I initially thought it did but my friend is arguing otherwise.
Look like he is correct, the trait comes from the Tenets gained from Champion's Code and you dont gain that from the Archtype
its abit wierd since it say later that you need to follow the Champion's Code, but dont give it to you raw so you dont gain the tenets.
I don't see anything about it coming from the code. It comes from the "Sanctification" entry. My friend's argument is that it gets you the "deity's sanctification," which is not technically the same thing as the Champion's "Sanctification" ability. Oddly enough, this might also mean you're also subject to the additional tenets like don't "Commit Murder."
I'd say you do, yeah.
A Champion gains the Holy/Unholy Trait to their Strikes when they're Sanctified. The Multiclass Feat says you can get Sanctified. Therefore Multiclass Champions should get both the Holy/Unholy trait on their strikes and the Edicts/Anathema that comes with it.
To be fair the rules aren't so explicit, but to me it feels weird that a Multiclass Champion could be Holy/Unholy Sanctified and not gain the corresponding edicts/anathema, and therefore they should also gain the trait.
But RAW it's actually unclear, since the multiclass says you can become sanctified and nothing else. But becoming Holy/Unholy is different for a Champion than it is for a Cleric. Since we're talking about Champion multiclass though, I figure they get sanctified like a Champion.
The Sanctification entry on PC2 pages 88-89 is a specific class feature, and the sanctified Strikes in it fall under the "you gain no additional abilities" clause in the dedication.
The general definition of your deity's sanctification, not specific to cleric or champion, is on page 36 of PC1 and doesn't add the trait to your Strikes. Captain Morgan's friend is correct to make the distinction
I don't see anything about it coming from the code. It comes from the "Sanctification" entry. My friend's argument is that it gets you the "deity's sanctification," which is not technically the same thing as the Champion's "Sanctification" ability. Oddly enough, this might also mean you're also subject to the additional tenets like don't "Commit Murder."
Was based on the text in the erata(the errata added it to Tenets) and whats on nethys.
But now with my book, i agree with what Hammerjack wrote
My friend's argument is that it gets you the "deity's sanctification," which is not technically the same thing as the Champion's "Sanctification" ability.
It feels like splitting hairs on a technicality.
What exactly does the 'Deity's Sanctification' provide? Where is that defined? Why bother even listing it in what Champion Dedication grants?
My friend's argument is that it gets you the "deity's sanctification," which is not technically the same thing as the Champion's "Sanctification" ability.It feels like splitting hairs on a technicality.
What exactly does the 'Deity's Sanctification' provide? Where is that defined? Why bother even listing it in what Champion Dedication grants?
Just the Holy or Unholy trait.
On PC1 page 36, in the Deities section.
Because it is something that happens with the archetype, even though it isn't particularly valuable to the PC.
My friend's argument is that it gets you the "deity's sanctification," which is not technically the same thing as the Champion's "Sanctification" ability.It feels like splitting hairs on a technicality.
What exactly does the 'Deity's Sanctification' provide? Where is that defined? Why bother even listing it in what Champion Dedication grants?
Some deities sanctify their clerics and similarly devoted
followers. This gives the follower the holy or unholy trait.
Choose a deity. You are bound by your deity’s anathema and
can receive that deity’s divine sanctification. Choose a cause
as you would if you were a champion, with the same options a
champion must abide by. You gain its edicts and anathema but
don’t gain the other abilities
Well there is alot of things Under the Deity class feature in champion, Skill, Anathema, sanctification, deific weapon, champions aura. do they gain all of them?
but the champion archetype dont say you get that champion feature but tell you to choose a deity and gain its anathema and divine sanctification.
This also raises another issue with the dedication that you never gain the Champions aura, i belive i heard somewhere they are working on a erata for that, and i belive pathfinder society have a housrule that you gain it.
Its entirely possible they intended for the dedication to get the champion sanctification instead of the general diety sactification from core 1, but that not what it say and its not the first dedication that give lesser variants of features and things either.
The 'Holy' and 'Unholy' traits - by themselves - do pretty much nothing. It doesn't even cause a weakness to the opposing trait, not that you would want that without some benefit to go along with it.
I am not aware of anything else available to Champion Archetype that would cause the Holy or Unholy traits to have any effect. Maybe you could argue that if you somehow had the ability to cast spells that have the Sanctified trait, that having the Holy trait would do something at that point. But that isn't something inherent to Champion.
Well there is alot of things Under the Deity class feature in champion, Skill, Anathema, sanctification, deific weapon, champions aura. do they gain all of them?
To rule on this in a way that is permissive but not giving everything: I would say that it gives the Champion Deity's Anathema and Sanctification. That is how I am reading the line "Choose a deity. You are bound by your deity's anathema and can receive that deity's divine sanctification."
You get the anathema and sanctification entries for the Champion Deity class feature entry. Because that is what it lists in the Dedication. You don't get the Skill, or Deific Weapon entries because those aren't referenced.
I understand the idea of getting a lesser version of a class's power from an archetype dedication or feat. Rogue Sneak Attack and Witch Familiar come to mind immediately. But getting one that does nothing... That sounds like broken RAW.
The champion archetype is still really strong, even with the sentinel-esque nerf. So I don't have that much room to complain.
The champion archetype is still really strong, even with the sentinel-esque nerf. So I don't have that much room to complain.
Cool.
For me, I'm just discussing the wording and the logic that it creates.
Honestly, I don't even play Champion. I'm more than half expecting that someone will come along and correct me on having the Holy and Unholy traits not do anything because of some feat or focus spell available to the archetype that they can get.
The champion archetype is still really strong, even with the sentinel-esque nerf. So I don't have that much room to complain.Cool.
For me, I'm just discussing the wording and the logic that it creates.
Honestly, I don't even play Champion. I'm more than half expecting that someone will come along and correct me on having the Holy and Unholy traits not do anything because of some feat or focus spell available to the archetype that they can get.
It doesn't have any frequently relevant effect. There are edge cases, like the Holy Light and Chilling Darkness spells having some extra effect on targets with one of those traits.
You still would apply it to sanctified spells, right?
You still would apply it to sanctified spells, right?
Yes, if you have any.
|
I think you do.
The champion dedication says:
Choose a deity. You are bound by your deity’s anathema and
can receive that deity’s divine sanctification. Choose a cause
as you would if you were a champion, with the same options a
champion must abide by. You gain its edicts and anathema but
don’t gain the other abilities.
1. you can get the deity's divine sanctification
2. you choose a cause and gain its edicts and anathema, but don't gain the other abilities [of that cause]Okay, to the "don't gain the other abilities" should refer to the cause, not the sanctification. We need to look for rules for sanctification to know what that is.
There are three places to look for an explanation:
- The cleric class. Obviously a dubious choice.
- The sidebar in PC1 p. 36 giving a general explanation of sanctification.
- The champion class description in PC2, giving a specific rule for how sanctification works for champions.
I think the champion version of sanctification is the most appropriate. When you're wondering "what does this archetype ability do" and the parent class has that ability, that's the obvious place to look.
It's also a matter of "abilities do something". A multiclass cleric could cast a fair amount of spells with the sanctified trait. Champions don't cast a lot of spells, and the only devotion spell with the sanctified trait is Shields of the Spirit. It would make the ability nearly meaningless if it didn't affect your strikes.
The counterpoint would be that the cleric dedication sanctification doesn't do anything unless someone also takes spells with the sanctified trait. But as Fin points out, the champion archetype has essentially zero ways to apply holy, where cleric can eventually have many. Both dedications would work well if you were playing, say, a divine sorcerer.
I don't think the reading against is intuitive. Outside of the witch, multi class archetypes tend to be very clear about what they DON'T give you, and one would assume when they talk about the champion abilities you are granted they are talking about the stuff from the champion chapter. (Though to be fair, page 91 within the champion section does at least have a more generic definition for sanctified.) I'll admit there's a RAW reading otherwise, but it's a bit questionable.
I also really dislike the idea that the only way a martial can pick a side in the eternal war for souls is by having champion as a base class. But that's more of a lore/character concept argument, not a rules one.
I also really dislike the idea that the only way a martial can pick a side in the eternal war for souls is by having champion as a base class. But that's more of a lore/character concept argument, not a rules one.
Sanctification is overly limited in general, I think. For something that is supposed to be about an eternal war of philosophies and such, it's kind of odd that effectively only two classes in the game can actually officially take sides? Like, Angelic Sorcerers don't seem to have a way to sanctify and thus can't activate the sanctified trait on spells they get in their bloodline like Divine Wrath/Decree. Ditto with Oracle, which is literally wielding Divine power but can't pick a side mechanically.
But that's the RAW.
I don't think this particular question can really be answered before the errata, because we already know the Champion archetype has errors in it (the missing Champion's Aura).
IMO Champion Archetype does get the Sanctification effects under the classes Sanctification entry because it flat out tells you to pick one and that you can scantify, so having it then not do anything without it calling out that it doesn't do anything would be rather odd here (like how it says you choose a Cause but don't gain its abilities).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also really dislike the idea that the only way a martial can pick a side in the eternal war for souls is by having champion as a base class. But that's more of a lore/character concept argument, not a rules one.
I strongly suspect War of Immortals is going to expand that. At *least* to the Vindicator Ranger and Avenger Rogue.
Sanctification is one of the more powerful abilities you can have, particularly at high levels where evil fiends with holy weakness are common. Getting holy on all your attacks is crazy powerful, and should be sought-after by anyone who wants frequent free damage at high levels.
I've played a champion from 1st to 20th, swapping to Remaster around 15. It makes a world of difference in my ability to destroy my enemies.
Sanctification is one of the more powerful abilities you can have,
Are you talking about Champion's Sanctification ability, or just getting the Holy (or Unholy) trait on your character?
particularly at high levels where evil fiends with holy weakness are common. Getting holy on all your attacks is crazy powerful, and should be sought-after by anyone who wants frequent free damage at high levels.
Because having the Holy trait doesn't by itself make it so that you trigger weakness on Strike.
I think that is kinda the entire point of this question. Is only getting the Holy trait too weak to even be worth mentioning in the Champion Dedication? Is getting Champion Sanctification and therefore Holy trait on all Strike actions too powerful for just the Dedication feat?
It makes it hard to gauge what RAW even is since it is a bit vague and we don't really know or agree what RAI should be.
"Too weak to be worth mentioning" isn't a concept that applies, here. It's worth mentioning even if only downsides ever come up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it's not a RAW argument and I know they've done something similar with the Witch, it does feel a little odd from a design perspective to have the Champion Dedication give you Sanctification but expect the player and GM to intuit purely based on vibes that you're not supposed to look at the sanctification rules in the Champion class, but are instead expected to hunt through the book for another entry entirely.
While it's not a RAW argument and I know they've done something similar with the Witch,
You are referencing having to look at the Pet feat in order to know how Familiars work, yes?
That at least affects the base Witch class, not just the archetype.
I also really dislike the idea that the only way a martial can pick a side in the eternal war for souls is by having champion as a base class. But that's more of a lore/character concept argument, not a rules one.From a Lore standpoint, the Holy/Unholy doesn't come from the character. It's something given to them by a God. So you somehow need to be close enough to the God to grant you that ability.
If you simply want a mortal that tries to take active part in said "war" you can always choose to actively fight for one side or the other, hunting fiends or celestials, but if you want your character to be magically more effective against those then you do need a God to give you those tools.
I agree with all this. It's just that the champion dedication is literally dedicating yourself to a god.
Against the "too weak to be worth mentioning" piece... Sanctification is mandatory for certain deities, so lore wise I think they need to bring it up, even if it doesn't help and barely ever hurts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a Lore standpoint, the Holy/Unholy doesn't come from the character. It's something given to them by a God. So you somehow need to be close enough to the God to grant you that ability.
I don't know that this holds true: the Cultivator architype's 10th level feats grant sanctification with holy or unholy and it's not from any deity but from their own path towards immortality.
I also really dislike the idea that the only way a martial can pick a side in the eternal war for souls is by having champion as a base class. But that's more of a lore/character concept argument, not a rules one.From a Lore standpoint, the Holy/Unholy doesn't come from the character. It's something given to them by a God. So you somehow need to be close enough to the God to grant you that ability.
If you simply want a mortal that tries to take active part in said "war" you can always choose to actively fight for one side or the other, hunting fiends or celestials, but if you want your character to be magically more effective against those then you do need a God to give you those tools.
I agree with all this. It's just that the champion dedication is literally dedicating yourself to a god.
If you pick up Champion Archetype you DO get Sanctified.
Leaving aside if your strikes get holy or not (which is only a measure of combat effectiveness), you being someone dedicated to a God does make you more effective in the Holy War even if only slightly (sanctified spells will always work regardless of the reading of the archetype sanctification).
So, lore wise, anyone, regardless of base class, can indeed become Sanctified if they are close to a God that partakes into the planar war.
We'll probably see more and more archetypes that offer such options is my guess, probably in the coming books that focus on divine stuff, but so far we do have a martial option (champion) and a caster option (cleric) that represent being close to a God and both offer Sanctification.
Again, I'm not debating here if it's one reading or the other, just pointing out that Lore-wise, all the bases are covered for anyone to partake into the cosmic war.
I don't think you can just leave aside the strikes. Combat effectiveness and lore are intertwined here. Sanctified strikes are literally your god giving you the tools to combat the creatures on the other side of the cosmic conflict. The idea that Erastil wouldn't give those tools to a ranger who who shows the dedication to multi class into champion feels really weird to me. Lore wise, a multi class champion is following the same edicts as a regular champion. Why be stingy with their strikes?
Yes, "regular" sanctification works with sanctified spells. Which is great if you're playing a non-cleric divine caster. It isn't helpful if you're playing a martial without spells. You can't even get the crappy spell progression of a cleric multi class with the champion archetype.
I will agree with Ravingdork that sanctified strikes are really strong. And the champion archetype is already really powerful for certain classes without it. Which is the grounds our GM just ruled against it, and which I support. I don't like what it says about the lore, but it doesn't really matter for my specific character.
It's impossible to be Sanctified without receiving the corresponding holy/unholy trait to your actions/spells.
It's literally in the Sanctification trait definition: If you are holy or unholy, your sanctified actions and spells gain the same trait.
If your actions/spells have the holy/unholy trait, then they trigger appropriate weaknesses.
If a Dedication grants you sanctification, then you get the corresponding holy/unholy trait. If a Dedication does not grant sanctification, then you get neither of those traits via that particular path.
Champion Dedication says the following: You are bound by your deity’s anathema and can receive that deity’s divine sanctification.
You have sanctification, if you choose it; that means you're holy or unholy and gain the corresponding trait. Full stop.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what is being discussed here. Normal sanctification applies to actions and spells with the sanctified trait. But the champion class's unique sanctification grants it to every strike. (As opposed to only specific striking feats for the cleric.) What is being discussed is whether the champion dedication gives you the champion's unique version of sanctification (on all strikes) vs the "regular" version.
A cleric is expected to use spells to defeat foes, not strikes. And if they are strike heavy, they can use one of their many sanctified strike feats.
And getting more spells is more a function of training/focus. No one can get 10 ranked spells simply by being devout. You also need to become a vessel which can handle that level of spell. Things like the champion reaction are similar, where they are as much a matter of training a la reactive strike as a god given gift. Sanctified strikes are different in that they just feel like something a good hands you. You could come up with narrative justifications for it to require just as much training and focus as a hunter's edge, but it certainly doesn't intuitively feel that way.
You're arbitrarily drawing a line between mechanics and lore. You can't just say "regardless of the mechanics" when Sanctified is a mechanical trait and term. All of the mechanics being discussed are reflections of the fiction behind the game. This isn't even a particularly crunchy place to draw the line.
I don't understand. If you are sanctified AT ALL, then all your spells and actions (including strikes) have the holy or unholy trait.
Insofar as I'm aware, there aren't different levels of sanctification.
"And getting more spells is more a function of training/focus. No one can get 10 ranked spells simply by being devout. You also need to become a vessel which can handle that level of spell."
-Citation needed
That's standard imagery, and makes for a good story/character arc, sense of earning one's chops, etc. But high fantasy (and even real world myth & religious lore) is full of examples where untrained, unfocused characters channel world-altering magic. Even children. Players are free to interpret their PC's growth in such ways: prodigy, prophesied savior, blessed youth, god-blooded, etc.
And unlike some early iterations which required training time, PF2's a system where one can blossom from 1st to 20th in a span of months (in most APs) or technically much faster if the story allows. I've run for many parties that have leveled in a day. In PF2, being devout could be enough if that's how one narrates their PC's growth. (I imagine NPCs who've spent decades studying, fasting, mumbling woo , etc. must often be jealous.)
Not that falling on either side of that interpretation aids a rules discussion anyway, but I do think if the MCD references gaining an ability that the class has, then one gains the ability as written for that class. The rules would need to (and frequently do) note any differences. Whether this falls in Witch's Familiar territory would have to be clarified by Paizo IMO.
Fair. You can certainly flavor it as the god increasing their "investment" in the cleric, though the fact that all your wizard buddy is gaining access to new spell ranks at the exact same time undercuts that narrative a bit. I'm generally a fan of trying to come up with a narrative that fits the mechanics a game hands me. I'm just struggling on this particular point. Mostly because sanctification is too hard to come by, IMO, as Tridus notes.
I personally agree with your interpretation of the rules, but I recognize there is a weird RAW here and a balance consideration.
So are you saying that there's nothing in the lore/fiction representing a champion's blade tearing at the very essence of a fiend or celestial where a cleric's mace doesn't (without tapping into very specific techniques)? Because that sounds wild to me. It is like saying there is nothing in the fiction to represent a rogue striking an enemy where they are most vulnerable.
It isn't about being more or less sanctified. It is about those sanctifications acting differently, both in the mechanics and the fiction.
I think we have to agree to disagree. The lore implications of champions getting (un)holy strikes vs a cleric not feel incredibly clear and straightforward to me.
I started typing a longer response, but realized I didn't want this to become a last word competition when I already said we couldn't convince each other.
I get the sense that shroudb is on to something.
Consider the PC1 came out first before Paizo actually decided fully what sanctification is.
PC2 Sanctification just is more descriptive of what sanctification is for Holy and Unholy in the Champion entry.
I am thinking there is actually no difference between what it means for clerics and champions or those who gain sanctification in other ways.
I get the sense that shroudb is on to something.
Consider the PC1 came out first before Paizo actually decided fully what sanctification is.
PC2 Sanctification just is more descriptive of what sanctification is for Holy and Unholy in the Champion entry.I am thinking there is actually no difference between what it means for clerics and champions or those who gain sanctification in other ways.
Are you saying that clerics get all their strikes sanctified too? Because that's just demonstrably false.
Are you saying that clerics get all their strikes sanctified too? Because that's just demonstrably false.I get the sense that shroudb is on to something.
Consider the PC1 came out first before Paizo actually decided fully what sanctification is.
PC2 Sanctification just is more descriptive of what sanctification is for Holy and Unholy in the Champion entry.I am thinking there is actually no difference between what it means for clerics and champions or those who gain sanctification in other ways.
I do question the idea that they don't.
Do clerics get sanctification?Can they be Holy or Unholy?
Holy and unholy are actually not defined in PC1, they are only defined in PC2.
Feats that allow for a sanctified action seem to mean that cleric sanctification is different than champion. I am not convinced its not just redundancy caused by the designers not knowing how they wanted sanctification to look until they finalized PC2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, clerics have a Sanctification feature (which does not include affecting Strikes in its text.
Yes they can be Holy or Unholy.
Holy and Unholy are defined on pages 457 and 462 of Player Core 1, with the text below.
holy (trait) Effects with the holy trait are tied to powerful magical forces of benevolence and virtue. They often have stronger effects on unholy creatures. Creatures with this trait are strongly devoted to holy causes and often have weakness to unholy. If a creature with weakness to holy uses a holy item or effect, it takes damage from its weakness.
unholy (trait) Effects with the unholy trait are tied to powerful magical forces of cruelty and sin. They often have stronger effects on holy creatures. Creatures with this trait are strongly devoted to unholy causes, and often have weakness to holy. If a creature with weakness to unholy uses an unholy item or effect, it takes damage from its weakness.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think champions, and archetype champions, should use the champion version of sanctification. It affects your strikes. It's a bit like Smite Evil from PF1 made a comeback. It helps because champions had very few damage boosters normally.
And clerics and archetype clerics should use the cleric version of sanctification. Clerics have some way to sanctify some strikes, but their sanctification is mostly for use on spells.
I don't understand. If you are sanctified AT ALL, then all your spells and actions (including strikes) have the holy or unholy trait.No. At all. If you are sanctified, you (and only you) have holy/unholy trait. That's all. Which does nothing until you are stricken by some effect which cares about those traits.
Ok, Sanctified spells and actions do receive your trait automatically. Because that's the feature of the trait on spells and actions. There is rather limited number of Sanctified actions and spells: AoN shows 8 spells and 0 actions right now. (It doesn't have PC2 as I understand)
Ah. I appear to have missed a single word.
Derp. XD