So, this feels obvious, but I'll ask anyway.
Since "traditional" alignment is no longer a thing and we're essentially working with holy v unholy, does this mean that for a champion, other than determining which of these they are, any of the 3 causes that align with that trait are now open?
In other words, if I'm "holy", I can now choose freely whether to be a paladin, redeemer, or liberator, because there's no characteristic defining lawful v chaotic. Is this correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is largely gonna lead to table variation untill the player core 2 where we will get the properly remasterd Champion class. But yeah I would say holy would allow access to the tenants of good and vice versa or something like that.
That's pretty much what I figured.
Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty much what I figured.
Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.
It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rush
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a quick and dirty fix, simply applying sanctified/unsanctified to champions does most of the work. The philosophies behind the Causes aren't really going away; Knight in Shining Armor, "Vive La Liberté", and "Tries to redeem every bad guy," still more or less work with Edicts and Anathemas. The
tricky bits are;
1) Can the Unholy Champions be redesigned to be table friendly? Are new causes that don't fit in the classic alignment grid worth creating?
2) can we get some guidance on how to handle a deity's edicts and anathemas clashing with the cause's anathema? Will deities have a list of champion causes they're willing to empower, or is this all going to be messy and ad hoc?
3) Could low level Champion feats be more interesting, please?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, now that the alignment is gone, similar to what happened with the wizards, it is now much easier for Paizo to create an even greater variety of champion subclasses over the course of new books.
I don't see why any of the current 6 champion subclasses should be changed or removed since they each have their own anathemas. But the fact that they are no longer linked to alignments allows new champions to be introduced in future books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that Champions will have to be sanctified at all, because if they have to then Champions of Deities that forbid sanctification will suddenly become illegal post-remaster.
I would guess
paladins have to be sanctified.
Redeemers can be either
and liberators can be either.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rushThat's pretty much what I figured.
Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.
Warpriest has also been significantly improved which probably reduces (NOT eliminate) the demand for a Champion. You can now build a very tanky holy warrior using the Warpriest chassis.
Warpriest has also been significantly improved which probably reduces (NOT eliminate) the demand for a Champion. You can now build a very tanky holy warrior using the Warpriest chassis.It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rushThat's pretty much what I figured.
Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.
I'll have to check it out.
I'm not convinced that Champions will have to be sanctified at all, because if they have to then Champions of Deities that forbid sanctification will suddenly become illegal post-remaster.
Who forbids sanctification? Of the previously good-aligned deities, that is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that Champions will have to be sanctified at all, because if they have to then Champions of Deities that forbid sanctification will suddenly become illegal post-remaster.Who forbids sanctification? Of the previously good-aligned deities, that is.
Your deity doesn't have to be good-aligned. For instance, you can be a Redeemer of Pharasma, who forbids sanctification post-remaster.
I imagine certain gods would allow certain kinds of champions. A liberator or redeemer of Iomedae makes no sense, a Paladin of Desna likewise seems to not jive. I do believe champions will require sanctification. Sanctifying yourself is signing up for the war over the souls of mortals and that is precisely what a Champion as a class is, more so than even the cleric. This does mean champions of Pharasma or Nethys won't make sense, but that frankly also doesn't lorewise either. Pharasma I think would prefer to work through clerics and whatever replaces/takes up the mantle of the Inquisitor
Warpriest has also been significantly improved which probably reduces (NOT eliminate) the demand for a Champion. You can now build a very tanky holy warrior using the Warpriest chassis.It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rushThat's pretty much what I figured.
Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.
Ok, so I read through current warpriest versus new warpriest and I see no discernible differences.
What are you seeing that makes them so much better for tanking? Is it in the class feats? Because the versions of the doctrine look identical.
The feats definitely help, as does the alteration to their font. Without needing charisma to keep your font's slots up warpriests are now able to invest those boosts into stats like strength and constitution to give them more survivability.Warpriest has also been significantly improved which probably reduces (NOT eliminate) the demand for a Champion. You can now build a very tanky holy warrior using the Warpriest chassis.It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rushThat's pretty much what I figured.
Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.
Ok, so I read through current warpriest versus new warpriest and I see no discernible differences.
What are you seeing that makes them so much better for tanking? Is it in the class feats? Because the versions of the doctrine look identical.
Ok, I see a cleric feat to get heavy armor proficiency up to expert, and the lack of Charisma needed for divine font is certainly nice, but I would still argue that good as this is, a champion is still a vastly superior tank.
The warpriest has other stuff going for them line divine font, and some feats like INVIOLABLE, but I don't think they've significantly reduced he need for a champion.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest I would say is not even close to replacing the Champion in terms of character expression, its just a viable way to play a warrior priest, which I suppose is what it says on the tin. Champion is a lot more holy (in the generic sense) knight than warrior priest.
Incidentally, Champion mandating sanctification would be incredibly disappointing. It was already bad enough that so many neutral deities didn't have a way to play a Champion without being a puppy-kicking monster, but to take all champions away from any deity who isn't invested in some holy war? That seems like a waste of good character meats, especially now that we can do without threading the needle on alignment pigeon holes that have to accommodate every major deity in that grid space.
I would hate to just return to "you can play a devout priest of any deity, but if you want to play a knight you also have to take a side in the holy war whether your deity requires it or not". I like that Champions can take up causes that may or may not be directly in their deoty's purview, but not that those causes are so limited in scope right now that a chunk of deities just aren't represented in any meaningful way.
Warpriest I would say is not even close to replacing the Champion in terms of character expression, its just a viable way to play a warrior priest, which I suppose is what it says on the tin. Champion is a lot more holy (in the generic sense) knight than warrior priest.
Incidentally, Champion mandating sanctification would be incredibly disappointing. It was already bad enough that so many neutral deities didn't have a way to play a Champion without being a puppy-kicking monster, but to take all champions away from any deity who isn't invested in some holy war? That seems like a waste of good character meats, especially now that we can do without threading the needle on alignment pigeon holes that have to accommodate every major deity in that grid space.
I would hate to just return to "you can play a devout priest of any deity, but if you want to play a knight you also have to take a side in the holy war whether your deity requires it or not". I like that Champions can take up causes that may or may not be directly in their deoty's purview, but not that those causes are so limited in scope right now that a chunk of deities just aren't represented in any meaningful way.
It would be 100% the correct thing to do flavor and lorewise to require sanctification. In my opinion it would be a huge let down if they didn't do this. I really do not think you can be a champion of a position which doesn't hold a stake. I could have seen a champion for law or chaos in the abstract, but law and Chaos sanctification is not thing. I don't see Nethys having knights, ironically the paladin would suit Pharasma better than the previously only legal option of redeemer, but this is all alignment baggage. Without alignment I think the gods need to be overhauled. I do think a class not invested in holy or unholy, but in cosmic balance could be it's own class. A champion has to be a fighter for something though. They need a cause, a mission, a fight to be faught, foes to be slain etc
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lucky the new gods book is coming out post-remaster, so hopefully the overhaul gives us what we need.
I suspect the 3 Core Rulebook champions will require sanctification. They are by nature signing up to fight the good fight. However, I think there might be room for a new champion cause or two with a more esoteric goal that doesn't involve the cosmic balance between good and evil. A champion devoted to protecting nature, perhaps? Or a knowledge preserver/discoverer? Still fundamentally a protector tied to a cause, but not concerned with the cosmic balance.
I could see evil champions getting the axe to make space, honestly. Their edicts and anathemas make them borderline unplayable.
I imagine certain gods would allow certain kinds of champions. A liberator or redeemer of Iomedae makes no sense, a Paladin of Desna likewise seems to not jive. I do believe champions will require sanctification. Sanctifying yourself is signing up for the war over the souls of mortals and that is precisely what a Champion as a class is, more so than even the cleric. This does mean champions of Pharasma or Nethys won't make sense, but that frankly also doesn't lorewise either. Pharasma I think would prefer to work through clerics and whatever replaces/takes up the mantle of the Inquisitor
I don't see anything wrong with a Redeemer of Pharasma who destroys the undead but tries to save the necromancer if they can, or a Redeemer of Iomedae who convinces the enemy generals to lay down arms by rekindling their sense of honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Champion mandating sanctification would be incredibly disappointing. It was already bad enough that so many neutral deities didn't have a way to play a Champion without being a puppy-kicking monster, but to take all champions away from any deity who isn't invested in some holy war? That seems like a waste of good character meats, especially now that we can do without threading the needle on alignment pigeon holes that have to accommodate every major deity in that grid space.
I would hate to just return to "you can play a devout priest of any deity, but if you want to play a knight you also have to take a side in the holy war whether your deity requires it or not". I like that Champions can take up causes that may or may not be directly in their deoty's purview, but not that those causes are so limited in scope right now that a chunk of deities just aren't represented in any meaningful way.
That.
I expect that Champion will not require sanctification in general. There may be certain subclasses that do. There will almost certainly be feats that do.
So those Champions that signed up to fight the Good fight can do so.
But other Champions that signed up to fight a good fight can also do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For now, champions should be able to sanctify with the same rules clerics do. Most neutral deities so far let you choose between holy and unholy. I think Gozreh and Pharasma are the only ones that don't. Neither deities tenants worked well with the champion codes being tied to alignment anyway, so that's no big loss. Being able to have a paladin of Pharasma should work now, and I don't see why that concept would require you to be holy.
Mechanically, I believe Sanctification will be the right call 90% of the time. I have seen like one spell and one rune so far which deal extra damage to holy creatures. And if fiends have holy weaknesses as commonly as their good weaknesses pre-remaster? You're leaving too much damage on the table against an extremely common enemy type. You're just knee capping yourself if you skip it.
But also... This is just my opinion and how I will run it at my table. Some GMs will mandate champions sanctify. Others will leave it as a choice if that god's clerics can choose. Both things are fine. This isn't a rules ambiguity where the table variance may lead to builds being non-functional, like pre-remaster Recall Knowledge focused characters. You just need to hash it out with your table. Frankly, you're probably be better served in the longrun for having done so. Alignment arguments may be gone, but champion codes are still written with morality in mind which means two people might have very different opinions on what counts as a violation. Talking about these things ahead of time may help you avoid a fall, or even realize this is the wrong for you to play a champion with.
Hopefully, Player Core 2 has a compelling way for non-sanctified champions to just focus on their deities cause. Don't try to make it about neutrality or balance, just being all about Pharasma.
I imagine certain gods would allow certain kinds of champions. A liberator or redeemer of Iomedae makes no sense, a Paladin of Desna likewise seems to not jive. I do believe champions will require sanctification. Sanctifying yourself is signing up for the war over the souls of mortals and that is precisely what a Champion as a class is, more so than even the cleric. This does mean champions of Pharasma or Nethys won't make sense, but that frankly also doesn't lorewise either. Pharasma I think would prefer to work through clerics and whatever replaces/takes up the mantle of the InquisitorI don't see anything wrong with a Redeemer of Pharasma who destroys the undead but tries to save the necromancer if they can, or a Redeemer of Iomedae who convinces the enemy generals to lay down arms by rekindling their sense of honor.
I believe the philosophies of both Iomedae and Pharasma wr2 their enemies is "brook thee no quarter". Punish, slay or imprison the wicked. Kind of LG's mo. Pharasma is TN but how she feels about undead I think is as if she was LN or LG. A necromancer I believe would be punished severely by her. Redeemers are too kind for either of them if you ask me
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the philosophies of both Iomedae and Pharasma wr2 their enemies is "brook thee no quarter". Punish, slay or imprison the wicked. Kind of LG's mo. Pharasma is TN but how she feels about undead I think is as if she was LN or LG. A necromancer I believe would be punished severely by her. Redeemers are too kind for either of them if you ask me
In 1e Iomedae explicitly brings merciful justice to evil. She prefers the enemy surrender and only cuts them down if they don't. In 2e her lore explains that you can serve her by fighting oppression and injustice in your own personal way.
In 1e Pharasma explicitly makes no judgment about the justness of any particular death, necromancer or otherwise. In both editions all of the focus is on destroying the undead and returning souls to the cycle. The idea that necromancers deserve no mercy is simply never brought up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're gonna be speculating... one thing I would like to see is for the champion's subclass to be more... modular? Not sure if that's the right word.
But basically, your champion's code should have following your deity's edicts and anathema at the top, of course. Then depending on your deity's divine sanctification, you add (or leave out) the tenets of holy/unholy to your code. After that you pick your cause/reaction and add its corresponding tenets. Sidenote, but I would also love to separate Lay on Hands/Touch of Corruption from the cause and let a deity's divine font dictate what you can get.
I believe the philosophies of both Iomedae and Pharasma wr2 their enemies is "brook thee no quarter". Punish, slay or imprison the wicked. Kind of LG's mo. Pharasma is TN but how she feels about undead I think is as if she was LN or LG. A necromancer I believe would be punished severely by her. Redeemers are too kind for either of them if you ask meIn 1e Iomedae explicitly brings merciful justice to evil. She prefers the enemy surrender and only cuts them down if they don't. In 2e her lore explains that you can serve her by fighting oppression and injustice in your own personal way.
In 1e Pharasma explicitly makes no judgment about the justness of any particular death, necromancer or otherwise. In both editions all of the focus is on destroying the undead and returning souls to the cycle. The idea that necromancers deserve no mercy is simply never brought up.
I don't know if what I said means no mercy, but it does mean that evil is punished at the end of the day. Imprisoned, executed, slain in battle etc. I also think Pharasma would prefer necromancers dispatched and then judged and does not care whatsoever about redemption
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a few minutes but I don't believe I said that the unsanctified Champion would not fight for anything only because they do no puck a holy or unholy cause. Surely there are more causes imaginable than those two, and flavourful variations on them. Though I would not much desire a champion focused on cosmic balance as that has little place in the Golarion cosmology so far--seems only the Monad is the only deity overly concerned with the active maintenance if the balance. Even Pharasma only seems to sort without regard for whether there are more chaotic or good souls than not
It's been a few minutes but I don't believe I said that the unsanctified Champion would not fight for anything only because they do no puck a holy or unholy cause. Surely there are more causes imaginable than those two, and flavourful variations on them. Though I would not much desire a champion focused on cosmic balance as that has little place in the Golarion cosmology so far--seems only the Monad is the only deity overly concerned with the active maintenance if the balance. Even Pharasma only seems to sort without regard for whether there are more chaotic or good souls than not
Monad/Aeons care as they're LN, and this would be the post-alignment description
It's been a few minutes but I don't believe I said that the unsanctified Champion would not fight for anything only because they do no puck a holy or unholy cause. Surely there are more causes imaginable than those two, and flavourful variations on them. Though I would not much desire a champion focused on cosmic balance as that has little place in the Golarion cosmology so far--seems only the Monad is the only deity overly concerned with the active maintenance if the balance. Even Pharasma only seems to sort without regard for whether there are more chaotic or good souls than notMonad/Aeons care as they're LN, and this would be the post-alignment description
That's fair, I can absolutely see post-alignment aeons concerned with the cosmic balance of holy and unholy forces. I hadn't considered them separately from the Monad, although I don't think there are presently any divine magic-granting aeons aside from the primordial inevitables, who seem on the whole unconcerned with the balance of good and evil.
But yeah, I see Nethys and Pharasma bizarrely only allowing Redeemers (and Despoilers for the former) as an artefact of the lack of "Neutral" Champion causes, but I don't have issue with them. To me, it's more of a feature than a bug that a Champion could choose a cause that their deity would sponsor, but was not directly involved in. Neither Sarenrae nor Shelyn are personally invested in personal freedom and choice beyond those being generally 'good' causes, but they still grant power to a champion who does and has sworn oaths to respect personal choice. The fact that many deities allow you the choice of either sanctification feels to me like evidence this idea isn't terribly flawed. Abadar doesn't care if you dedicate yourself to cruelty as long as it is in service to fair trade and the march of civilization.
On the other hand I wouldn't be too upset if Champions were reined back in a bit to martial extensions of their deity's will alone, but I'm a fan of champion codes and causes, so I would prefer some way of allowing Champions to swear to a diverse array of causes that aren't limited to sanctification and allows them to be sponsored by a range of gods who might be willing to have a servitor of theirs take on such a cause.
That's fair, I can absolutely see post-alignment aeons concerned with the cosmic balance of holy and unholy forces. I hadn't considered them separately from the Monad, although I don't think there are presently any divine magic-granting aeons aside from the primordial inevitables, who seem on the whole unconcerned with the balance of good and evil.
But yeah, I see Nethys and Pharasma bizarrely only allowing Redeemers (and Despoilers for the former) as an artefact of the lack of "Neutral" Champion causes, but I don't have issue with them. To me, it's more of a feature than a bug that a Champion could choose a cause that their deity would sponsor, but was not directly involved in. Neither Sarenrae nor Shelyn are personally invested in personal freedom and choice beyond those being generally 'good' causes, but they still grant power to a champion who does and has sworn oaths to respect personal choice. The fact that many deities allow you the choice of either sanctification feels to me like evidence this idea isn't terribly flawed. Abadar doesn't care if you dedicate yourself to cruelty as long as it is in service to fair trade and the march of civilization.
On the other hand I wouldn't be too upset if Champions were reined back in a bit to martial extensions of their deity's will alone, but I'm a fan of champion codes and causes, so I would prefer some way of allowing Champions to swear to a diverse array of causes that aren't limited to sanctification and allows them to be sponsored by a range of gods who might be willing to have a servitor of theirs take on such a cause.
I'm particularly a big fan of champions and especially Paladins being holy warriors fighting for a righteous cause and I quite like them being patroned by a deity. I just don't like the 5e Oaths which don't seem to be tied to anything in particular. I would be nice to have deities say "I have these kinds of followers projecting my will onto the world" and for example Pharasma prefers inquisitors and clerics, but Iomedae vastly prefers champions/paladins, but maybe this is too much work? The problems however always comes back to Nethys who just wants people to do magic and couldn't care to have paladins, inquisitors, clerics. He just wants you to be like a wizard or something
|
To be honest, now that the alignment is gone, similar to what happened with the wizards, it is now much easier for Paizo to create an even greater variety of champion subclasses over the course of new books.
I don't see why any of the current 6 champion subclasses should be changed or removed since they each have their own anathemas. But the fact that they are no longer linked to alignments allows new champions to be introduced in future books.
We might end up with this, but Paizo has said nothing of the sort, whereas the new Wizard schools had a lot of advertisement from the beginning.
Now, maybe it's too early in the class design process.
But I feel new causes would be more complicated to design and balance than new Wizard schools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm particularly a big fan of champions and especially Paladins being holy warriors fighting for a righteous cause and I quite like them being patroned by a deity. I just don't like the 5e Oaths which don't seem to be tied to anything in particular. I would be nice to have deities say "I have these kinds of followers projecting my will onto the world" and for example Pharasma prefers inquisitors and...That's fair, I can absolutely see post-alignment aeons concerned with the cosmic balance of holy and unholy forces. I hadn't considered them separately from the Monad, although I don't think there are presently any divine magic-granting aeons aside from the primordial inevitables, who seem on the whole unconcerned with the balance of good and evil.
But yeah, I see Nethys and Pharasma bizarrely only allowing Redeemers (and Despoilers for the former) as an artefact of the lack of "Neutral" Champion causes, but I don't have issue with them. To me, it's more of a feature than a bug that a Champion could choose a cause that their deity would sponsor, but was not directly involved in. Neither Sarenrae nor Shelyn are personally invested in personal freedom and choice beyond those being generally 'good' causes, but they still grant power to a champion who does and has sworn oaths to respect personal choice. The fact that many deities allow you the choice of either sanctification feels to me like evidence this idea isn't terribly flawed. Abadar doesn't care if you dedicate yourself to cruelty as long as it is in service to fair trade and the march of civilization.
On the other hand I wouldn't be too upset if Champions were reined back in a bit to martial extensions of their deity's will alone, but I'm a fan of champion codes and causes, so I would prefer some way of allowing Champions to swear to a diverse array of causes that aren't limited to sanctification and allows them to be sponsored by a range of gods who might be willing to have a servitor of theirs take on such a cause.
I'll grant that Champions of Nethys have been in a bit of an odd corner given his edicts and anathema, but I'm not sure that Nethys particularly cares what kind of magic you use. Especially considering the way he came onto the scene; wandering out of the desert, declaring himself a god, and granting Azghaad the magical power to defeat Ulunat. Whatever was going on there, I don't think that Nethys cares more about wizardry or Arcane magic than any other form of magical pursuit.
I'll grant that Champions of Nethys have been in a bit of an odd corner given his edicts and anathema, but I'm not sure that Nethys particularly cares what kind of magic you use. Especially considering the way he came onto the scene; wandering out of the desert, declaring himself a god, and granting Azghaad the magical power to defeat Ulunat. Whatever was going on there, I don't think that Nethys cares more about wizardry or Arcane magic than any other form of magical pursuit.
He doesn't, but his worshippers are mostly wizards and the like. Ofc he has clerics, but I would actually wager there are fewer clerics and more wizards who follow him, especially because he's so impartial. A wizard is also the one class that really pursues magic so I think would identify with Nethys more, but I could see Nethys liking, or even favoring, sorcerers for being innately magical, but I don't see sorcerers being followers of Nethys quite as much