| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Alignment binding of the launch 2e Champion deeply frustrated me, so I’m ecstatic to see it revised beyond that. I don’t dare hope for a new subclass, but the absence of what would’ve been CN and LN options continues to be a bummer…
Still, I can probably have Liberators of Casandalee now, and that feels good.
EDIT: Oh, I’m praying for an overhaul of Monk Weapons. It’s weird to set aside a bunch of South and Southeast Asian gear for one Class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah monk weapons being cleared up would be fantastic
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Oh, I’m praying for an overhaul of Monk Weapons. It’s weird to set aside a bunch of South and Southeast Asian gear for one Class.
yes - the monk trait is so bad
it seems to cost a lot of ... balance points? and makes martial weapons barely better then simple ones while they have to compete with the stances which are all about advanced power level| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Alignment binding of the launch 2e Champion deeply frustrated me, so I’m ecstatic to see it revised beyond that. I don’t dare hope for a new subclass, but the absence of what would’ve been CN and LN options continues to be a bummer…
Still, I can probably have Liberators of Casandalee now, and that feels good.
Yes I think that in practical terms having all the good champion options open to most of good religions is what a lot of people are looking forward to in the alignment changes.
|
I play a goblin merchant, HEAVY on the merchant part. I ended up picking Sorcerer for the class with the Janni bloodline and merchant background. I picked Sorcerer because it's charisma based and there are lots a good cantrips and spells for merchants. I use alarm to protect the shop. mending to fix trashed items to resell, bullhorn to shout out sales in the market. One requirement I have for this character is that all cantrips and first-level spells have to be useful for being a merchant, without any combat spells.
It looks like there's a possibility of sorcerers getting new draconic bloodlines so curious if any of them might be suitable for a merchant. Dragons and merchants both like gold after all.
It sounded like Core 2 was where most of the archetypes will end up. We have a merchant background, but I'm hoping for a merchant archetype, maybe built around social skills a merchant might need. Or as a way for non casters to get some of the useful merchant cantrips.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt it's happening, since it's probably outside the scope of the remaster, but I would love it if champions got one extra trained skill. I'd even accept them getting an extra skill but losing Religion as an automatic train skill. It just really sucks to have a very specific concept in mind that involves dumping or neglecting Intelligence and then realize how few skills you actually get to choose.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To mirror Gortle's thread on the Core 1 classes, here's a thread to discuss potential changes to the Core 2 classes.
Thanks.
Alchemist: My groups have never really got into this class after the initial failures so I can't really add much for sure. I just feel that it is jarring that you don't get cantrip style effects till level 9 - which is terrible as you don't need them then. I'd like to see a few alchemical style cantrips from level 1 please. Just like casters they need cantrips early and not late. I really don't want to be another weapon user - I want to be an alchemist.
Barbarian: Excellent elements but a few things don't work. Too many good powers all at level 6.
Cleave needs to be the premier iconic Barbarian reaction not Attack of Opportunity - but Cleave sucks because it is always hurt by MAP and you can just use your reaction better elsewhere.
Animal Rage - what does it do which isn't just cosmetic? It should be a level 4 feat not level 8
Fury Barbarians just seem weak.
Superstition Barbarians are a great concept and good mechanically but their imposition on the rest of the party is terrible - can you water their ananthema down to something more of a roleplaying add, than a pain towards everyone else?
Champion: Is solid but I wish they didn't get the worst mount.
Investigator: I think they work fine. I would like to see them given a defensive power or two. They need something else mechanical at mid levels so they are more worthwhile when not pursuing a lead.
Monk: I think the Monk is excellent except maybe their class DC could be a bit better to make the focus spells stronger.
Oracle: Please clear up what you mean by can't mitigate the curse as some people can read it very badly. The penalties for some of the curses (Ancestors, Bones, Lore) are way more than others at least compared to the benefits that you get. But mostly I want to know how my spells are effected if I have the opposite alignment (whatever it is now) to my divine source.
Sorcerer: I'd like to steal Conceal Spell from the Wizard but aside from that I think it is awesome.
A few spell choices are terrible as are some of the Blood Magic effects. Getting +1 to a skill check that you really wanted to do before you cast your spell eg Deception or intimidation is useless. Why do you think giving melee attacks to spell casters has any real value?
Swashbuckler: Fantastic concept. I would like it to have some adjustments as gaining Panache can be a grind. Some suggestions: have them gain panache on a successful Riposte. How about a power - I'm not left handed to give them a reroll or to retain panache on a miss. Or give them a feat to allow them to gain panache using the skill from another style. I also really wish you hadn't called Finishers Finishers. Because not being able to attack is a big disadvantage especially for a gymnast. Could you make it Strike the same foe instead?
Alchemist: They are martial characters so they also deserve martial proficiency. Not only for bombs but for simple weapons too to allow Toxicologist becoming useful.
Barbarian: More things for Fury Instinct. The only thing we currently have is Furious Vengeance. This instinct need way more attractive things to make it a viable option. Also remake the Superstition Instinct to be more than an NPC solution maybe can be necessary to switch it to another really useful instinct.
Champion: With the removal of alignment mechanics make tenets option more flexible and less related to causes. Currently champions have a strange a single subclass options divided in 2 groups by tenets. I want to see instead a dual unrelated subclasses like psychic have with conscious and subconscious Minds and witches have with Lessons and Patron Themes.
Investigator: Optional DaS. No more "you must use the result of the roll" but you can to allow the player to no depend from number of the opponents available.
Monk: Some way to recover 2 and 3 focus points during refocus without having to take tax feats like Meditative Focus and Meditative Wellspring. Monks currently are a too much feat dependent class to waste feats like these or give them combat flexibility and improved flexibility to allow them to take more feats.
Oracle: Some work into Ancestors and Lore Mysteries to make them more interesting.
Sorcerer: No changes
Swashbuckler: Rework the Panache and finishers mechanic to make them less risky and restrict otherwise it will still fail to compete with rogues as precision damage martial alternative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemists definitely need more proficiency and alchemical item scaling, since they are the only class with no inherent Master or Legendary proficiency options, and are also disincentivized from building non-Intelligence-based by lacking a versatile class attribute boost, meaning options like Mutagenist or Toxicologist are already weaker than they should be. Options to use with their reagents is basically already remedied with the recent splatbook(s), but the class just needs more raw meat on its bones for it to be effective. Master proficiency with attacks would be a start, and/or Legendary proficiency with Class DC at a certain point, depending on Research Field. Of course, Mutagenists being able to mitigate or ignore Mutagen penalties would also be a nice boon, but I haven't really played an Alchemist, so I wouldn't know if that's already possible currently.
Barbarians need more parity with their feats and instincts. As it stands, you go Animal Instinct to be a "tank," you go Giant Instinct for Damage, and you go Dragon Instinct for the "I'm a cool winged badass that breathes fire" archetype. That leaves Fury Instinct a pretty weak and uninteresting choice (even if it lacks Anathema), Spirit Instinct pretty bad feeling (ambiguous Anathema and poor rage powers/feats), and Superstition Barbarian is not viable in most every party composition (given that most every game is based on magical spells and effects, though it might be passable in an ABP game, it's not the standard). Also, more Instincts in general (Fiend/Celestial/Planar Instinct as one example), but I'll leave that for future book installments.
Good-aligned Champions are relatively solid, whereas Evil-aligned Champions need more "alignment-neutral" options, given that Evil fights Evil just as much as Good fights Evil. Granted, with the game doing away with Alignment, it's possible that this will resolve this issue and simply put much more weight on the Deity anathema (or the anathema of the specific causes you take), but depending on how it's implemented, it could be made much, much worse. I would also ask for Neutral-based Champion options and more actual class feats that isn't tied to their reaction or Lay on Hands/Touch of Corruption (their choices for first and second level are quite pitiful), and maybe more types of Allies, but again, I feel like this is more of something that should be for future book installments, and not for something that a Core "rewrite" should apply.
Investigator lacks a lot of punch of other classes, and is basically just a far worse Rogue. Yes, it has Devise a Stratagem, it has some neat interactions with Recall Knowledge, and is technically a stronger class for a more "espionage"-focused game, but if we're strictly talking combat options, it's not very effective given that it's restricted to attacking only once per round due to Devise a Stratagem, and if they roll badly, they're basically relegated to doing non-attacking actions, which are quite limited, even with other investments. Allowing it to be a choice roll instead of a forced roll would make a big difference in balancing it out. Even their Methodologies are a lot like the Alchemists' Research Fields, where it gives some basic benefit and it doesn't really do a whole lot for you unless you invest in it even more, and even then it's not going to compete with or replace existing options: Forensic Medicine, for example, puts you as a barely viable combat healer, becoming kind of viable as a combat healer when you involve Medic dedication. They're also extremely MAD and aren't very intuitive in their playstyle or feat choice, short of "Pursue a Lead on the BBEG, benefit from the free Devise a Stratagem action when you fight them." Yes, playing a detective character shouldn't be easy or direct, but given that this class is needlessly complex to be just barely better than a Rogue (whom is far easier to play) out of combat, it's not providing enough to warrant its differentiation, given I can just play a Rogue with Investigator dedication and get approximately the same amount of flavor/playstyle than if I just took the Investigator class by itself.
Monks are in a surprisingly good spot, since they have plenty of good feat choices/builds and styles. In fact, they're almost so good I always struggle to make a Monk character because of the decision paralysis I have. It would be nice if certain options were made available far earlier into the game (Fuse Style, for example), but otherwise it's not terrible. I think the complaints of Monk weapons not being as viable as they should be are indeed justified, given that you're spending feats to be just barely below Martial weapons (and only barely above existing Simple weapons that they are already proficient with), and that Monks that use weapons should be just as iconic and viable as the unarmed ones. It just falls under the old paradigm of PF1's Exotic Weapon Proficiency justification, which was very hard to justify in that edition, and it's just as hard, if not harder, to justify in this edition.
Oracles do have a weird balance point with their Curses, and it seems like instead of the Curse giving you a strict benefit over time, it's more of a "manipulate the Curse to do more at certain times via Focus Spells," which I'm not sure how I feel about it, since certain encounters can force you to use Cursebound Focus Spells more than you want, which can really mess you up, though it's at least a vast improvement over what the PTS originally had for them. I do like the proposed change you have for the Oracles, since I think they're basically just a Psychic, but Divine-based, but their Focus Spells can already be pretty powerful, since they're almost on Sorcerer-level in power. Maybe have them inflict their Curse drawbacks on enemies they afflict with their spells?
Sorcerer is probably one of the better spellcasters in the game with its nice class feats, flexible tradition spellcasting, and solid focus spells (for the most part), and can be as opt-in as you want (or don't want). Short of some rebalancing with Bloodline choices (such as changing the "melee-based ones" to Spell Attack rolls to maintain parity with non-melee focus spells), a lot of the "trap" options can be eliminated.
Swashbuckler is the other black sheep from the Advanced Class Guide, and I don't blame them for feeling like it's not that great; having seen one in actual play for a few levels, they flourished in level-X encounters, and struggled in level=X or level+X encounters due to the scaling proficiencies and the tougher DCs to match. Given that Bards with their Lingering Performance checks don't have anywhere near as much of a struggle to apply their benefits, I don't see why adjusting the value to be that of the target's level shouldn't be enough to grant Panache (meaning if the character fails a check, but beats their level DC, they should still get panache), as well as providing free proficiency training to their chosen style to make them more competent without having to forcibly gimp themselves compared to other characters. Swashbucklers are meant to be a more skillful-type martial, so why not have it be shown in their skill training?
Oracle: I like it despite its clunkiness, but maybe make it like a Divine counterpart to the Psychic where it's 2 spells per spell level per day and it gets extra beefy focus spells to compensate.
I'd rather oracles stay the same over that: I NEVER cast cursebound spells as I NEVER intend to have my curse intensify [I really LOATHE the curse mechanic]. You might ask 'why play one?', and to that, I'd reply 'you get a nice base casting and with NO interest in 95% of its feats, I can use them for archetype feats like Psychic [focus cantrips to use those sweet 3 focus points on and get more spells], Bard [focus spells and spells] and sorcerer [focus spells and normal spells]. It's one of the reasons I don't mind Ancestors and Lore Mysteries.
Oracles should at least get their Divine Access feat bumped down to level 1.
Then there's debate between just straight up giving each mystery a spell list like the Sorcerer and Psychic or giving the class one free instance of the Divine Access feat. I personally like the latter because it highlights a very unique class feat to players from the very beginning. You get a few thematic spells, but further investment isn't pushed. I also like that everything else is already built-in for it. It just needs to be stated you get it, saving some text space in comparison to a spell list.
Other than that, I think all Oracles really need is another balance pass on each mystery's curse risk-reward ratio. This ideally also takes into consideration the strength of the passive mystery benefits and focus spells, which vary quite significantly. I'm fine with the more even risk-reward curses like Bones and Life, but I've gradually preferred wanting a more noticeable lean toward a clearly rewarding like Cosmos. A popular concern I've noticed from those new/unfamiliar with the class is that the minor curse only dishes out penalties. I can see how that feature is a frequent focal point. While I don't think the minor curse needs to grant benefits, I do feel the curse boons need to be more pronounced in spite of the curse penalties (although a few curse penalties are truly just too harsh/limiting as is). At minimum, the moderate curse would need to have eye-catching benefits that make it feel worth pain of being cursed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Second Gortle's comments on Alchemist 'cantrips'
The class actually feels reasonably good if you play to its strengths, but it's especially frustrating at level 1 when you have so few reagents, and it doesn't make sense that your low powered all day options come online at a point where you start to no longer need them.
I feel like what the Alchemist needs the most though is cleanup. Better proficiency would help, because every Alchemist needs a backup option and being able to make an unarmed or weapon attack and be reasonably effective with it would help... Alchemist don't have a damage steroid and aren't liable to have high strength so it's not like they'd be good at it even with full proficiency.
Alchemists need the Poison Weapon feat Rogues and Poisoners have. It feels really bad that archetyping for those is such a huge win for them, because it turns a three action activity into one. It should not be a toxicologist specific option either though, it's important to let Alchemists be generalists, because it's one of their best strengths.
Investigators are probably the worst class in the game and I'm not even sure how you salvage them, especially if they're not slated for a major rework. They need better output in combat, they need access to in-class ways for managing DaS and bad rolls (the current paradigm of picking up alternatives via archetypes feels bad since it's such a core part of the class).
They could also use some work just in relationship to the GM. Right now the GM has to kind of babysit the Investigator to make them work, and it can be very easy to either invalidate the investigator (by simply doing what a lot of people would consider to be good GMing), or invalidate other members of the party by catering to the Investigator's features.
... DaS being free all the time would be handy, but I don't mind it staying one action if it feels punchier. I think it should always operate one way or the other though, right now they're again really stuck on having a very supportive GM for a lot of their prowess, and that can be rough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am mostly aware of the Monk, so all my suggestions for that class specifically:
- Style Feats have a lot of power budget baked in, so they feel quasi-mandatory to pick up. Why not make Style Feats a subclass and make it official? It should help with less elegant solutions across stuff like Monastic Archery.
- A lot of the interesting parts of the class fantasy, like Dancing Leaf or Water Step, are not worth a Class Feat... but certainly worth a Skill Feat investment! It would be cool to have a couple of thematic Skill Feats available to monks like this, but they seem much better off as Skill Feats.
- Monks really need a baseline Reaction. I think the same could be applied to all Martial classes... Right now, Shield Block is really powerful as a General Feat for Monks because it gives you something meaningful to do with a Reaction, which most other martial classes get for free.
- Monk weapons are inelegant... Advanced Weapons are unusable... There's few incentives to use Twin weapons... Too many of them are 1d4... It feels like there's a better way to do this.
- Mountain Stance "touching the ground" requirement should go away.
- It would be nice to see some in-class support for maneuvers that is not maneuver-specific. Like, a feat that gives most maneuvers some extra juice without being "the Grapple feat".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did forget to ask for a rescaling of Champion armor proficiencies to be more like Fighter weapon proficiencies in my post, because it seems weird that Fighters are always better at to-hit because of proficiency scaling, but Champions aren't always better at AC/Armor.
|
|
- Style Feats have a lot of power budget baked in, so they feel quasi-mandatory to pick up. Why not make Style Feats a subclass and make it official? It should help with less elegant solutions across stuff like Monastic Archery.
I think I'd rather them get an extra feat at level 1 if anything.
I've played in groups with 3 different monks and only one of them opted for a style feat.I see it sorta like the "witches shouldn't get Cackle at level 1, because MY witch doesn't exist in the space, flavor-wise" argument I see cropping up a lot in these forums lately.
Not every martial artist sticks to a rigid style.
Also, it's usually harder and more restrictive trying to dip in to a second subclass than a second fighting style under the current system, and I'd like that to be preserved, personally.
- Style Feats have a lot of power budget baked in, so they feel quasi-mandatory to pick up. Why not make Style Feats a subclass and make it official? It should help with less elegant solutions across stuff like Monastic Archery.
I think I'd rather them get an extra feat at level 1 if anything.
I've played in groups with 3 different monks and only one of them opted for a style feat.
I'm counting Monastic Weaponry as a "Style" feat in this case. I know not all martial artists stick to a rigid style, but the way they are balanced, they are 100% upside.
The only "real" alternative is Ki Strike, and even then you are probably looking to pick up a Style eventually because they are so PACKED with power.
+X to damage, boosts to skills/defenses, extra traits for your unarmed strikes... Very hard to miss out on these.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did forget to ask for a rescaling of Champion armor proficiencies to be more like Fighter weapon proficiencies in my post, because it seems weird that Fighters are always better at to-hit because of proficiency scaling, but Champions aren't always better at AC/Armor.
This is something I hope (but don't expect) Paizo to address across the board.
Better at levels X, Y, and Z but worse or the same at A, B, and C is such... a janky paradigm.
Champion AC, spellcaster accuracy... in a few cases these disparities make sense, but most of the time it just feels strange to see the numbers change so asymmetrically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For Alchemists, I'd appreciate Double Brew and Alchemical Alacrity become more practical. Quick Alchemy brews lasting until the end of your next turn instead of the start would be nice (essentially free Enduring Alchemy), but I wouldn't mind even more of a push than that.
Not sure how I feel about a "non-theistic" champion. I'm not sure what that would be or look like. I would more so think this would just be a fighter that trades legendary weapons for legendary armor. I'm not sure where their magic would come from? Maybe this is in how "non-theistic" is being used. I already think the Thaumaturge is a sort of occult answer to the champion in a way, a magical martial but instead of divine power it's esoteric power. I think if I wanted a secular magical martial I'd pick the magus? I'm not 100% opposed to the idea, just dunno what it means. I would be interested in something like a champion subclass or archetype for The Green Faith and what that would look like, but that doesn't feel "core" does it?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Paizo would ever do this but-
... It'd be kind of neat if at level 1 a Champion could pick between Divine and Occult (or maybe Arcane? idk) like Monks could when deciding their power source.
Mechanically it's a minor thing that has very limited mechanical relevancy but I feel like it would crack open a lot of character concepts and with alignment going the way of the dodo I feel like there's much less of a need to fixate on Divine power sources, which have always been kind of a footnote for the champion anyways.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Paizo would ever do this but-
... It'd be kind of neat if at level 1 a Champion could pick between Divine and Occult (or maybe Arcane? idk) like Monks could when deciding their power source.
Mechanically it's a minor thing that has very limited mechanical relevancy but I feel like it would crack open a lot of character concepts and with alignment going the way of the dodo I feel like there's much less of a need to fixate on Divine power sources, which have always been kind of a footnote for the champion anyways.
...except that "martial servitor of the Divine" is fundamental to what the Champion is. Like, from a flavor perspective, that's their whole schtick. Flavor-wise, it would be like asking for an Occult/Primal/Arcane Cleric.
It's worked into their tenets and causes, it's worked into many of their feats, it's worked into their class features (lay on hands, divine ally), it's explicitly part of their initial skill list, it's literally in the name....
The only way to see this as "a footnote" is to willfully ignore huge chunks of the class.
If you tear out the divine connection, all you're left with is "person in heavy armor who has a bit of magic somehow". That's less flavor than the fighter gets.
Or, to put it another way...
"And here we have a class that's all about being a divinely empowered warrior in devoted service to a deity and a cause."
"I want to play one as an atheist."
"Could we perhaps interest you in one of our other fine classes?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Paizo would ever do this but-
... It'd be kind of neat if at level 1 a Champion could pick between Divine and Occult (or maybe Arcane? idk) like Monks could when deciding their power source.
Mechanically it's a minor thing that has very limited mechanical relevancy but I feel like it would crack open a lot of character concepts and with alignment going the way of the dodo I feel like there's much less of a need to fixate on Divine power sources, which have always been kind of a footnote for the champion anyways.
...except that "martial servitor of the Divine" is literally what the Champion is. Like, from a flavor perspective, that's their whole schtick. Flavor-wise, it would be like asking for an Occult/Primal/Arcane Cleric.
It's worked into their tenets and causes, it's worked into many of their feats, it's worked into a bunch of their class features (lay on hands, divine ally), it's explicitly part of their initial skill list....
The only way to see this as "a footnote" is to willfully ignore huge chunks of the class.
*shrug* Getting power from a deity and not be divine is possible, like getting it from a Patron like a witch. Patron is "a covert divinity, a powerful fey, a manifestation of natural energies, an ancient spirit, or any other mighty supernatural being" and you could have any of those and pick any tradition. Does the flavor REALLY change that much if an Ancient Spirit or Fey Lord instead of a deity powers them?
"I want to play one as an atheist.": Note he never mentioned wanting to remove serving something, only that he wanted to remove divine source from the picture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power from a deity is notably "Divine" in nature, because "Divine" as a word possesses definition that literally means "from God" (or more paraphrasingly, from a deity).
It explains why Clerics, who pray to deities for spellcasting power, gain Divine tradition spells, which means that the term "Divine" being used in this case is consistent with the term being used in real life.
I would accept that a Witch with the Divine spellcasting tradition would have a deity as a Patron, given that it's consistent in-setting with Divine power being from a deity. I would not accept it if it's from other traditions, given that it then ceases to originate from a deity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...except that "martial servitor of the Divine" is fundamental to what the Champion is. Like, from a flavor perspective, that's their whole schtick. Flavor-wise, it would be like asking for an Occult/Primal/Arcane Cleric.
Only in a marginal sense. The driving mechanic behind the Champion though is their choice of alignment. That, not anything else, dictates the majority of your class features and is its primary connection to divine elements... but with alignment no longer being a core system, that leaves an opening for the class to be broadened.
Most of the examples you list are literally alignment driven mechanics. Hence "well since alignment is gone" since there's now a big gap there.
Or, to put it another way...
"And here we have a class that's all about being a divinely empowered warrior in devoted service to a deity and a cause."
"I want to play one as an atheist."
"Could we perhaps interest you in one of our other fine classes?"
I mean, that's wonderfully condescending and all but... there isn't an other class if you're interested in anything the champion does.
An important thing for swashbucklers would be a reminder, or more emphasis on the fact that the rules do support people doing things besides the static options given to them via their styles. The class itself says GM's can allow for Swashbucklers to do other "daring actions," this is left vague so GM's can choose by a case by case basis. I think that is a strength, it allows for a wide variety of options, if it was just a list of other things you can do, people might just say that those are the only options. But perhaps there is a middle ground, a side table that list various options. IDK. But as a gm and a player, I do constantly allow for a variety of swashbuckler options.
I am also in favor or more options for play styles that stay in panache, I do think there is enough there to reward it, but I wouldn't be opposed to more.
I'd like to see Oracle get Sorcerer style added spells for their mysteries
*shrug* Getting power from a deity and not be divine is possible, like getting it from a Patron like a witch. Patron is "a covert divinity, a powerful fey, a manifestation of natural energies, an ancient spirit, or any other mighty supernatural being" and you could have any of those and pick any tradition. Does the flavor REALLY change that much if an Ancient Spirit or Fey Lord instead of a deity powers them?
"I want to play one as an atheist.": Note he never mentioned wanting to remove serving something, only that he wanted to remove divine source from the picture.
As far as "play one as an atheist"... okay. That's fair. I had allowed myself to be influenced by memories of a conversation about Celadons a few months ago. On going back to reread, I find that my memories were flawed. As such, it is possible that that's what they meant.
At the same time... I think when you start offering "empower champions" to Ancient Spirits and Fae Lords, you start to seriously dilute what a deity is. From what I can tell, the ability to empower clerics and Champions is pretty much the defining line that splits "is a deity" from "isn't" in terms of what they're capable of pulling off. That's the whole thing about Razmiran priests, after all... Razmir isn't a god, and so his "priests" aren't priests.
...and then there's the huge number of Champion feats and features that are directly associated with divine power in various ways. Like, in order to untangle all of that, I feel like you'd have to rewrite half the class. Honestly, rather than doing that I'd suggest that we take it another way. Keep the (divine) Champion more or less as-is, and then look into making a witch-style pact-based fighter who could be empowered by lesser entities.
Even better, that could be the place you put your Intercessor on the divine side. When I try to imagine an empowered martial follower of a Fae Lord or a sub-deity tier demon lord or an Ancient Spirit or whatever, f=I wind up imagining something that's a lot closer to the old inquisitor than to the old paladin.
Only in a marginal sense. The driving mechanic behind the Champion though is their choice of alignment. That, not anything else, dictates the majority of your class features and is its primary connection to divine elements... but with alignment no longer being a core system, that leaves an opening for the class to be broadened.
Most of the examples you list are literally alignment driven mechanics. Hence "well since alignment is gone" since there's now a big gap there.
Except that alignment isn't gone, even as a core thing. It still exists - it's just that for the most part, it's opt-in... and Champions are one of the most blatant examples of those who have opted in.
Also, I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about flavor. They've got baked in alignment-based damage (something that's still going to be a thing) in multiple ways. They explicitly get a divine friend from their deity who helps them out. Their feats literally include things like "desperate prayer", "splinter faith", "divine grace", "divine health", "light of revelation", "holy light", "aura of faith", "miraculous intervention", "divine reflexes", "shield of grace", "celestial form", "aura of unbreakable virtue", and "sacred defender". Their focus spells are "devotion spells". That's jsut the really blatant stuff.
Basically, in order to remove the divine aspect of the class, you'd have to gut it... and in so doing, you'd tear out a lot of what brings people to it. For people who come to PF2 wanting to play a paladin, the divine tie-in is the point.
...and if your position is that you want atheist characters to have every single option that non-atheist characters do, then you're essentially asking that there simply not be anything special about gods at all - that, in effect, Razmir shouldn't have any problems, because his followers should be able to do everything that anyone else's followers can do. Sure, that opens up a few more character options, but it does so by carving a significant chunk of texture out of the world.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s plenty of Divine creatures with nothing to do with gods; no reason to assume one of those couldn’t loan you power through a contract other than worship.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, in order to remove the divine aspect of the class, you'd have to
Figure out what their extra trained skill should be.
After that you're pretty much done.
Maybe if you really wanted replace some of their holy damage with mental damage or something I guess? But only if you really wanted to get crazy.
but it does so by carving a significant chunk of texture out of the world.
Eh, they already ruined Golarion as a setting by giving rogues martial weapons, remember? Might as well go the rest of the way in enabling some obscure character concepts that will also have no ramifications on any setting material or your ability to play any character that already exists.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A not-divine agtheist society like Rahadoum with Champions empowered by the Laws of Mortality would be a neat concept.
There’s plenty of Divine creatures with nothing to do with gods; no reason to assume one of those couldn’t loan you power through a contract other than worship.
Links or I'm not convinced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most celestials are divine related creatures but aren't directly related to gods. Many of them may work for an specific deity while others not. For fiends this is even more noticeable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything to get me Champions that aren't related to Gods, please.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love an Occult champion that doesn't follow a god. Druidic champions! To me, the paladin was always more about being Lawful Good than following some deity, so I'd love for that to come back.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s plenty of Divine creatures with nothing to do with gods; no reason to assume one of those couldn’t loan you power through a contract other than worship.
Um Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch
Like assuredly there are things in Elysium that aren't actually related to any particular Deity's realm. It's "the plane that's made out of chaotic goodness" not "home for this class of deities". Since heck, Gorum's realm is there.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, idk, non-divine champion just reads like an oxymoron to me. Inherently contradictory. To be a warrior for the divine is what a champion is, remove that and you have fighter, basically
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be a warrior for the divine is what a champion is, remove that and you have fighter, basically
Myself, "warrior for the divine" and "warrior for a supernatural cause" aren't very different: shifting the source of power, IMO, doesn't turn it into a normal fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want cause based Champions. I want more defender classes. I don't like trying to separate divine classes from their gods. It is who they are.
Anyway this is way outside what can reasonably be expected for Core 2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, idk, non-divine champion just reads like an oxymoron to me. Inherently contradictory. To be a warrior for the divine is what a champion is, remove that and you have fighter, basically
I'm confused as to what is contradictory about a non-divine champion. What is your interpretation of the word champion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be a warrior for the divine is what a champion is, remove that and you have fighter, basicallyMyself, "warrior for the divine" and "warrior for a supernatural cause" aren't very different: shifting the source of power, IMO, doesn't turn it into a normal fighter.
Then I would say you are now dealing with a Thaumaturge, or some hypothetical Martial answer to the druid, or for arcane, the magus. Or even the bloodrager if it is brought back from 1e. As soon as a champion is not divine, it's not a champion IMO
Yeah, idk, non-divine champion just reads like an oxymoron to me. Inherently contradictory. To be a warrior for the divine is what a champion is, remove that and you have fighter, basicallyI'm confused as to what is contradictory about a non-divine champion. What is your interpretation of the word champion?
The class isn't the word "champion"