| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like something to bring up to your GM at session zero, that you want clever plays to get unlikely advantages and a laissez faire approach to the game world.I'm down for a hard game. It's just that games should reward creativity.
In some games, the best way to do collect a bounty might be a car bomb instead of going in guns blazing, in others it could be collecting evidence on a baddy on taking it to one of their enemies, in yet more it might be researching an enemies weakness and loading up on materials to take it down. Enemies in a cave? Light a fire at the cave mouth and smoke them out. Enemies hiding in a room? Nail the door shut and let them run out of supplies.
I don't expect the enemies to fight fair or be easy, so if I can win without risk to myself that's the best way to fight. If that's not an option I want to play the meanest mofo on the battlefield who hits hard, often, and then leaves.
So long as you don't have a GM who will panic block you to keep you playing a trad game (as opposed to a neo trad or OSR inspired one) Pathfinder 2e supports this kind of play through its robust exploration mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty odd to assume that PF2 can't do fantasy characters because it can't reliably emulate certain characters 1-to-1 with class levels.
Some of these issues you have mostly stems from GMs not knowing what genre they're even trying to emulate with their game. Concepts like "villains busting out new forms" or a PC suddenly gaining new powers isn't something the game is going to directly shove down your throat. There's nothing stopping the GM leveling up a PC mid encounter, or giving the villain transformation abilities or a one time use power that levels them up.
Other examples you've given seem rather doable if we're strictly limiting it to PC capabilities. Creating a mansion in a demiplane sounds like a reflavored Magnificent Mansion. Running across clouds sounds identically to air walk. Making a fortress "disappear" just sounds like a large AoE that simply deals enough damage (stone structures only have 58 HP and 14 hardness). A PC wearing weighted clothing to hold them back just sounds like a PC artificially lowering their own statistics/bonuses.
The game isn't going to tell you how make your game "anime." However, if you just open your eyes and look in the books, and if you're willing to reskin and reflavor certain aspects, then it honestly does it just fine.
You can make Jonathan Joestar, Alucard from Hellsing (minus Release Level: 0), Kenshiro, Kenshin, Batman, Denki Kaminari, and a whole slew of other characters. You just can't 1:1 replicate EVERY power, because you need something like Hero 6e to do that build-a-bear super power replication. You can get close approximation, but it'll never be exact, even in 3.x or pf1, because some stuff just... can't get copied over. AS TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION: Why divine specifically? Because that's sorta the only Tradition that's left in the water for bonking peeps outside of Champion. They'll probably make some options down the line, but an Evil Champion (Tyrant or anti-paladin) with a maul and Barbarian MCD will get you quite the DPS while handing out divine judgement... as long as you're okay with being evil!
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like systems where mastery matters.
This, I think, is the heart of the issue and you're never going to be satisfied, because this is a matter of fundamental disagreement.
I am a character optimizer myself. I enjoy recreational system mastery. One of the things that has most impressed me about PF2 is how they handled it. 5e handles CharOppers by hating us indiscriminately and taking away all our toys, and then when we ask where all they toys went, they tell us that we are bad and wrong little children, and we don't deserve toys. Given the ways in which 5e was a reaction to 4e... that's understandable, though I personally don't enjoy it much.
PF2 offers lots and lots of toys... and then has everything very tightly budgeted so that you can't do anything too overwhelming with them. Like, if you know exactly what your'e doing, and you put real effort into it, you can eke out... maybe a 10% or 20% efficiency bonus. (Not real numbers - that's just my gut reaction of how it feels to me). I get to play that part of the game, and I get to gain real advantages by playing that part of the game well, but the advantages I gain are still limited enough that no matter what I do I'm not going to utterly marginalize the player to my left who walked in only knowing that they wanted to play a dwarf with an axe.
This was entirely intentional. I know that because I've dipped my feet into game design enough to know that this kind of effect, at this kind of scale, is really hard to pull off well. It's not the kind of thing that happens by mistake, and it's not the kind of thing that's going to change. Now, personally, I think it's awesome. I'm honestly very impressed by it. If you don't like it, though? I think it's a "deal with it and move on" moment, really. A design choice that's been given this level of investment simply isn't going to go away.
I like systems where mastery matters.This, I think, is the heart of the issue and you're never going to be satisfied, because this is a matter of fundamental disagreement.
I am a character optimizer myself. I enjoy recreational system mastery. One of the things that has most impressed me about PF2 is how they handled it. 5e handles CharOppers by hating us indiscriminately and taking away all our toys, and then when we ask where all they toys went, they tell us that we are bad and wrong little children, and we don't deserve toys. Given the ways in which 5e was a reaction to 4e... that's understandable, though I personally don't enjoy it much.
PF2 offers lots and lots of toys... and then has everything very tightly budgeted so that you can't do anything too overwhelming with them. Like, if you know exactly what your'e doing, and you put real effort into it, you can eke out... maybe a 10% or 20% efficiency bonus. (Not real numbers - that's just my gut reaction of how it feels to me). I get to play that part of the game, and I get to gain real advantages by playing that part of the game well, but the advantages I gain are still limited enough that no matter what I do I'm not going to utterly marginalize the player to my left who walked in only knowing that they wanted to play a dwarf with an axe.
This was entirely intentional. I know that because I've dipped my feet into game design enough to know that this kind of effect, at this kind of scale, is really hard to pull off well. It's not the kind of thing that happens by mistake, and it's not the kind of thing that's going to change. Now, personally, I think it's awesome. I'm honestly very impressed by it. If you don't like it, though? I think it's a "deal with it and move on" moment, really. A design choice that's been given this level of investment simply isn't going to go away.
My thing isn't that I want power*, what I really want are options and detailed specificity in character design.
That 3.x/PF1 style of character building was wildly all over the place in terms of which bits made a variable character. What I want is that with the top 20% at each end brought in towards the middle. Yes, that means you can still build a fairly useless character, but it also means you can build your character and not just your spin on an archetype. That's what keeps pushing me away from PF2.
Pf2 keeps drawing me in with its slick 3-action system and being a modern fantasy RPG with familiar design elements AND build options, but it loses me when I try to make a character feel like it's mine. There just isn't room for that and a lot of my favoured archetypes aren't even supported yet and may never be supported. PF2 is so close to what I want that what I see as its flaws become even more repulsive than 5e's many issues and complete upfront lack of customization.
*I will acknowledge that a higher base level of power can help represent certain characters better than PF2 can, but that isn't my main desire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thing isn't that I want power*, what I really want are options and detailed specificity in character design.
That 3.x/PF1 style of character building was wildly all over the place in terms of which bits made a variable character. What I want is that with the top 20% at each end brought in towards the middle. Yes, that means you can still build a fairly useless character, but it also means you can build your character and not just your spin on an archetype. That's what keeps pushing me away from PF2.
Pf2 keeps drawing me in with its slick 3-action system and being a modern fantasy RPG with familiar design elements AND build options, but it loses me when I try to make a character feel like it's mine. There just isn't room for that and a lot of my favoured archetypes aren't even supported yet and may never be supported. PF2 is so close to what I want that what I see as its flaws become even more repulsive than 5e's many issues and complete upfront lack of customization.
*I will acknowledge that a higher base level of power can help represent certain characters better than PF2 can, but that isn't my main desire.
I wasn't actually trying to suggest that your thing was power. Power is easy - you just run a game where the enemies are relatively straightforward and also a level or two on the low side. My point was about PF2's attitude towards system mastery. It's allowed, and even encouraged, but the payoff at the end - where you look at what you have wrought by means of your system mastery - is limited.
I suppose that another aspect is that for all its magic, this is a heroic game, rather than a superheroic one. It does pretty well at representing things like Conan, LotR, or Thundercats. It does poorly at representing the worlds where people have specific unique weird powers that they can use at will and that grow slowly over time (like, say, One Piece). It's also one where a fair number of the classes are very specifically themed. Summoners, Magii, and Thaumaturges, just to take the most extreme examples, do very specific things in very specific ways. In this case, I think the answer really has to be letting go of any ideas that you might have from the outside, and building ideas inside fo the world they have provided. There's quite a lot of space in there to build, if you can do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't actually trying to suggest that your thing was power. Power is easy - you just run a game where the enemies are relatively straightforward and also a level or two on the low side.My thing isn't that I want power*, what I really want are options and detailed specificity in character design.
That 3.x/PF1 style of character building was wildly all over the place in terms of which bits made a variable character. What I want is that with the top 20% at each end brought in towards the middle. Yes, that means you can still build a fairly useless character, but it also means you can build your character and not just your spin on an archetype. That's what keeps pushing me away from PF2.
Pf2 keeps drawing me in with its slick 3-action system and being a modern fantasy RPG with familiar design elements AND build options, but it loses me when I try to make a character feel like it's mine. There just isn't room for that and a lot of my favoured archetypes aren't even supported yet and may never be supported. PF2 is so close to what I want that what I see as its flaws become even more repulsive than 5e's many issues and complete upfront lack of customization.
*I will acknowledge that a higher base level of power can help represent certain characters better than PF2 can, but that isn't my main desire.
I was speaking mostly to the audience there. Many here perceive me as merely wanting a more powerful character and simply hating on PF2's tight balance for that reason. I'm merely a pessimist caught in a loop of being drawn to PF2 and then repulsed by its details.
My point was about PF2's attitude towards system mastery. It's allowed, and even encouraged, but the payoff at the end - where you look at what you have wrought by means of your system mastery - is limited.
I like using system mastery to make oddities that take tragically underpowered ideas good enough to play at a table that's playing low twos and threes on the old 3.x tier list. PF2 doesn't offer this ability partly because even the Artificer isn't that bad but mainly because its options are all so heavily gated behind rules that state, in essence, "This class, and only this class, can do X within these specific limitations." I want to make a user of X that doesn't also do the Y & Z associated with that class but that can do B from one class and F from another.
I suppose that another aspect is that for all its magic, this is a heroic game, rather than a superheroic one. It does pretty well at representing things like Conan, LotR, or Thundercats. It does poorly at representing the worlds where people have specific unique weird powers that they can use at will and that grow slowly over time (like, say, One Piece). It's also one where a fair number of the classes are very specifically themed. Summoners, Magii, and...
Yes, every class in PF2 grows sideways but not vertically. This isn't generally how heroes in fiction tend to grow. This is why I suggested that PF2 was, to my mind and standards, bad at faithfully recreating many fantasy characters.
I want to play Yasseriel, Hammer of the Commons, Bane of Unbelievers who has a smite, heavy armour, and a charisma focus. Not the version that has to be built on a Warpriest, Champion, Magus, or Barbarian. I want to make Nameless, a chimeric experiment unnamed and unwanted who nonetheless wishes to be a hero. I want to make Hungry Harry, the troll that jammed on a ring of sustenance and free of the curse of hunger gets to learn and grow and see if a troll can be more than just eating and killing. PF2 doesn't do a good job of allowing for outsider characters built from monsters or characters with extremely narrow focuses.
I simply can't overcome that as when I try to build a character I feel more boxed in by what I can't do than thrilled at the possibilities that PF2 offers. I struggle to see it as a system giving me things instead of a system that has stripped many options and sold me back other options as a class or ancestry feat. If there were a class that just did one cool thing, without tap dancing around action restrictions, that could be my door in but I haven't found that yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, every class in PF2 grows sideways but not vertically. This isn't generally how heroes in fiction tend to grow. This is why I suggested that PF2 was, to my mind and standards, bad at faithfully recreating many fantasy characters.
I want to play Yasseriel, Hammer of the Commons, Bane of Unbelievers who has a smite, heavy armour, and a charisma focus. Not the version that has to be built on a Warpriest, Champion, Magus, or Barbarian. I want to make Nameless, a chimeric experiment unnamed and unwanted who nonetheless wishes to be a hero. I want to make Hungry Harry, the troll that jammed on a ring of sustenance and free of the curse of hunger gets to learn and grow and see if a troll can be more than just eating and killing. PF2 doesn't do a good job of allowing for outsider characters built from monsters or characters with extremely narrow focuses.
I simply can't overcome that as when I try to build a character I feel more boxed in by what I can't do than thrilled at the possibilities that PF2 offers. I struggle to see it as a system giving me things instead of a system that has stripped many options and sold me back other options as a class or ancestry feat. If there were a class that just did one cool thing, without tap dancing around action restrictions, that could be my door in but I haven't found that yet.
Hm.
That sounds like it might be a job for a robust set of houserules, honestly. Something like...
- Play free archetype
- Up to two immature devotions allowed at a time, rather than just one.
- Once you've archetyped into another class, class feats from that class come at the same level for you as they do any native of that class.
- Figure out some reasonably fair way to convert General feats, Ancestry Feats, and Skill Feats into one another, so you can play characters that either lean waaay into their ancestry... or don't.
- If there's some class feature that's super-important to you that isn't available as an archetype feat, figure out what it would be worth, roughly, and just slap it in there. Example: Act Together is roughly equivalent to Flurry of Blows, and thus counts as a Class Feat 10. Some (like, say, heal/harm font) might count as more than one class feat.
- If there's some class feature that you want to not have, then figure out what it's worth as a class feat and carve it out - possibly taking a bit of a loss for your trouble. As an example, if you want to play a monk but not have Flurry of Blows, then you could maybe cash it in for a lvl 6 class feat.
Now, this is all potentially very abusable (which is why it's not allowed in the base game) but something like that (if you can convince your GM to go for it) should give you the flexibility to construct the mix-and-match build that you're wishing for. If you're aiming for "I want this cool idea" rather than maximizing your power, then you might be able to keep from breaking the game too badly. Probably best played in a group with other people like yourself who are all trying their own weird takes on the same thing.
I don't really have an answer for Hungry Harry other than the suggestion that you might be able to figure out a cost in racial feats to get the stuff you want, and then figure out the conversion from class to racial, etc, etc, etc. It's pretty blatantly impossible to fit him into a lvl 1 budget, though.
You realize that 3.5/PF1 has 17 years worth of content vs PF2's 2 years, right ?
Yes, I also realize that Pazo is releasing content at a glacial pace by comparison to those years. 3.0, the fairest comparable we can make, had 16 rulebooks (they didn't really do PF2 style adventure guides), 56 companion magazines, and 11 adventures. This is compared to PF2 which has 8 rules-heavy books and 11 rules-light adventure guides alongside 37 adventures or adventure paths. It's fair to say that even an apples to apples comparison has PF2 behind D&D 3.0 on the actual rules content.
I'd also argue that D&D 3.0 was more experimental in what it tried to cover with its Epic Level Handbook, Manual of the Planes, and Stronghold Builder's Guidebook releasing early into its lifecycle alongside proto Savage Species content published in Dragon. With Savage Species itself only missing our cutoff date by a mere 2 months.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You realize that 3.5/PF1 has 17 years worth of content vs PF2's 2 years, right ?Yes, I also realize that Pazo is releasing content at a glacial pace by comparison to those years. 3.0, the fairest comparable we can make, had 16 rulebooks (they didn't really do PF2 style adventure guides), 56 companion magazines, and 11 adventures. This is compared to PF2 which has 8 rules-heavy books and 11 rules-light adventure guides alongside 37 adventures or adventure paths. It's fair to say that even an apples to apples comparison has PF2 behind D&D 3.0 on the actual rules content.
I'd also argue that D&D 3.0 was more experimental in what it tried to cover with its Epic Level Handbook, Manual of the Planes, and Stronghold Builder's Guidebook releasing early into its lifecycle alongside proto Savage Species content published in Dragon. With Savage Species itself only missing our cutoff date by a mere 2 months.
Glacial pace?!? Be glad you never played 5E. I played 5E for years and the pace of content release for that system is terribly slow. Paizo's release pace is honestly almost too fast for me. I love all the new classes but I don't nearly have the time to play every new thing or get excited about it, because there's always something new around the corner.
With that said, the 3E/PF1E era had so much content at such a fast pace, but that contributed to the edition(s)'s lack of balance over time. PF2e is a tightly balanced system, and I imagine it takes longer than the 3E/PF1E era to release content while also ensuring it won't break the game. PF2e hasn't even been out for 3 years yet and we already have 20 classes (5E has only gotten one new class in its almost 8 year life!). Give Paizo some time, as they are making new stuff really fast. Plus there is a growing number of quality homebrew and 3PP starting to create content too.
That's sort of what a lot of people on this forum have been saying, you can only sort of replicate characters from Shonen and such. For balance reasons, mostly. A lot of the really fantastical stuff can be done, but probably only for a few minutes a day or a much more mitigated version of what you might see in something like one piece or fairy tailIf you're looking for shonen characters, a few possibilities-
That's a Great Value(tm) Natsu at best. They never get fire immunity which Natsu has from scene one, nor can they match the RAW power output or versatility of what Natsu can manage.
There's no point to making a character as close as you can in a system if they can't actually replicate the feats from the show.
This is my issue I was going to bring up. Unlike PF1 where power scaling went crazy, PF2 is much more controlled. I honestly don't think you can reasonably represent most shonen type heroes because their baseline is higher than what can be achieved even at level 20 in a lot of cases.
There are some that you can potentially cover, like Naruto at the very beginning of the anime is pretty weak. But then you have to compare to Kakashi and the Hokage at the time, and you're looking at at power levels that don't really have a point of comparison in PF2. At least IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my issue I was going to bring up. Unlike PF1 where power scaling went crazy, PF2 is much more controlled. I honestly don't think you can reasonably represent most shonen type heroes because their baseline is higher than what can be achieved even at level 20 in a lot of cases.
There are some that you can potentially cover, like Naruto at the very beginning of the anime is pretty weak. But then you have to compare to Kakashi and the Hokage at the time, and you're looking at at power levels that don't really have a point of comparison in PF2. At least IMO.
I don't think it's power levels, though. It's more that it's wackiness levels. Like, in Naruto terms, you can totally build late-stage Rock Lee as a monk, and the individual levels are chunky enough that you can unleash him on a battlefield full of mooks, and he will walk out the victor as is right and proper. You might be able to produce a reasonable Tenten, too. The issue is that those are the Naruto characters that are notable in being one-note and relatively mundane. First-day Genin Naruto gets utterly plastered in a duel against your average lvl 15 pathfinder character of any class... but there's no way in Pathfinder to even remotely approach the exploitable silliness that is Taju Kage Bunshin No Jutsu.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wackiness is a good framing. Pathfinder 2 (and honestly, even 1 to a large extent) tends to play characters fairly straight, which makes any concept that relies on something a little out there either untenable or come online at a much higher level.
But I mean even on a more basic level... most anime characters and a big chunk of modern video game characters and characters in other forms of similar media can both fight well and have some sort of magic powers (or something adjacent to it). It's kind of just the standard in a lot of media.
Pathfinder 2 has one class that really fits that entire archetype of characters, so they pretty much don't exist as supportable PF2 concepts.
Kind of like how in PF1 the whole concept of a mobile combatant was nearly nonexistent because of full-attacking rules. Or how in both games slotted spellcasting makes emulating pretty much any fictional magic user almost impossible to satisfyingly pull off.
Wackiness is a good framing. Pathfinder 2 (and honestly, even 1 to a large extent) tends to play characters fairly straight, which makes any concept that relies on something a little out there either untenable or come online at a much higher level.
But I mean even on a more basic level... most anime characters and a big chunk of modern video game characters and characters in other forms of similar media can both fight well and have some sort of magic powers (or something adjacent to it). It's kind of just the standard in a lot of media.
Pathfinder 2 has one class that really fits that entire archetype of characters, so they pretty much don't exist as supportable PF2 concepts.
This is sad because those exact concepts were the best part of PF1 and where Paizo really hit their stride in making new classes. Half casters are amazing and PF2 just can't or won't support them.
Kind of like how in PF1 the whole concept of a mobile combatant was nearly nonexistent because of full-attacking rules. Or how in both games slotted spellcasting makes emulating pretty much any fictional magic user almost impossible to satisfyingly pull off.
I'll give you mobile combat but you could work around spell slots with spell points or psychic classes, or the casting system from the Wheel of Time 3.x game.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...are you going to engage with the suggestions that were offered to you or are you just here to complain until the cows come home?
Since the somewhat interesting premise of this thread has devolved into trying to satisfy you when you're mostly incompatible with what the system tries to do, I mean.
So...are you going to engage with the suggestions that were offered to you or are you just here to complain until the cows come home?
Since the somewhat interesting premise of this thread has devolved into trying to satisfy you when you're mostly incompatible with the system tries to do, I mean.
I have engaged with them and found them wanting. I've yet to see anything else proposed that even attempts to meet my needs. I'm going to be a tough sell but the right build could do it. I basically want a 3.x/PF1 style smite paladin or a battle cleric that actually feels like a martial and not a speed bump that heals people and swings as a 3rd action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have engaged with them and found them wanting. I've yet to see anything else proposed that even attempts to meet my needs. I'm going to be a tough sell but the right build could do it. I basically want a 3.x/PF1 style smite paladin or a battle cleric that actually feels like a martial and not a speed bump that heals people and swings as a 3rd action.So...are you going to engage with the suggestions that were offered to you or are you just here to complain until the cows come home?
Since the somewhat interesting premise of this thread has devolved into trying to satisfy you when you're mostly incompatible with the system tries to do, I mean.
I think some have already made RAW suggestions to play a divine smiter, but if you're willing to try homebrew, I have some options for a divine smiter character as a big fan of the concept:
- Templar Archetype: A cleric class archetype to turn the cleric into a Magus like class with less spellcasting for better martial prowess.
- Eldritch Scion Archetype: Inspired by the 1E archetype of the same name, this class archetype turns the Magus into a Charisma spontaneous caster that can pick a sorcerer bloodline to determine their spell list. Want to play an angelic holy warrior? This has got you covered.
- Avenger class: Inspired by the D&D 4E class of the same name, the Avenger is the offensive version of the champion: a mobile skirmisher that brings divine wrath against their foes. This class has gone through a lot of updates and play testing to get this IMO a balanced version. If the champion is too defensive for you, then I would try out the Avenger.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have engaged with them and found them wanting. I've yet to see anything else proposed that even attempts to meet my needs. I'm going to be a tough sell but the right build could do it. I basically want a 3.x/PF1 style smite paladin or a battle cleric that actually feels like a martial and not a speed bump that heals people and swings as a 3rd action.So...are you going to engage with the suggestions that were offered to you or are you just here to complain until the cows come home?
Since the somewhat interesting premise of this thread has devolved into trying to satisfy you when you're mostly incompatible with the system tries to do, I mean.
Champions are extremely tough in PF2. The champion paladin one of the better champion damage dealers. With a 2-handed d12 weapon and Ranged Reprisal, their Champion Reaction ability is pretty wide. I had fun playing it. Feels powerful in PF2.
If I wanted to add some alphastrike ability, I guess you could take Cleric Archetype and get the channel smite feats focusing on the ability to alphastrike with Channel Smite using most of your slots for alphastriking. Though I prefer to boost AC and attack rolls with Protection and Heroism.
I like my champion paladin. Very powerful feeling. I based my paladin on Claymore Theresa/Clare combination except with a shield and bastard sword. She kicks ass.
If I wanted to add some alphastrike ability, I guess you could take Cleric Archetype and get the channel smite feats focusing on the ability to alphastrike with Channel Smite using most of your slots for alphastriking. Though I prefer to boost AC and attack rolls with Protection and Heroism.
I don't think you can get Channel Smite unless you're an actual Cleric unfortunately. It has harmful/healing font as a prerequisite.
If I wanted to add some alphastrike ability, I guess you could take Cleric Archetype and get the channel smite feats focusing on the ability to alphastrike with Channel Smite using most of your slots for alphastriking. Though I prefer to boost AC and attack rolls with Protection and Heroism.I don't think you can get Channel Smite unless you're an actual Cleric unfortunately. It has harmful/healing font as a prerequisite.
You have to have the font? I guess that rules that out. They must want to keep that alphastrike to magus and war priest.
I have engaged with them and found them wanting. I've yet to see anything else proposed that even attempts to meet my needs. I'm going to be a tough sell but the right build could do it. I basically want a 3.x/PF1 style smite paladin or a battle cleric that actually feels like a martial and not a speed bump that heals people and swings as a 3rd action.So...are you going to engage with the suggestions that were offered to you or are you just here to complain until the cows come home?
Since the somewhat interesting premise of this thread has devolved into trying to satisfy you when you're mostly incompatible with the system tries to do, I mean.
Champions are extremely tough in PF2. The champion paladin one of the better champion damage dealers. With a 2-handed d12 weapon and Ranged Reprisal, their Champion Reaction ability is pretty wide. I had fun playing it. Feels powerful in PF2.
If I wanted to add some alphastrike ability, I guess you could take Cleric Archetype and get the channel smite feats focusing on the ability to alphastrike with Channel Smite using most of your slots for alphastriking. Though I prefer to boost AC and attack rolls with Protection and Heroism.
I like my champion paladin. Very powerful feeling. I based my paladin on Claymore Theresa/Clare combination except with a shield and bastard sword. She kicks ass.
It looks like an Automaton Champion of Casandalee could make for a pretty interesting base to work from.
