| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this is a net win though if we can get like "Liberators of Casandalee" now.
It always felt like the impulse was more "Champions for neutral gods" than "champions for neutrality."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and that leads to the question of whether or not it will be possible to be a champion that doesn't swear to holy or unholy. Like, is that a necessary part of making the champion mojo go? If so, then why?
|
I never really cared about "neutral alignment champion" yeah :'DChampions of Gozreh who protect sea-themed things would be cool. Similarly a champion of Nethys that promotes/protects magic things, or a champion of Pharasma that has a fate/rebirth theme.
IOW, Golarion's neutral alignment deities have things about them that are a lot more interesting and champion-worthy than their alignment.
I mostly meant in terms of "neutral tenet". Like yeah pharasma champion, gozreh champion, nethys champion, etc, do make sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this is a net win though if we can get like "Liberators of Casandalee" now.
It always felt like the impulse was more "Champions for neutral gods" than "champions for neutrality."
I have had a liberator champion of the neutral god Grandmother Spider in my Ironfang Invasion campaign for the last 3 years and it has been working out fine. Though Grandmother Spider's alignment is true neutral, her followers can be NG, CG, N, and CN. One of Grandmother Spider's anathema is don't own a slave, so the god has been content with her champion rescuing enslaved war captives.
I also had Casandalee show up in my campaign due to a crossover between that campaign and my Iron Gods campaign. In my Iron Gods campaign, Casandalee chose to return to life as an android rather than become a god. She is conspiring with the party to end the enslavement, too, despite officially declaring that Numeria won't take sides in the war. That particular Casandalee is more Chaotic Neutral than True Neutral.
When a party in my games is around 15th level, avatars of the gods tend to visit them with advice. I play off the personalities and concerns of the gods, not their alignment. The adventure path was written had Gendowyn, Lady of Fangwood, (CN) make an appearance, and she was concerned about the welfare of the Fangwood Forest rather than about chaos. She would love a champion for her forest in any cause, and her association with the Knights of Lastwall demonstrates this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and that leads to the question of whether or not it will be possible to be a champion that doesn't swear to holy or unholy. Like, is that a necessary part of making the champion mojo go? If so, then why?
That is indeed my greatest fear : that Remastered Champions have to be sanctified to either Holy or Unholy, with no option in the middle, just like we never had Neutral Champions.
|
...and that leads to the question of whether or not it will be possible to be a champion that doesn't swear to holy or unholy. Like, is that a necessary part of making the champion mojo go? If so, then why?That is indeed my greatest fear : that Remastered Champions have to be sanctified to either Holy or Unholy, with no option in the middle, just like we never had Neutral Champions.
Not sure about Champions but with Clerics they stated Sanctification depends on the deity, some offer it, for others it’s mandatory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and that leads to the question of whether or not it will be possible to be a champion that doesn't swear to holy or unholy. Like, is that a necessary part of making the champion mojo go? If so, then why?That is indeed my greatest fear : that Remastered Champions have to be sanctified to either Holy or Unholy, with no option in the middle, just like we never had Neutral Champions.
"greatest fear"? I mean, I feel like this is overselling things a bit. Even if Champions are required to be sanctified, you aren't losing anything.
|
|
"greatest fear"? I mean, I feel like this is overselling things a bit. Even if Champions are required to be sanctified, you aren't losing anything....and that leads to the question of whether or not it will be possible to be a champion that doesn't swear to holy or unholy. Like, is that a necessary part of making the champion mojo go? If so, then why?That is indeed my greatest fear : that Remastered Champions have to be sanctified to either Holy or Unholy, with no option in the middle, just like we never had Neutral Champions.
Just the hope for "Neutral" Champions.
It is something I value though.
|
|
Not sure about Champions but with Clerics they stated Sanctification depends on the deity, some offer it, for others it’s mandatory....and that leads to the question of whether or not it will be possible to be a champion that doesn't swear to holy or unholy. Like, is that a necessary part of making the champion mojo go? If so, then why?That is indeed my greatest fear : that Remastered Champions have to be sanctified to either Holy or Unholy, with no option in the middle, just like we never had Neutral Champions.
Yes. We already had Neutral Clerics in PF2. So it is in line.
Unaligned Champions would be something new (and worth it IMO).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there is no way Hellknights are getting written out of the setting. In many ways, the firebrands exist on an opposite spectrum to hellknights in respect to reverence for social order, tradition and upholding the law of the land. Maybe other classes can fulfill these archetypical characters in Golarion better than a champion class, but I think Paizo would be making a pretty strange decision to restrict the "defender of ..." class to only "...the sanctified" or "...the unholy" especially because both of those still require edicts and anathema to function. Certainly a champion class could have been ready for the Player Core 1 if everything about the class was going to functionally stay the same because the only two major tenants allowed were going to be the tenants of good and evil, which are already well fleshed out and not in need of changing.
|
|
I mean, there is no way Hellknights are getting written out of the setting. In many ways, the firebrands exist on an opposite spectrum to hellknights in respect to reverence for social order, tradition and upholding the law of the land. Maybe other classes can fulfill these archetypical characters in Golarion better than a champion class, but I think Paizo would be making a pretty strange decision to restrict the "defender of ..." class to only "...the sanctified" or "...the unholy" especially because both of those still require edicts and anathema to function. Certainly a champion class could have been ready for the Player Core 1 if everything about the class was going to functionally stay the same because the only two major tenants allowed were going to be the tenants of good and evil, which are already well fleshed out and not in need of changing.
There is still hope.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Liberator and Tyrant got broader flavor in the Remaster, given how Wizard subclasses are being treated. Fingers crossed for Hellknight-shaped characters to get some love.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They'll be able to create more specific/different/interesting tenets and causes without being shackled to an alignment. You could potentially have more causes without the need to be shackled to the 3x3 alignment system.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
They'll be able to create more specific/different/interesting tenets and causes without being shackled to an alignment. You could potentially have more causes without the need to be shackled to the 3x3 alignment system.Alignment didn't limit the causes you could have. The only effect it had on causes was that it constrained causes to a specific alignment that was thematically appropriate as opposed to "do whatever you want".
"It wasn't limited, it was constrained" is some silly semantics, you have to admit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in other words, limited.
Only in the mechanical sense of the power. Not in terms of what causes there could be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would be neat if the unsanctified champions could deal extra damage against things particularly against their edicts. Like champions of Pharasma who deal extra damage against undead. In general, being able to deal even a small amount of spiritual damage at level 1 would do a lot to make champions feel better on offense against fiends and such.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they don't make it a holy/unholy binary.
... I feel like this is a good opportunity to open the class up and address some of the weird loopholes, especially some of the janky corner cases with neutral deities that allowed champions (like how you could be a paladin or tyrant of abadar but if your alignment instead matched his he'd stop giving you champion powers).
I do unfortunately see it being very likely they have to be holy/unholy due to lay on hands and touch of corruption being a part of their base kits. Of course there isn't really anything stopping them from just being based on if the god allows heal or harm which might be neat.
I think those spells will at least get a name change, if not be completely overhauled. But you're right that they have already built in the switch with the heal/harm God choices.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they don't make it a holy/unholy binary.
... I feel like this is a good opportunity to open the class up and address some of the weird loopholes, especially some of the janky corner cases with neutral deities that allowed champions (like how you could be a paladin or tyrant of abadar but if your alignment instead matched his he'd stop giving you champion powers).
"You can stand for justice, or you can punish transgressions, but if your sense of justice becomes cruel or if you show mercy in your punishment, I have no place for such a knight."
"But wait, Abadar, don't you espouse the virtues of civilization and trade without regard for wither mercy or cruelty?"
"You can pick holy power or unholy power, or you can take up with the clergy."
-
I like that Champions will be able to pick from dedication to a holy or unholy cause, but I really need for Champions to be able to choose causes which are neither explicitly holy or unholy especially for the eventuality of deities who do not offer either holy nor unholy power to their worshippers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do unfortunately see it being very likely they have to be holy/unholy due to lay on hands and touch of corruption being a part of their base kits. Of course there isn't really anything stopping them from just being based on if the god allows heal or harm which might be neat.I think those spells will at least get a name change, if not be completely overhauled. But you're right that they have already built in the switch with the heal/harm God choices.
Laying on of hands to heal somebody exists as a concept before D&D and the fact that the spell has a real world concept as a name is something which delights me (and annoys me that touch of corruption feels much more generic RPG name) so I really hope we get to keep it.
On that note, I wouldn't be upset if both holy and unholy champions gained the ability to heal with their Champion powers. Touch of Corruption has always felt a bit asymmetrical to me in how it has no use in healing unless you happen to be undead, which isn't very useful as a pan-evil aesthetic. If corruption was just more useful for damage maybe it wouldn't be so annoying but I don't have a clear vision how I would 'fix' corruption at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be neat if the unsanctified champions could deal extra damage against things particularly against their edicts. Like champions of Pharasma who deal extra damage against undead. In general, being able to deal even a small amount of spiritual damage at level 1 would do a lot to make champions feel better on offense against fiends and such.
It comes from a different type of game to PF 2e. But I've always enjoyed the "This enemy counts as X for the purpose of Y rule." type of caveats.
The issue of making it edict dependent is it could end up becoming a bit too granular in implementation. Like, what if I worship Folgrit and my goddesses edict is "Maintain the sanctity of a home, remain patient with others, take in those without families". That's a lot harder to implement that pharasma's killing of undead. Do I just deal more damage to creatures if they are attacking a home? What if they were a d-bag and left their family? Do I treat a mother as being vulnerable to holy damage for the purpose of holy blade, because she gave her child up for adoption?
That kind of level makes it a bit harder to use particular deities edicts as the basis for your Holy/Unholy tagging.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the Remaster elaborates on the design space for Oath feats? Stuff where you take on additional Edicts/Anathema for niche bonuses, so that you can flavor your character more narrowly than just their broad moral leaning.
wait why? Did something got previewed?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They'll be able to create more specific/different/interesting tenets and causes without being shackled to an alignment. You could potentially have more causes without the need to be shackled to the 3x3 alignment system.
Just like ditching the "alignment within one step of your deity's" rule could have opened more varied alignments for PF2 Clerics.
Guess what ?
Except for very specific corner cases (aka Arazni), we ended up with equal or less variety in alignments allowed for most deities.
Truly, considering both this and the ditching of Law-Chaos at PC level, I am more wary than hopeful for the Remastered Champions.
And I really really hope my fears will prove unfounded.
Gotta say, with Clerics being 9 level casters and Champions being no casters at all and the new paradigm of "level 9 casters or bust" of 2E, it doesn't look like the Inquisitor (or Warpriest as a separate class) have any design space in 2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait why? Did something got previewed?
Nothing explicit. It's mostly a combination of a handful of facts spooled together into a plausible conjecture.
-Champions in 2e are based strongly in alignment
-Many people hoped for champion causes dedicated to Law or Chaos predominantly over Good/Evil
-Alignment is being removed from the game, and with it the sense that of the 'unfilled' design space
-In order to preserve the 'holy sword' vibe that alignment damage used to give, there are now holy and unholy tags
-There are no such tags for law and chaos
-Without the pressure of an alignment grid, and without explicit tags for dedication, many fear that Law and Chaos will not be as important going forward (up to an including the notion that the concepts of Law and chaos will be removed entirely, which seems unlikely).
Suffice to say, there are fears (many of them reasonable) that the updated Champion class (not to be seen until over a year from now) will never have a reason to fill out concepts oriented toward law and chaos that doesn't focus primarily on either holy or unholy tenets.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta say, with Clerics being 9 level casters and Champions being no casters at all and the new paradigm of "level 9 casters or bust" of 2E, it doesn't look like the Inquisitor (or Warpriest as a separate class) have any design space in 2E.
Wavecasters who can use weapons and reserve some power budget for a couple spell slots and a cool ability in the vein of Magus and Summoner suggest that there is a middle ground between a full caster and a non-caster (or even focus-only caster like Champion and Monk).
Thematically I feel like the design space is greatest in regards to a 'offensive martial agent of my deity' where champions are the defensive wall and clerics are magical support. I still like the idea of a character of faith who uses their spells and combat prowess in conjunction with some skills to strike at the heart of the enemy without being a full-plate knight or mainline caster.
Second time in one evening I double post because something else interesting comes up just before I respond to the first. I gotta stop bumping into people like this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait why? Did something got previewed?Nothing explicit. It's mostly a combination of a handful of facts spooled together into a plausible conjecture.
-Champions in 2e are based strongly in alignment
-Many people hoped for champion causes dedicated to Law or Chaos predominantly over Good/Evil
-Alignment is being removed from the game, and with it the sense that of the 'unfilled' design space
-In order to preserve the 'holy sword' vibe that alignment damage used to give, there are now holy and unholy tags
-There are no such tags for law and chaos
-Without the pressure of an alignment grid, and without explicit tags for dedication, many fear that Law and Chaos will not be as important going forward (up to an including the notion that the concepts of Law and chaos will be removed entirely, which seems unlikely).Suffice to say, there are fears (many of them reasonable) that the updated Champion class (not to be seen until over a year from now) will never have a reason to fill out concepts oriented toward law and chaos that doesn't focus primarily on either holy or unholy tenets.
I see. Well, I sincerely hope the devs read the 100 or so threads discussing why we wanted unalligned/neutral champions and why
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait why? Did something got previewed?Nothing explicit. It's mostly a combination of a handful of facts spooled together into a plausible conjecture.
-Champions in 2e are based strongly in alignment
-Many people hoped for champion causes dedicated to Law or Chaos predominantly over Good/Evil
-Alignment is being removed from the game, and with it the sense that of the 'unfilled' design space
-In order to preserve the 'holy sword' vibe that alignment damage used to give, there are now holy and unholy tags
-There are no such tags for law and chaos
-Without the pressure of an alignment grid, and without explicit tags for dedication, many fear that Law and Chaos will not be as important going forward (up to an including the notion that the concepts of Law and chaos will be removed entirely, which seems unlikely).Suffice to say, there are fears (many of them reasonable) that the updated Champion class (not to be seen until over a year from now) will never have a reason to fill out concepts oriented toward law and chaos that doesn't focus primarily on either holy or unholy tenets.
TBT I never wanted Champions that were dedicated to Law or Chaos or True Neutrality (insert Heart full meme) whatever the latter would mean.
I merely wanted Champions that were not of Good or Evil alignment.
And, now that alignment is gone and the only thing left is Holy/Unholy, I want Champions that are neither Holy nor Unholy.
That's it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, a champion of an elemental lord who does the appropriate elemental bonus damage.
LOH isn’t baked in, it’s just “Devotion Spell” so a different tenet could have different 1st level devotion spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't holy and unholy just tags on abilities? Your stuff deals spirit damage si wouldn't a neutral champion just deal spirit damage and not proc weakness to holy/unholy? What's wrong with just doing spirit damage?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think unsanctified spirit damage would be fine, but you'd potentially be leaving damage on table unless being sanctified also has a drawback. (Like giving you weakness to holy/unholy, for example.) Which is why I like the idea of unsanctified champions dealing extra damage against sworn enemy types.
Would be neat if the unsanctified champions could deal extra damage against things particularly against their edicts. Like champions of Pharasma who deal extra damage against undead. In general, being able to deal even a small amount of spiritual damage at level 1 would do a lot to make champions feel better on offense against fiends and such.It comes from a different type of game to PF 2e. But I've always enjoyed the "This enemy counts as X for the purpose of Y rule." type of caveats.
The issue of making it edict dependent is it could end up becoming a bit too granular in implementation. Like, what if I worship Folgrit and my goddesses edict is "Maintain the sanctity of a home, remain patient with others, take in those without families". That's a lot harder to implement that pharasma's killing of undead. Do I just deal more damage to creatures if they are attacking a home? What if they were a d-bag and left their family? Do I treat a mother as being vulnerable to holy damage for the purpose of holy blade, because she gave her child up for adoption?
That kind of level makes it a bit harder to use particular deities edicts as the basis for your Holy/Unholy tagging.
Well with the Folgrit example you've also got the Holy tag to fall back on, being a "goodest of the good" type deity. I was thinking of it more as a bone to throw unsanctified champions.
I also think it is ok if some gods aren't as good for "holy avenger types". Folgrit is a really good example of a god where the Good champion reactions and package just fit super well. You're a shield, not a spear.
Although talking through this, I am realizing that there's some design space opening up for more offensive champions. We already have it a bit with the evil champs, they re just incompatible with most parties. But you could make causes more based around hunting down enemies of your church that are available to any pseudo alignment, be it sanctified or not.
I'm starting to see why champions are core 2 even though there are some relatively simple ways to houserule their current framework into the Remaster. There is actually a lot of possiblity here, and a lot to think through.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure being sanctified to Holy will make you vulnerable to Unholy and vice versa. Easy to remember and adjudicate and keeps the worthiest aspect of the old alignment damage IMO.
When you become a player in the Game of Good and Evil, you also make yourself a target.
|
Gotta say, with Clerics being 9 level casters and Champions being no casters at all and the new paradigm of "level 9 casters or bust" of 2E, it doesn't look like the Inquisitor (or Warpriest as a separate class) have any design space in 2E.
The Clerics+ book had something along those lines. I don't have the pdf with me, but I rememember being impresssed by it.
I cannot help to wonder why the champion was not spoken about at paizocon. Basically every other class that gets some changes got some spotlight :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Champions are Core 2, which is coming later. The paizocon presentation mostly focused on core 1 stuff.
Champions are Core 2, which is coming later. The paizocon presentation mostly focused on core 1 stuff.
Missed that, weird. So what, we cannot play champions alchemists and barbarians until mid 2024 or will the core 1 rules be compatible with the current version?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Champions are Core 2, which is coming later. The paizocon presentation mostly focused on core 1 stuff.Missed that, weird. So what, we cannot play champions alchemists and barbarians until mid 2024 or will the core 1 rules be compatible with the current version?
As far as most game mechanics go, the remaster is just a really big errata combined with scrubbing out OGL content. With the primary exception of alignment, unremastered mechanics will still work the same. There may be some interim guidelines for how to treat certain aspects which are only half remastered (namely champions without alignment) but for all intents and purposes the game should work the same.
I expect for now the main difference to Champion until 2024 is that you'll have to assume tenets of good mean sanctified to holy, and that anything which does alignment damage either does spirit instead, or doesn't exist anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like in terms of "code of conduct" stuff for the Champions, the only thing you're really going to need to do to make the "Tenets of Good" entirely compatible with PF2R is to read "evil act" in the natural language sense and to replace "evil tag" with "unholy tag."
In terms of "do you do extra damage to this thing" then you just proceed like one of the alignmentless variants in the GMG, something like "you get your bonus damage if your god with disapprove of whoever you're walloping."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never really cared about "neutral alignment champion" yeah :'D
I'm a bit disapointed that we won't see chaotic and lawfull neutral edict, but I'm pretty sure true neutral could never have been a thing to beggin with. The issue of "true neutral" champion is that in the alignment system, true neutrality have no unifying characteristic, other than being "neither good nor evil, neither chaotic or lawfull", and champion must care for a cause, its in the DNA of the class.
All attempt at creating a "true neutral edict" that I saw didn't actually create a true neutral edict (that could fit every deity that have true neutral followers), but an edict that happen to be true neutral (and thus fit some true neutral deity, but not the rest), by not fitting in the current alignement grid. Basically, people create a "neutral/X" edict where X is a third new alignment axis. It's sometime nature/technology, sometime knowledge/secret, sometime progress/stagnation, but it's never true neutral at heart.
Basically, "true neutrality" in the alignment grid was pretty much like the color black, it may appear to be an alignment like the others, but in fact it's simply the absence of one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, original classes will remain usable. Barbarian will likely require zero adjustments. Neither should any other CRB or APG class. Champions will require a very minimal amount of adjustment to run as outlined above. And hopefully the remaster gives us a final version that's more than just that hate minimum and opens up a lot of character concepts, including "neutral" and more offensive champions.