, in which case the reach that a two-hander can provide is nice, even though you have no specific support for it.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the champion having a bunch of shield feats just means "if you don't want a shield, take feats other than those feats." There are multiple valid choices at each level, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the champion having a bunch of shield feats just means "if you don't want a shield, take feats other than those feats." There are multiple valid choices at each level, after all.

Except doing bog-standard strikes is a poor use of your action economy if you can help it. Champions are martials and will be hitting with their weapons. Without feat support for their weapons, they're actually not a whole lot more lethal with their weapons than a Wizard that took a weapon familiarity ancestry feat. Those shield feats meanwhile give you something to do with your actions when you've used up your focus pool.

Other martials either will be doing special actions that add additional effects to their strikes (Fighter, Ranger) or will have stances or conditional modifiers for their strikes (Barbarian, Rogue, Monk). It's not enough to just hit things.

A good chunk of the Champion's tactical options are tied up in shield use. It's not so much that an MC archetype wouldn't be able to provide some actions to make forgoing a shield worthwhile, but a Champion would have trouble avoiding a shield

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Champions have a lot of actions available that have nothing to do with shield use, and can often not make use of the Shield Block reaction simply because they're Reaction choked early on.

Being mobile (which of course takes actions) is very handy for Champions if they use it properly, Smite Evil is great for Paladins, Litany Against Wrath is ridiculous for everyone, and so on.

Frankly, a two-handed weapon Paladin is probably better off than a shield Paladin at low to mid levels (and no worse higher up), and doesn't have to jump through hoops for a flickmace to have Reach.


Helmic wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the champion having a bunch of shield feats just means "if you don't want a shield, take feats other than those feats." There are multiple valid choices at each level, after all.

Except doing bog-standard strikes is a poor use of your action economy if you can help it. Champions are martials and will be hitting with their weapons. Without feat support for their weapons, they're actually not a whole lot more lethal with their weapons than a Wizard that took a weapon familiarity ancestry feat. Those shield feats meanwhile give you something to do with your actions when you've used up your focus pool.

Other martials either will be doing special actions that add additional effects to their strikes (Fighter, Ranger) or will have stances or conditional modifiers for their strikes (Barbarian, Rogue, Monk). It's not enough to just hit things.

A good chunk of the Champion's tactical options are tied up in shield use. It's not so much that an MC archetype wouldn't be able to provide some actions to make forgoing a shield worthwhile, but a Champion would have trouble avoiding a shield

It's usually the opposite.

Due to having to spend an action to raise a shield, you'll probably just use Strike for offence as a shield champion.

On the other hand, that same action can be used for smites, litanies, their (much better) "power attack" and etc.

The shield feats are, not surprisingly, focused on defense, not offense.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, as someone who is not a fan of the champion class, it seems like there's a lot of grumbling without much substance.

The class is perfectly fine as a class in the new edition. It's quite strong in a lot of respects, and you can build it in a variety of ways, and it makes for a flavorful multiclass dedication.

It is defense oriented, with high armor proficiency, features based on reactions, and lots of shield oriented feats and features. However, you can build it to lean more toward an offensive role, and in time class archetypes are almost certain to be added which will further open up flavor options.

The fact that there are quite a few people who like the current incarnation means we shouldn't bag on it too hard, because sometimes it's fine to let people enjoy things even if they're not to your taste *right now*.


To me it could be fine, but what bother me is about comparing

-Fighter with Champion Dedication
vs
-Champion with fighter dedication

To me, the Fighter way ( armor proficiency apart ) could be even better as a protector.


K1 wrote:

To me it could be fine, but what bother me is about comparing

-Fighter with Champion Dedication
vs
-Champion with fighter dedication

To me, the Fighter way ( armor proficiency apart ) could be even better as a protector.

I feel the opposite. Paladin reactions, Lay on hands and the ability to get any cleric powers make the paladin a lot better as a protector/support to me. While the fighter can be better defending outside of the +2 AC.


Well, a fighter can get both Paladin reaction and lay on hand by lvl 6.

He can also become cleric as third class if he chose to , because of the 2 free feats from Flexibility he will also able to get 2 feats from his class.

However, what I like most about the fighter is the stance which allows you to take your shield raised without any action.

On the other hand a paladin will have 3 reactions:

- general
- extra shield block ( which could be used to shield allies too, if required )
- Divine Reflexes ( Extra Champion's Reaction ).

Currently I am playing with a party composed of

Champion ( redeemer )
Fighter ( buckler + sword )
Druid ( Wild Order )
Sorcerer ( occultist )
Mage ( universalist )

It is easy to cover up for the fighter, but I am considering not to specialize in shields, because i prefer to be opposite at him for flat footed bonuses.

Also, it won't be viable till lvl 8, when I am going to take quick block ( before of that, glimpse of redemption will be better than anything else ).

When the druid will start getting competitive, I could swap my position with him and helping by standing close one of them.

I am a little worried we don't have a dedicated healer, so that's why I am planning to go cleric instead of fighter+monk.


Uchuujin wrote:
Maybe this leaves design room for the Inquisitor (or some new class) to be the offense oriented holy warrior? Not at convenient as having it from the get go but could be something.

I would go with crusader myself. Both names have cultural baggage, but crusader has less "I have to tie them up before I hit them", and more "militant invasion" which seems like what is missing from the champion.

Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Wait, since when do monks have an AC problem? This is the first I've heard of it.


Ravingdork wrote:
Wait, since when do monks have an AC problem? This is the first I've heard of it.

A 20th level mountain style monk with the full feat chain, 14 dex, who spends an action on mountain stronghold matches the champoin in heavy armor with their shield raised for the highest (non-buffed) AC in the game at 28.

In the playtest monks had an AC problem, because expert proficiency was +2 then instead of +4, and mountain style didn't exist (so monks had to start with at least 16 dex back then.)


QuidEst wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Agreed about the disappointment with the heavy armor, reactionary playstyle. Retributive Strike was a dumpster fire. If it's still around, and if Paladins are still pigeonholed into heavy armor, I'll consider it a dead class.
Does heavy armor proficiency not carry down to light armor proficiency? I thought it did.
It's the bonus to AC while wearing heavy armor but not other kinds of armor that has me concerned. It's easy to say "Oh, just ignore it" but like I always say, mechanics left on the vine exert a constant subconscious pressure to act a certain way.
Ah, I didn’t remember that.

Thats not entirely correct the bonus is to any armour with the chain, plate or leather keywords. Its called Armour Specialisation or some such. A Paladin is as good in heavy armour as in light. They didn't pidgeon hole it. They did very well by making the Paladin capable in any armour type (even unarmoured)

Yeah I had my issues with the Champion. The first being the so called reactions, the interfere with the new Divine Grace, the use of shields and Attacks of Oppurtunity. Now I LOVE options, but you are sort of forced to take the reactions since they are features .This wouldn't be an issue if you could trade out the reactions (if they were feats for instance) for feats or something

Second of all was the fact that Sense Evil, Aura of Courage, Divine Grace should have been class features (maybe instead of the Reactions). And then you have abilties like Insstrument of Zeal which is a tad lackluster, the lvl 20 ablities are not very impressive at all. The feat "Divine Smite" was better at release than the playtest version (where it was called Blade of Justice) but its still not very impressive.

Overall I actually like the Champion, make no mistake, I just which the play styles weren't forced upon us (meaning the reactions)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:
Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").

The playtest included an Antipaladin NPC. The actual effect was the same as Retributive Strike, but instead of triggering when an ally was attacked, it's triggered when someone scores a critical hit on the antipaladin herself.

Whether they will stick to that specific version, I don't know, but I'm positive it'll be triggered by someone attacking the Evil Champion personally.


Mechagamera wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Maybe this leaves design room for the Inquisitor (or some new class) to be the offense oriented holy warrior? Not at convenient as having it from the get go but could be something.

I would go with crusader myself. Both names have cultural baggage, but crusader has less "I have to tie them up before I hit them", and more "militant invasion" which seems like what is missing from the champion.

Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").

4e had "Avenger" for that. Light armor, mobile, and high accuracy 2-handed weapon.

I like Paladin as a defender. Protector of innocent should be good at protecting. Not smiteing.

Maybe a "demon slayer" ranger for the offensive part. They can go full van helsing.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mellored wrote:


I like Paladin as a defender. Protector of innocent should be good at protecting. Not smiteing.

If I recall correctly, the introductory quote for paladins in 4e was the excerpt from the poem of sir Galahad:

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.

Which always struck me as an excellent choice. I find that the wrapping of a paladin into purely a defender is highly reductive of the entire paladin fantasy.

To me, a paladin is first and foremost a weapon wielded by the forces of good. One of the few who can actually be entrusted with great offensive power against evil. They are the quintissential knight-errant, striking out to proactively do good and slay gruesome monsters in far-flung corners of the land.

They're supposed to be well rounded, and able to kick butt as well as give succor. Leaning too heavily into the "tank" role is just a snooze fest, and more fitting for a hired bodyguard rather than a wanderer in search of evil to smite. To me, a "tank" paladin isn't really a paladin.

So, I sure hope I'm right that they will bring out slightly more offense oriented paladin archetypes that let me focus on proactively smiting rather than passively waiting for someone to attack a friend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, has anybody actually modeled how much damage paladins built with an offensive inclination actually do, or is it just being taken as a given that they're bad at dealing damage? Especially against evil enemies, the number of bits and pieces of additional damage scattered throughout the class, along with multiple potential ways of making attacks as a reaction, mean that they might stack up reasonably, while still retaining a healthy level of survivability just through their basic class features. I'd hope, for the sake of game balance, that they're not superstar top-notch clearly-the-best (especially against non-evil creatures), and I certainly wouldn't expect that to be the case, but they have a lot of ways to gain incidental damage through feats that aren't paralleled in other martial classes (which tend to have one or two very powerful core features that enhance damage). It's possible that they're already not too shabby. (Frankly, I feel like modeling paladin damage requires a lot more assumptions than most classes, because so much more of their damage is conditional, even if the conditions happen pretty frequently.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:


If I recall correctly, the introductory quote for paladins in 4e was the excerpt from the poem of sir Galahad:

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.

"My heart is pure so I can murder more" just doesn't fit IMO.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Paladins don't murder though. They bring justice for the people.

Murder by definition is unlawful. Killing, on the other hand, can be lawfully justified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Paladins don't murder though. They bring justice for the people.

Murder by definition is unlawful. Killing, on the other hand, can be lawfully justified.

"My heart is pure so I can kill more" just doesn't fit IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mellored wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Paladins don't murder though. They bring justice for the people.

Murder by definition is unlawful. Killing, on the other hand, can be lawfully justified.

"My heart is pure so I can kill more" just doesn't fit IMO.

Said no paladin ever.


Joyd wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anybody actually modeled how much damage paladins built with an offensive inclination actually do, or is it just being taken as a given that they're bad at dealing damage?

I haven't, but just to agree with you modeling damage for them is a little complicated.

That said, in fairness to the people worried about paladin offense, they're the only martial that doesn't have a 'natural' damage booster, ala rage/edge/sneak attack/fighter proficiency. Their damage boosters are all from feats and all conditional.

Granted the PF1 paladin's damage boosters were conditional too.


Joyd wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anybody actually modeled how much damage paladins built with an offensive inclination actually do, or is it just being taken as a given that they're bad at dealing damage?

Quick run of a level 10 fighter vs a level 10 paladin, beating up a level 10 evil/undead (30 AC).

Both wielding greatswords with +2 Striking

Fighter attack : Power Attack, Furious Focus, Certain Strike

Spoiler:

10(lvl)+6(prof)+2(item)+5(Str) = 23 (50% hit, 15% crit)

power attack = 1d12(base)+1d12(striking)+5(str)+3(specialization) + 2d12 (power attack) = 34
34 * .5 = 17
68 * .15 = 10.2
= 27.2

certain strike = (40% hit, 45% fail)
1d2+1d2+5+3 = 21 * .4 = 8.4
5+3 = 8 * .45 = 3.6
= 12


= 39.2

Champion: Blade Ally (disrupting), Smite Evil, Radiant Blade Spirit (holy)

Spoiler:

10(lvl)+4(prof)+2(item)+5(Str) = 21 (50% hit, 5% crit)

smite evil: +4 damage

Strike: 1d12(base)+1d12(striking)+5(str)+2(specialization)+1d6 (distrupting)+1d6(flaming)+4(smite)=31
31 * ,5 = 15.5
62 * .05 = 3.1
= 18.6

Strike 2 (30% hit)
31 * .3 = 9.3


= 27.9

Assuming I did that right, the paladin will do a quite a bit less damage than the fighter even against undead. Fighters +2 to hit/crit is just too much to overcome.
Though, I didn't count weaknesses, spells, reactions, needing actions to move or other such stuff. So the difference is not quite as bad.

I do wonder how well a bow-paladin would do. Retribution is a lot easier to get if you can stand back a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Paladins don't murder though. They bring justice for the people.

Murder by definition is unlawful. Killing, on the other hand, can be lawfully justified.

"My heart is pure so I can kill more" just doesn't fit IMO.
Said no paladin ever.

"My good blade carves the casques of men" = killing people.


Your MAP seems off. Power Attack is worth two attacks worth of MAP, which means the Fighter's second strike should be at +13, which is a 20% chance to hit, not a 40%.

Also worth noting that a titan mauler barbarian has comparable damage numbers in this scenario to the champion(same base, strength, specialization, but +10 rage instead of smite/blade ally), given that titan mauler is the high damage barbarian specialization, that might suggest this is more an issue of the fighter being overtuned more than anything else.


Mellored wrote:
Joyd wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anybody actually modeled how much damage paladins built with an offensive inclination actually do, or is it just being taken as a given that they're bad at dealing damage?

Quick run of a level 10 fighter vs a level 10 paladin, beating up a level 10 evil/undead (30 AC).

Both wielding greatswords with +2 Striking

Fighter attack : Power Attack, Furious Focus, Certain Strike
** spoiler omitted **
= 39.2

Champion: Blade Ally (disrupting), Smite Evil, Radiant Blade Spirit (holy)
** spoiler omitted **
= 27.9

Assuming I did that right, the paladin will do a quite a bit less damage than the fighter even against undead. Fighters +2 to hit/crit is just too much to overcome.
Though, I didn't count weaknesses, spells, reactions, needing actions to move or other such stuff. So the difference is not quite as bad.

I do wonder how well a bow-paladin would do. Retribution is a lot easier to get if you can stand back a bit.

At level 10 the damage of a power attacking Fighter spikes.

So I don't find it a good reference point.

Fairer would be imo level 12 when Paladin also gets their equivalent to power attack (Blade of justice)

Also very noteworthy is that "smite evil" could easily be on from previous rounds. If it's not, then there's already added defensive benefits from the Paladin since it means that the opponent was forced to attack the paladin already.

So we have 4d12+11+1d6 +4 persistent (persistent averages at +12 over 3 rounds) + 1 reaction attack from everyone around you.

Even at -2 attack compared to fighter, the free reaction attack and the extra +12 damage from persistent,and the +6 from smite, and the free d6 from flaming/disrupting, all weight favorably for paladin.

It's more conditional, but when those conditions are met, it out damages him.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, there's a huge spike in Fighter damage precisely at level 10 with Certain Strike. At levels below 10 or above 11 (due to the aforementioned Blade of Justice) the DPR comparison looks much closer.

You also undersold Champion damage a bit by ignoring crit chance on the second attack.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, there's a huge spike in Fighter damage precisely at level 10 with Certain Strike. At levels below 10 or above 11 (due to the aforementioned Blade of Justice) the DPR comparison looks much closer.

You also undersold Champion damage a bit by ignoring crit chance on the second attack.

+ second power attack dice at lvl 10.


I'll also note champions don't do their best work against undead. Their best targets are fiends who have weakness to good damage. Dealing persistent good damage to fiends becomes crazy powerful.


Squiggit wrote:
Your MAP seems off. Power Attack is worth two attacks worth of MAP

Furious Focus makes it 1 attack worth.

shroudb wrote:
At level 10 the damage of a power attacking Fighter spikes.

True.

I just grabbed 10 because it was the middle level.

Quote:


Also very noteworthy is that "smite evil" could easily be on from previous rounds. If it's not, then there's already added defensive benefits from the Paladin since it means that the opponent was forced to attack the paladin already.

I am assuming the reaction keeps the enemy on you. Otherwise you would probably need an action to move.


So at level 9.

Fighter: Power Attack, Furious Focus

Spoiler:

Power Attack: 10(lvl)+6(prof)+2(item)+4(Str) = 24 (50% hit, 10% crit)
1d12(base)+1d12(striking)+4(str)+3(specialization) + 1d12 (power attack) = 26.5
13.75 + 5.3 = 19.05

Strike: (30% hit, 5% crit)
1d12(base)+1d12(striking)+4(str)+3(specialization) = 20
6 + 2 = 8


= 27.05

Champion: disrupting, smite evil

Spoiler:

smite evil: +4 damage

10(lvl)+4(prof)+2(item)+4(Str) = 21 (45% hit, 5% crit)
Strike: 1d12(base)+1d12(striking)+4(str)+2(specialization)+1d6 (distrupting)+4(smite)=26.5
11.925 + 2.65 = 14.575

Strike 2 (20% hit, 5% crit)
5.3 + 2.65 = 7.95


22.525

Champion is still a good bit behind.
If the enemy has weakness 10 the champion pull slightly ahead.


Mellored wrote:

So at level 9.

Fighter: Power Attack, Furious Focus
** spoiler omitted **
= 27.05

Champion: disrupting, smite evil
** spoiler omitted **
22.525

Champion is still a good bit behind.
If the enemy has weakness 10 the champion pull slightly ahead.

Once more, if you have to Smite, then you've already gained "defender" benefits from it.

So yeah, in that occasion he's a bit behind but he also simultaneously provided tanking for the group.

If we assume that neither the fighter nor the paladin provided defensive benefits, to even the field there, then the paladin has 1 more action.

That 1 more action, at the very least, is moving to get flank, and have exactly the same "attack bonus" as the fighter.


Mellored wrote:

So at level 9.

Fighter: Power Attack, Furious Focus
** spoiler omitted **
= 27.05

Champion: disrupting, smite evil
** spoiler omitted **
22.525

Champion is still a good bit behind.
If the enemy has weakness 10 the champion pull slightly ahead.

Giant Instinct Barbarian is at 24.65 with those same numbers doing rage > strike > strike, which is pretty comparable to the champion.

A flurry ranger doing hunt > command bear (strike, support) > twin takedown with sawtooths does like, 22ish.

What this mostly seems to be showing is that fighters are a little busted.


Mellored wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Maybe this leaves design room for the Inquisitor (or some new class) to be the offense oriented holy warrior? Not at convenient as having it from the get go but could be something.

I would go with crusader myself. Both names have cultural baggage, but crusader has less "I have to tie them up before I hit them", and more "militant invasion" which seems like what is missing from the champion.

Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").

4e had "Avenger" for that. Light armor, mobile, and high accuracy 2-handed weapon.

I like Paladin as a defender. Protector of innocent should be good at protecting. Not smiteing.

Maybe a "demon slayer" ranger for the offensive part. They can go full van helsing.

I figure Disney might have issues with anyone trying to copy write "Avenger" for anything. Even WotC with Hasbro $ backing them chose to go "oath of vengeance" instead of "avenger" this time around....

Other than that, avenger would be a good name.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").

The playtest included an Antipaladin NPC. The actual effect was the same as Retributive Strike, but instead of triggering when an ally was attacked, it's triggered when someone scores a critical hit on the antipaladin herself.

Whether they will stick to that specific version, I don't know, but I'm positive it'll be triggered by someone attacking the Evil Champion personally.

Thank you. Reacting when someone attacks you seems more LN-N-CN than evil to me, but I am sure you are right, unless they decided to make the evil champions super cliché evil (which would actually be my preference--what's the point of being a champion of evil when you are barely evil?)


Squiggit wrote:

Giant Instinct Barbarian is at 24.65 with those same numbers doing rage > strike > strike, which is pretty comparable to the champion.

A flurry ranger doing hunt > command bear (strike, support) > twin takedown with sawtooths does like, 22ish.

Yea, but the champions 22 was against the champions favored enemy.

Which was the origional question. Could paladins outdamage fighters with their special boost. Answer is no.

Quote:
What this mostly seems to be showing is that fighters are a little busted.

Well, they can't do anything else besides damage so they better be good at it.

Champions still have lay on hands, and a better reaction.


Mellored wrote:
Well, they can't do anything else besides damage so they better be good at it.

The Giant Instinct barbarian is outdamaged by the fighter too though, while arguably having less utility in-house than the Fighter and is running around with a permanent -2 to AC.

And yeah, champions have lay on hands, but this is still essentially ideal or almost-ideal conditions for the champion and they still get trounced compared to what the Fighter does against everyone.

There's clearly a problem.


Mellored wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Giant Instinct Barbarian is at 24.65 with those same numbers doing rage > strike > strike, which is pretty comparable to the champion.

A flurry ranger doing hunt > command bear (strike, support) > twin takedown with sawtooths does like, 22ish.

Yea, but the champions 22 was against the champions favored enemy.

Which was the origional question. Could paladins outdamage fighters with their special boost. Answer is no.

Quote:
What this mostly seems to be showing is that fighters are a little busted.

Well, they can't do anything else besides damage so they better be good at it.

Champions still have lay on hands, and a better reaction.

you're neither adding the persistent damage nor the weaknesses those enemies usually have though.

they "usual" answer is "yes, they do outdamage fighters when those conditions are met"


Quote:
you're neither adding the persistent damage nor the weaknesses those enemies usually have though.

I'm not seeing any persistent damage. Where is that?

And a quick look seems like only 1/3 of the undead have a weakness to positive (just the zombies, who are also weak to slashing), and none are weak to good.

Liberty's Edge

Mellored wrote:
Quote:
you're neither adding the persistent damage nor the weaknesses those enemies usually have though.
I'm not seeing any persistent damage. Where is that?

Under 'Retributive Strike'. And sure, maybe they'll never trigger that...but if they never trigger it that means they never attacked anyone but the Paladin...who due to high AC is the least effective person for them to attack.

Mellored wrote:
And a quick look seems like only 1/3 of the undead have a weakness to positive (just the zombies, who are also weak to slashing), and none are weak to good.

Undead are not the favored enemy of most Paladins. That's Fiends...who usually have Weakness of at least 10 to Good.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Quote:
you're neither adding the persistent damage nor the weaknesses those enemies usually have though.
I'm not seeing any persistent damage. Where is that?

Under 'Retributive Strike'. And sure, maybe they'll never trigger that...but if they never trigger it that means they never attacked anyone but the Paladin...who due to high AC is the least effective person for them to attack.

Mellored wrote:
And a quick look seems like only 1/3 of the undead have a weakness to positive (just the zombies, who are also weak to slashing), and none are weak to good.
Undead are not the favored enemy of most Paladins. That's Fiends...who usually have Weakness of at least 10 to Good.

To be more specific, Divine Smite is the name of the class feature that upgrades the champion reaction. Blade of Justice specifically also let's you apply that Divine Smite persistent damage to your attack, so past a certain point you should be triggering it pretty consistently.

Also, there's a champion spell that gives weakness to good to an enemy. Also the exalt ability to make your Retributive Strike trigger free attacks from all allies within reach...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mellored wrote:
I'm not seeing any persistent damage. Where is that?
Under 'Retributive Strike'. And sure, maybe they'll never trigger that...but if they never trigger it that means they never attacked anyone but the Paladin...who due to high AC is the least effective person for them to attack.

That is my assumption, yes.

Champions are best at protecting squishes, but not so good at smiting.

Though, 2 paladins defending each other, so one would always get the retribution, would probably beat 2 fighters. An all paladin party could be a devastating.

Or better yet. Fighters with Champion Dedication, Champion's Reaction. So you get the accuracy boost on all the retributions.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Undead are not the favored enemy of most Paladins. That's Fiends...who usually have Weakness of at least 10 to Good.

Assuming weakness 10, then they would be able doing about the same damage as a fighter.


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

Well, evil causes are coming with the new Advanced Character Guide.

In many ways this is fitting, as the Anti-paladin alternate class was introduced in the 1st edition APG. There is sadly no word yet on neutral causes.

I will put forth my view on the three neutral alignments and possible causes that match up with them:

Lawful neutral: Enforcer. Exists to enforce rules and laws. Absolute servants of maintaining order over chaos. Easy enough to understand.

Chaotic neutral: Anarchist. Bring down all laws and rules in the name of absolute freedom. Also pretty prevalent and easy to see.

Neutral: Arbiter. They exist to keep the peace by any means, even force if necessary. But only if all other options fail. They would allow evil tyrants to keep going so long as peace is maintained. If relaxing laws is what is required to keep the peace, change the rules. Like peace-keeping forces of our world, they would interpose themselves between attackers and defenders regardless of either sides justifications.

This one may harder for people to grasp, but I think it could work very well. I see Arbiters of Pharasma being very anti-undead, as undeath disturbs the peace of the grave. They might try and talk with intelligent undead to help put their souls to rest. Arbiters of Gozreh would be against disrupting the natural order and would likely act as go-betweens for druids and city builders.

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Champion Class All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.