I don't know what it is with me and religion in Pathfinder, but it just clicks. Sarenrae, Abadar and Dispater in particular are very interesting to me.
But I feel like I don't really have that enough choices as a Champion. I'm sitting there playing the "shield or no shield" game and that decides like 95% of you feat choices. Unlike, say, the fighter or the rogue, who can go one of what feels like a dozen build paths each. It is not like you cannot play the offensive role even as a non-evil or non-paladin Champion, but it lacks some spice and choice you know?
Anyway, The things I feel the Champion could do with are
1) active options (Power Attack at level 1 and Intimidating Strike at level 2 feel like obvious early feats, especially with Aura of Despair being a thing)
2) more feats that that require blade ally and that don't just add runes (Radiant Blade Master in particular is just reaaaally underwhelming)
3) Divine ally (armor) - could function similar to the blade ally
4) feats that make the steed ally actually worth taking (though this one is extremely low priority, considering how... poorly mounts generally fit into the general gameplay of APs)
So that is my two copper pieces for when we get around to more divine stuff in the (probaly not so near) future.
P.S.: Here is one for the errata - Blade of Justice is missing the "tenets of good" requirement
I wouldn't mind seeing some more pro-active damage options for the class, but I understand if this isn't really viable for balance reasons.
That said, something like that would be REALLY easy to homebrew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes can fill this gap a bit, and might be the best bet if you're specifically pining after fighter options. Don't get me wrong, I'd like some more champion options, especially at low levels, but I expect future feats will favor their unique divine elements rather than martial prowess. Partially for flavor and partially because their defense is so good.
I think my big issue with champions is they are so path heavy. Shields, mounts, oaths, mercies, litanies... All these options have other options building off of them, which makes it hard to be, say, a mounted knight with a shield. Double class feats or free archetypes helps them out significantly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what it is with me and religion in Pathfinder, but it just clicks. Sarenrae, Abadar and Dispater in particular are very interesting to me.
But I feel like I don't really have that enough choices as a Champion. I'm sitting there playing the "shield or no shield" game and that decides like 95% of you feat choices. Unlike, say, the fighter or the rogue, who can go one of what feels like a dozen build paths each. It is not like you cannot play the offensive role even as a non-evil or non-paladin Champion, but it lacks some spice and choice you know?
Anyway, The things I feel the Champion could do with are
1) active options (Power Attack at level 1 and Intimidating Strike at level 2 feel like obvious early feats, especially with Aura of Despair being a thing)
2) more feats that that require blade ally and that don't just add runes (Radiant Blade Master in particular is just reaaaally underwhelming)
3) Divine ally (armor) - could function similar to the blade ally
4) feats that make the steed ally actually worth taking (though this one is extremely low priority, considering how... poorly mounts generally fit into the general gameplay of APs)
So that is my two copper pieces for when we get around to more divine stuff in the (probaly not so near) future.
P.S.: Here is one for the errata - Blade of Justice is missing the "tenets of good" requirement
Their level 1 and level 2 feats in particular are very underwhelming. For common/easily accessed options, you get:
-Domain Initiate, which just gives an alternate way to spend a Focus point, which is almost always objectively worse than Lay on Hands, and not as good as Touch of Corruption can be.
-Reaction Feat, which is either really good that it's de facto or so bad that it's not worth taking.
-Desperate Prayer, which is nice when your Reaction Feat option isn't good, and makes for an awesome 2nd level buffer if you don't want/feel like multiclassing.
That's it. Compared to Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers, they don't get a whole lot that's freely chosen or otherwise unrestricted. Their feats from 4th onward start to get better in effect and wider in scope, but their initial feats are pretty sad.
Barbarians are in a similar situation with most of their feats throughout their levels, with levels 1 and 2 being the absolute worst, since they only have one feat in those levels that is worth anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really want to see Class Archetypes for Champion and Cleric alike; neither currently grip me, and I /adore/ playing religious characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really want to see Class Archetypes for Champion and Cleric alike; neither currently grip me, and I /adore/ playing religious characters.
It's tough, because both classes fit narrative niches, and mechanical ones (defensive martial character and power-over-life-or-death).
I like playing with deities and how they interact with my characters, and find taking the Blessed One archetype valuable on most classes I've tried it with so far, it means magical characters with situational focus spells always have a good once a combat focus spell, is a dedication with no real requirements, and gives you just enough flavor to really want to play with edicts and anathema, which are the compelling parts anyway.
Just because, I'm not sure clerics and champions ever won't feel fairly close to what they currently do as classes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me I think the problem is that the champion feels really narrow, you pretty much need to be melee, you should be in heavy armor (a little flexibility there admittedly)... and your entire core feature revolves around an alignment based gimmick (so no LG redeemers or CG vigilantes delivering retribution for uh, reasons!).
So feat options end up feeling a little claustrophobic.
The core of the Champion is very solid. The feats don't quite add the flair of other classes. But you do have to accept that the Champion is a defender.
If you want offensive feats, you can always take a dedication.
But you do have to accept that the Champion is a defender.
Not even the good Champion is necessarily a defender, or rather a defensive fighter. It is just the option with the most support and probably the strongest option right now.
You can already build an almost entirely offence-focused champion, especially as an evil champion or a paladin. I would just like to have actual options in how that offence looks like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe as class archetype but I would love to get 5E alignment agnostic “subclasses”. Right now I find champions very restrictive in both theme and mechanics. In theme because you are restricted to the offered alignments and there aren’t any neutral alignment subclasses yet so being a champion of certain gods doesn’t make sense. Mechanically, the class heavily revolves around being the toughest person the room and not all champions of certain gods should be heavy armor wearing warriors. You can play a more nimble divine warrior but the feats and class features heavily incentivize you towards a heavy armor support. I’m also not a fan of the divine allies as steed feels underwhelming for most campaigns so you really only have two options. Blade is the offensive choice but I find it underwhelming
Maybe as class archetype but I would love to get 5E alignment agnostic “subclasses”. Right now I find champions very restrictive in both theme and mechanics. In theme because you are restricted to the offered alignments and there aren’t any neutral alignment subclasses yet so being a champion of certain gods doesn’t make sense. Mechanically, the class heavily revolves around being the toughest person the room and not all champions of certain gods should be heavy armor wearing warriors. You can play a more nimble divine warrior but the feats and class features heavily incentivize you towards a heavy armor support. I’m also not a fan of the divine allies as steed feels underwhelming for most campaigns so you really only have two options. Blade is the offensive choice but I find it underwhelming
The relative tight restrictions on the theme are something I actually quite enjoy. Together with and probably even more than the Cleric, Champions have the closest ties directly to the lore. As such, I feel that naturally grounds them a lot more than other classes. It also makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint, as Champions are supposed to be a living embodiment of their gods' ideals. As such, the strict alignment restrictions are more or less a necessity, though there is a bit of wiggle room here.
The mechanics side could use a bit more pep, though. For example, shield ally being strictly better on its own and having more and arguably stronger feats is not exactly ideal. There is also the issue of Divine Smite only dealing evil/good damage instead of also having the choice of negative/positive damage is unnecessarily limiting, especially for the evil Champion. Don't get me wrong, most of it is not a huge deal, but hey.
I'm really salty about the Tyrant exalt, though.... A 11th level class feature and it is functionally useless. Paladin gets to give his people a (mostly) free attack. Redeemer gives a huge aoe damage reduction. The Antipaladin does a not entirely insignificant amount of damage The Tyrant? Chip damage at best.
But you do have to accept that the Champion is a defender.Not even the good Champion is necessarily a defender, or rather a defensive fighter. It is just the option with the most support and probably the strongest option right now.
You can already build an almost entirely offence-focused champion, especially as an evil champion or a paladin. I would just like to have actual options in how that offence looks like.
Evil Champions are a totally different thing. Good Champions are defenders, sure you can do some other things with your powers. But you are fighting the design.
Maybe as class archetype but I would love to get 5E alignment agnostic “subclasses”. Right now I find champions very restrictive in both theme and mechanics. In theme because you are restricted to the offered alignments and there aren’t any neutral alignment subclasses yet so being a champion of certain gods doesn’t make sense. Mechanically, the class heavily revolves around being the toughest person the room and not all champions of certain gods should be heavy armor wearing warriors. You can play a more nimble divine warrior but the feats and class features heavily incentivize you towards a heavy armor support. I’m also not a fan of the divine allies as steed feels underwhelming for most campaigns so you really only have two options. Blade is the offensive choice but I find it underwhelmingThe relative tight restrictions on the theme are something I actually quite enjoy. Together with and probably even more than the Cleric, Champions have the closest ties directly to the lore. As such, I feel that naturally grounds them a lot more than other classes. It also makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint, as Champions are supposed to be a living embodiment of their gods' ideals. As such, the strict alignment restrictions are more or less a necessity, though there is a bit of wiggle room here.
The mechanics side could use a bit more pep, though. For example, shield ally being strictly better on its own and having more and arguably stronger feats is not exactly ideal. There is also the issue of Divine Smite only dealing evil/good damage instead of also having the choice of negative/positive damage is unnecessarily limiting, especially for the evil Champion. Don't get me wrong, most of it is not a huge deal, but hey.
I'm really salty about the Tyrant exalt, though.... A 11th level class feature and it is functionally useless. Paladin gets to give his people a (mostly) free attack. Redeemer gives a huge aoe damage reduction. The Antipaladin does a not entirely...
Balanced around the fact that the Tyrant has the best offensive reaction of the Evil alignment options (mental damage resistance is quite uncommon, with persistent damage being pretty good as a feat option), whereas Antipaladin can make you do more damage to yourself than to your enemy, even with the reaction feat, and Paladin is only good for classes/characters that don't have reactions of their own. Redeemer is pretty OP, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe as class archetype but I would love to get 5E alignment agnostic “subclasses”. Right now I find champions very restrictive in both theme and mechanics. In theme because you are restricted to the offered alignments and there aren’t any neutral alignment subclasses yet so being a champion of certain gods doesn’t make sense. Mechanically, the class heavily revolves around being the toughest person the room and not all champions of certain gods should be heavy armor wearing warriors. You can play a more nimble divine warrior but the feats and class features heavily incentivize you towards a heavy armor support. I’m also not a fan of the divine allies as steed feels underwhelming for most campaigns so you really only have two options. Blade is the offensive choice but I find it underwhelmingThe relative tight restrictions on the theme are something I actually quite enjoy. Together with and probably even more than the Cleric, Champions have the closest ties directly to the lore. As such, I feel that naturally grounds them a lot more than other classes. It also makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint, as Champions are supposed to be a living embodiment of their gods' ideals. As such, the strict alignment restrictions are more or less a necessity, though there is a bit of wiggle room here....
I know this is my own personal bias, but I really don’t like how much mechanical weight alignment has in this edition. Feels too old school for me and doesn’t suit certain settings like Eberron or my own homebrew campaign setting. I would rather champions represent ideals than be alignment locked. I have the same view for clerics but I know this probably an unpopular opinion here. I understand Paizo is going all in on Golarion, but it feels limiting for my uses of the system since I don’t plan on using Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me I think the problem is that the champion feels really narrow, you pretty much need to be melee, you should be in heavy armor (a little flexibility there admittedly)... and your entire core feature revolves around an alignment based gimmick (so no LG redeemers or CG vigilantes delivering retribution for uh, reasons!).
So feat options end up feeling a little claustrophobic.
Mostly this
Talking about Heavy armors, they are probably one of the thing which is off with this 2e system, in terms of roleplay.
Being able to entirely drop dex while having a better DR ( from the armor specialization ) and a +3 vs aoe effects would have been enough for a -5 speed.
But with the +1 AC, the game pushes you to always use a heavy armor ( because how hits and critical hits work in this 2e, it would be stupid not to ).
They could have dealt with it by simply giving a slightly higher DR ( if needed ), leaving players entirely free to build the character they wanted.
Alignment base gimmicks are also quite meh, especially given the fact that the only stuff divine given is the focus pool and the spirit ally ( and relative feats ).
Anything else comes from training ( reactions, armor proficiency, and so on ).
Given how dedications work, even taking an offensive feat would require a lot of effort ( you might be able to take a lvl 2 by lvl 4, a lvl 4 by lvl 8 and so on. Most of the times expending a lvl dedication feat which gives you "NOTHING" ), and because of that you will find yourself using the same attack over and over ( strike, strike, strike, strike... etc... ).
But it has to be said that it's the same for other classes too.
Ranger > Twin takedown or hunted shot
Fighter > Double Slice or Strike + Power attack
monk > Flurry of blows
Rogue > Twin Fe.... Double slice through lvl 2 dual wield fighter dedication.and so on.
Coming from 5e where dex is the god stat (so much so that freakin barbs would do dex builds sometimes as well) it's good to see heavy armor being worthwhile. If you want higher damage and burly defenses you need to be stronk. I think it's a feature, not a bug
Evil Champions are a totally different thing. Good Champions are defenders, sure you can do some other things with your powers. But you are fighting the design.
You have a point when it comes to the Redeemer and for the most part the Liberator. But that the Paladin has a very real and intended choice.
Lets tally the special stuff the Paladin gets:
(1) Defence (and related)
- nothing
(2) Neutral
- champions reaction
(3) Offence
- Blade of Justice
- Vengeful Oath + Aura of Vengeance
- Exalt
- Divine Smite
- Holy Avenger (this doesn't really count, but it specifically does more aggressive things for the Paladin)
I don't see how this is fighting the supposed design. If anything, the Paladin is strongly encouraged to focus on offence.
Coming from 5e where dex is the god stat (so much so that freakin barbs would do dex builds sometimes as well) it's good to see heavy armor being worthwhile. If you want higher damage and burly defenses you need to be stronk. I think it's a feature, not a bugActually it's the same as 5e.
Dex is god in 5e, heavy armors are god here.
Nothing really changed in terms of balance.
Shouldn't heavy armor be the largest source of ac and dr? Besides +1 is substantial (as it should be for HEAVY ARMOR) but not game breaking imo. Metal plates should protect your body more than cloth or leather
Balanced around the fact that the Tyrant has the best offensive reaction of the Evil alignment options (mental damage resistance is quite uncommon, with persistent damage being pretty good as a feat option), whereas Antipaladin can make you do more damage to yourself than to your enemy, even with the reaction feat, and Paladin is only good for classes/characters that don't have reactions of their own. Redeemer is pretty OP, though.
I'm having some serious doubts about this logic when looking at the class as a whole, as the developers will have done, not just the evil champions.
Paladins and Redeemers have extremely strong reactions and feats, but they also both get strong exalts. The Tyrant is amazing except the exalt, though it improves a bit if you GM is properly roleplaying your enemies.
The Liberator and Desecrator are fairly mediocre in every regard. To be fair, the Desecrator gets a pretty good exalt, but it doesn't stack with frightened and other sources of status penalties, which reduces its value a decent bit.
Antipaladin doesn't seem all that great, though I imagine it can be pretty effective at later levels. Exalt plus reaction feat and you have quite a bit of aoe potential.
From all of this I can only conclude that balancing amazing reactions/feats vs weaker exalt or anything along those lines was not a thing. The Tyrant is the only one that has this problem.
Bloodshed begets bloodshed as you drag your enemy toward oblivion. You increase the amount of damage you take by 1d6, and you deal 1d6 damage to the triggering enemy, choosing evil or negative damage to deal to the enemy each time you use this reaction. In addition, until the end of your next turn, your Strikes against the triggering creature deal 2 extra damage of the type you chose.So, if you take 5 physical damage, you then take 5+1d6 physical damage and deal 1d6 negative or evil ( your choice ) to the enemy.
Yeah, I missed that when checking for the first and second time. I triple-checked it immediately afterward, because that just seemed way too strong.
So yeah, unless the enemy is also dealing negative damage and is not immune to said damage type, that doesn't help you all that much with your reaction. But that is basically only evil clerics, so that is waaay less questionable.
Nvm that is just the sad times XD. They don't deal damage to you with their negative damage spells, so that doesn't even trigger your reaction. That is a definite "lets call it a draw" situation.. or it would be if one person wasn't an antipaladin :D
I pretty much find that Liberator have the best reaction of the Champions, the step is huge to avoid further attacks and then have the Exalt that put everyone in range in a better position.
I pretty much find that Liberator have the best reaction of the Champions, the step is huge to avoid further attacks and then have the Exalt that put everyone in range in a better position.
I put less value on it simply because it is a lot more situational than the rest. When you have tight spaces and/or enemies with reach, both of which happen quite often in APs. When it works, though, it is very, very good, that is true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint, as Champions are supposed to be a living embodiment of their gods' ideals. As such, the strict alignment restrictions are more or less a necessity, though there is a bit of wiggle room here.
Yeah, but the champion isn't grounded by their deity, they're grounded by their alignment.
Abadar, Erastil, Sarenrae, Ragathiel, and Gruhastha all have pretty different agendas and themes... but their paladins are probably going to mostly all be the same flavor of heavy armor melee range and dishing out divine retribution because that's the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn't heavy armor be the largest source of ac and dr? Besides +1 is substantial (as it should be for HEAVY ARMOR) but not game breaking imo. Metal plates should protect your body more than cloth or leather
Coming from 5e where dex is the god stat (so much so that freakin barbs would do dex builds sometimes as well) it's good to see heavy armor being worthwhile. If you want higher damage and burly defenses you need to be stronk. I think it's a feature, not a bugActually it's the same as 5e.
Dex is god in 5e, heavy armors are god here.
Nothing really changed in terms of balance.When it comes to DR, I agree, but when it comes to hit, dexterity ( or simply being less encumbered than a character who wears a full plate) could do the same if not better.
A missed attack could be the blow entirely absorbed by the armor ( heavy armor ) or the character that dodged the blow ( an agile one ).
That's why either 2e and 5e did wrong, imo, by just giving 1 possible outcome.
light armors don't have any DR.
Medium armor have 1+ DR against a specific damage
Heavy Armor have a 2+ DR against a specific damageIf you invest in dex you won't get extra damage, and your athletics checks will be not good. If you invest in str you will have worst reflexes and worse dex bases skills ( stealth, acrobatics, thievery ), and you will have to deal with a speed reduction.
The trade between the 2 stats is imo excellent.
What is one way is the AC, aka you are forced to wear heavy armors.
I find the 5ft. speed reduction to be a pretty decent tradeoff for heavy armor and also most classes have to archetype into getting proficiency in the first place.
Also while it's rarely used by DMs the don and dof times mean you could have basically no AC in an ambush situation or when escaping capture.
I would however like some more distinguishing aspects for light and medium armor
Balanced around the fact that the Tyrant has the best offensive reaction of the Evil alignment options (mental damage resistance is quite uncommon, with persistent damage being pretty good as a feat option), whereas Antipaladin can make you do more damage to yourself than to your enemy, even with the reaction feat, and Paladin is only good for classes/characters that don't have reactions of their own. Redeemer is pretty OP, though.I'm having some serious doubts about this logic when looking at the class as a whole, as the developers will have done, not just the evil champions.
Paladins and Redeemers have extremely strong reactions and feats, but they also both get strong exalts. The Tyrant is amazing except the exalt, though it improves a bit if you GM is properly roleplaying your enemies.
The Liberator and Desecrator are fairly mediocre in every regard. To be fair, the Desecrator gets a pretty good exalt, but it doesn't stack with frightened and other sources of status penalties, which reduces its value a decent bit.
Antipaladin doesn't seem all that great, though I imagine it can be pretty effective at later levels. Exalt plus reaction feat and you have quite a bit of aoe potential.
From all of this I can only conclude that balancing amazing reactions/feats vs weaker exalt or anything along those lines was not a thing. The Tyrant is the only one that has this problem.
Redeemer's exalt is very OP simply because it doesn't provide some reduced effect compared to the others, such as doing 1 + half level. A group that's stacked up for, say, a Breath Weapon in a Dragon's face will take significantly less damage. Even a simple fireball to the face would be effective. The Paladin's exalt, not so much, simply because most characters by that level will have a more appropriate use for their reaction, martial or not. Some won't, but that's pretty niche, and there are plenty of characters in the party whom wouldn't be able to realistically take advantage of it (such as a Wizard or Sorcerer), especially with that significant penalty. Tyrant suffers a similar issue, and is basically outright trumped by a Redeemer's Exalt.
Liberator is pretty meh, even with their feat and exalt. Desecrator is decent if you want to utilize a big hitting weapon while having pseudo-shield benefits, but is an amazing tank when paired with a Bastion dedication for Quick Block, Quick Shield Block, plus Divine Reflexes by 14th.
Antipaladin is just bad no matter how much you try to build upon their reaction. You're risking damaging yourself more than you are damaging the opponent, since RAW, you roll 1D6 for yourself, and a separate 1D6(+1 with reaction feat) for your opponent. Very easy to roll, say, a 5 for yourself, and a 1 or 2 for the bad guy. And it only gets worse as you level. If they didn't damage themselves, it'd be an awesome reaction just like the Tyrant's, since a pseudo-thorns effect is a pretty neat tank mechanic that we haven't really seen in PF2 yet.
|
My opinion is skewed because I am playing exactly the character I wanted with my paladin. He's a Captain America analogy—divine shield and almost all his feats are focused on shield use, including Knights of Lastwall feats, his first investment as he levels is keeping his shield at the highest version he has access to. He is easily my favorite PF2E PC. YMMV
Yeah, but the champion isn't grounded by their deity, they're grounded by their alignment.
Abadar, Erastil, Sarenrae, Ragathiel, and Gruhastha all have pretty different agendas and themes... but their paladins are probably going to mostly all be the same flavor of heavy armor melee range and dishing out divine retribution because that's the class.
That is why I was talking about the theme - i.e. the flavour provided primarily by causes and tenets, as well as class features and feats. In addition to that are the expectations we have for a class/path. Yes, heavy armour is part of that flavour, but the only ones that thematically play into that - at least in my eyes - are the Paladin, Tyrant and Antipaladin. The rest wear heavy armour because of mechanics, not necessarily for thematic reasons.
I absolutely agree that we need some variety, as there are plenty of gods or even whole geographical and cultural regions for whom plate armour is not thematically appropriate. It makes a lot of sense that most if not all Champions of Abadar, Iomedae and Gorum would choose to wear plate armour. But if we look at Erastil, Nethys, and most of all Norgorber, plate just doesn't fit the theme. And that is something I would like to see represented in the mechanics as well and not just by making yourself categorically worse.
---
The Paladin's exalt, not so much, simply because most characters by that level will have a more appropriate use for their reaction, martial or not. Some won't, but that's pretty niche, and there are plenty of characters in the party whom wouldn't be able to realistically take advantage of it (such as a Wizard or Sorcerer), especially with that significant penalty.
That casters and ranged attackers are not the target audience is true. And the effectiveness varies wildly depending on party composition and feat selection. But I think you are overestimating the reaction economy of most melee classes. Speaking from experience, there are plenty of situations where Fighters, Barbarians and Swashbucklers will gladly take that swing. Maybe even the occasional overeager Rogue or Monk. Once the Magus and Summoner come out you have two more classes that would probably really like that.
And the entire rest of what you are saying is just making my point. There is no visible unifying balancing structure, so assuming that as the reason is a poor argument.
|
|
Yeah, but the champion isn't grounded by their deity, they're grounded by their alignment
I think that’s true for a lot of players, but I don’t think it has to be that way. Yes a paladin has a set of overarching tenets and anathema, but they also have to layer their deity’s tenets and anathema on that as well. I tend to view the paladin code more as a set of rules to follow like laws that have punishments if you break them and the deity’s code more as a set of ideals to aspire to. Simplistically, it’s kind of like I HAVE to do what the paladin code says, I WANT to do what my deity says. Just my perspective.