Simple question re: Smite Evil in 2e


Rules Questions

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:

Ok, I see it now: Silly me, I assumed a ranged feat was going to be all about ranged attacks so once I say it gave you a strike with ranged weapons I missed the last sentence.. :P

On the rest, I don't know. Maybe we played it wrong: we didn't use a paladin... ur, champion for long. It seems a bit better then for melee buddies.

Im only showing what was given out as one of the spoilers, it would be kinda lame if 1 type of champion got a somewhat superior reaction to the others making it the most viable choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
Yes, this. My PF1 Paladin is exactly this. Medium armour for speed. No shield, don't need it. Two-handing a longsword (for Iomedae). Fist into battle, he defended the party by discouraging others from the front line - in a party of four with him, the others would typically be a Wiz, a Rogue and a Divine of sorts, why should they risk their necks or have redundancy in more than one frontliner? PF2 appears to need more than one melee fighter in a party to make the Champion worthwhile.

I dont understand why people are constantly complaining that they cant play classes the way they want to play it when you can quite easily with the multiclassing system. You wanna run head on into battle with a longsword instead of having the paladin reaction?

Take fighter with sudden charge, then take paladin multiclass at level 2, that way you can pick and choose what you want.

because some of us, do not like multiclassing

and its a RP thing too....

Multiclassing doesn't mean the same thing as it did in PF1. More like build your own class.

If it is about RP, I don't get how multiclassing impacts that at all. There's no RP reason why a LG Fighter/Champion can't call themselves a paladin. Or champion. Whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Saedar wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
Yes, this. My PF1 Paladin is exactly this. Medium armour for speed. No shield, don't need it. Two-handing a longsword (for Iomedae). Fist into battle, he defended the party by discouraging others from the front line - in a party of four with him, the others would typically be a Wiz, a Rogue and a Divine of sorts, why should they risk their necks or have redundancy in more than one frontliner? PF2 appears to need more than one melee fighter in a party to make the Champion worthwhile.

I dont understand why people are constantly complaining that they cant play classes the way they want to play it when you can quite easily with the multiclassing system. You wanna run head on into battle with a longsword instead of having the paladin reaction?

Take fighter with sudden charge, then take paladin multiclass at level 2, that way you can pick and choose what you want.

because some of us, do not like multiclassing

and its a RP thing too....

Multiclassing doesn't mean the same thing as it did in PF1. More like build your own class.

If it is about RP, I don't get how multiclassing impacts that at all. There's no RP reason why a LG Fighter/Champion can't call themselves a paladin. Or champion. Whatever.

Precisely, Theres nothing stopping you from Rping as an acolyte paladin fighter at level 1 then picking up all the paladin stuff you want moving forward. i find one of the more exciting things about 2e is the modular multiclassing that fills in for all the niche archetypes 1e had.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
graystone wrote:

Ok, I see it now: Silly me, I assumed a ranged feat was going to be all about ranged attacks so once I say it gave you a strike with ranged weapons I missed the last sentence.. :P

On the rest, I don't know. Maybe we played it wrong: we didn't use a paladin... ur, champion for long. It seems a bit better then for melee buddies.

Im only showing what was given out as one of the spoilers, it would be kinda lame if 1 type of champion got a somewhat superior reaction to the others making it the most viable choice.

Hopefully, the different Reactions will appeal to different people without one being definitively stronger than the others. We'll see if that turns out to be true.

At the moment, the NG one seems most straightforward and easy to use, while the LG one requires some tactical positioning to work, and the CG one allows you to help your allies do tactical repositioning.

That's actually neat thematically now that I think on it, as it makes the Lawful version the least flexible and requiring of the most prior planning (but potentially the most powerful, since it's the only one that can outright kill enemies), while the Neutral version is straightforward and balanced, and the Chaotic version is adaptive and flexible (and punishes those enemies who aren't).

That's neat in a way I hadn't considered before.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
graystone wrote:

Ok, I see it now: Silly me, I assumed a ranged feat was going to be all about ranged attacks so once I say it gave you a strike with ranged weapons I missed the last sentence.. :P

On the rest, I don't know. Maybe we played it wrong: we didn't use a paladin... ur, champion for long. It seems a bit better then for melee buddies.

Im only showing what was given out as one of the spoilers, it would be kinda lame if 1 type of champion got a somewhat superior reaction to the others making it the most viable choice.

Hopefully, the different Reactions will appeal to different people without one being definitively stronger than the others. We'll see if that turns out to be true.

At the moment, the NG one seems most straightforward and easy to use, while the LG one requires some tactical positioning to work, and the CG one allows you to help your allies do tactical repositioning.

That's actually neat thematically now that I think on it, as it makes the Lawful version the least flexible and requiring of the most prior planning (but potentially the most powerful, since it's the only one that can outright kill enemies), while the Neutral version is straightforward and balanced, and the Chaotic version is adaptive and flexible (and punishes those enemies who aren't).

That's neat in a way I hadn't considered before.

Those are thematically true. I also do think the initial reaction to the reactions underestimated how amazing the chaotic one is from the movement alone; based on the inclusion of the freedom part, people read it, thought "How often is an ally actually grappled or stuck in place though? And if not I don't get 100% of the ability" when the main event is blocking damage from one attack and moving (potentially preventing any follow ups from happening if the enemy moved in the first place), the freedom bit just makes sure you are able.

Another interesting thematic link like the one you mentioned: The lawful version is very good any time, but it's even better for thinning the tide of chaotic hordes, since you might crit and kill the target, preventing any further actions since it's dead now. The chaotic version is ridiculously good at toppling a powerful single threat as a team, since you can basically deny that single foe most of its turn if you use it right, so it's good for toppling tyrants with a mass uprising, etc. The neutral good version is more effective against enemies that are more self-reflective and thinking about their own futures, since those with "fight to the death" morale who are just throwing themselves at the PCs might not care about taking a penalty, while self-reflective foes might be willing to let the entire attack fail to avoid it, this also makes glimpse work differently but still very effectively whether it's against a powerful foe or many foes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to think it was no accident that the 3 good champion abilities all work great together. Oh you are getting hit? Let's have an ally move closer. Now let's give them an attack of opportunity, give you an attack of opportunity and then make you take no damage or weaken the foe

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
I'd like to think it was no accident that the 3 good champion abilities all work great together. Oh you are getting hit? Let's have an ally move closer. Now let's give them an attack of opportunity, give you an attack of opportunity and then make you take no damage or weaken the foe

FIGHTER SQUAD! are still my folks, but CHAMPION SQUAD! would also be rad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:

Multiclassing doesn't mean the same thing as it did in PF1. More like build your own class.

If it is about RP, I don't get how multiclassing impacts that at all. There's no RP reason why a LG Fighter/Champion can't call themselves a paladin. Or champion. Whatever.

Indeed, the reason I disliked multiclassing in PF1 were because:

- It stopped advancing class features
- It required referencing two different charts for things like saves, attack bonus, etc.
- Barring a specific option which enables it, it's essentially impossible to make a useful fusion of two things- A Fighter 1/Wizard 11 is a bad fighter- a Fighter 6/Wizard 6 is a bad character.
-Far and away the best MC combinations were 1-2 levels of a front-loaded class to get those features on a different class, which felt to me exploitative in an unfun way.

PF2 multiclassing solves all these issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF1 multiclassing also had the side problem of making low level play a lot less fun for certain classes because the developers had to build anti-dipping measures into their progression.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
PF1 multiclassing also had the side problem of making low level play a lot less fun for certain classes because the developers had to build anti-dipping measures into their progression.

Which has the side effect of strongly incentivizing those classes to dip in order to be functional at all levels. Like an Investigator 10/Inspired Blade Swashbuckler 1 is probably weaker than an Investigator 11, but an Investigator 2/Inspired Blade Swashbuckler 1 is *way* better than an Investigator 3.


WatersLethe wrote:


So when Paladins lost Smite and gained Babysitter, I was sad.

Retributive strike works when an "ally" is struck, and I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that you count as your own ally unless otherwise mentioned. So you can totally charge solo into an enemy horde and retaliate when attacked.

EDIT: That part was wrong.

Anyway, I doubt that Paladins will be at all incapable of charging into the fray and smiting evil.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:


So when Paladins lost Smite and gained Babysitter, I was sad.
Retributive strike works when an "ally" is struck, and I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that you count as your own ally unless otherwise mentioned. So you can totally charge solo into an enemy horde and retaliate when attacked.

You cannot do this. This was standard in PF1, but often confusing for new players, so it's no longer the case in PF2.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:


So when Paladins lost Smite and gained Babysitter, I was sad.
Retributive strike works when an "ally" is struck, and I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that you count as your own ally unless otherwise mentioned. So you can totally charge solo into an enemy horde and retaliate when attacked.
You cannot do this. This was standard in PF1, but often confusing for new players, so it's no longer the case in PF2.

Do you have a reference for that? I seem to recall a dev confirming that it applied in the playtest.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
Do you have a reference for that? I seem to recall a dev confirming that it applied in the playtest.

Direct quote from Logan Bonner found here.

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Questions / Simple question re: Smite Evil in 2e All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.