Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!

It was a long bank holiday weekend here in the UK, and I sent most of it in the (rare) sun eating BBQ; there were two big Pathfinder 2 blog posts which went up in the meantime. The first dealt with armour and shields; the other was our first look at the new Paladin class!

​

• Armor now affects Touch AC; each has a different bonus for AD and TAC.
  • Studded leather +2 AC, +0 TAC
  • Chain shirt +2 AC, +1 TAC, noisy
• Armor has traits, such as "noisy".
• Armor has a Dex mod cap to AC, penalties to STR/Dex/Con skill checks, a Speed penalty, and a Bulk value.
• Potency Runes -- Items can be enhanced with potency runes.
  • Bonuses to attack rolls, increase on number of damage dice (weapons)
  • Bonus to AC, TAC, and saving throws (armor)
  • Example studded leather with +3 armor potency rune gives +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves.
  • Potency runes can be upgraded.
• Shields -- requires an action to use and gain an AC and TAC bonus for one round.
• Other gear -- gear has quality levels (poor -2, expert +1, master +2)
• Interact -- this is a new action, used for grabbing objects, opening doors, drawing weapons, etc.

​

• Paladins! Apparently the most contentious class.
• Core rules have lawful good paladins only (others may appear in other products)
• Paladin's Code -- paladins must follow their code, or lose their Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature.
• Oaths are feats and include Fiendsbane Oath (constant damage to fiends, block their dimensional travel)
• Class features and feats --
  • Retributive strike (1st level) -- counterattacks and enfeebles a foe
  • Lay on hands (1st level) -- single action healing spell which also gives a one-round AC bonus
  • Divine Grace (2nd level) -- saving throw boost
  • Righteous ally (3rd level) -- house a holy spirit in a weapon or steed
  • Aura of Courage (4th level) -- reduce the frightened condition
  • Attack of Opportunity (6th level) -- presumably the basic AoO action
  • Second Ally (8th level) -- gain a second righteous ally
  • Aura of Righteousness (14th level) -- resist evil damage
  • Hero's defiance (19th level) -- keep standing at 0 HP
• Litanies -- single action spells, verbal, last one round.
  • Litany of righteousness -- weakens enemy to your allies' attacks
  • Litany against sloth -- slows the enemy, costing reactions or actions

[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[CubicsRube]

This is a long thread so I'm sure it's been said, but the only reason the paladin has been confibed to LG in the past is tradition.

In earlier editions, you had to roll attributes in order and roll really well to just be able to play a paladin. It was the hardest class to get and it was objectively better. The LG requirement was meant to be a hindrance, a limiter. Now they are not as unbalanced a class, the redtriction makes no sense.

In any case, I'm sad to say the armor broke the PF2 camel's back for me. Here's how i enivsage PF2 combat going:

Tom, The ogre magr reaches out with a firey hand and strikes you!

Is that touch ac or regular ac? I have poor quality chainmail, so it's a 5 -2, but i have a +3 for my proficiency. And i used my shield. Thats fine quality. Do i get the bonus for that for touch ac? So its a +3? And i have the heavily armored feat that gives me +1. And i can add my dex bonus, so another +1. And then has that buff worn off? Oh ok. And my level of course, so 5. So my touch ac is 10+5-2+3+1+1+5 so ... ummm 23?

Ok that misses. Now sarah, the orc swings his axe at you!

Is that touch ac or ac...


Sorry all, I'm already running away screaming!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think I'd disagree with your contention that "lawful" means differing things in these differing contexts. Laws have, after all, existed for a very long time in human history (we have recorded laws from ancient Babylon) and have consistently been created, recorded and enforced for the same reasons, to define a set of acceptable behaviors for society. Presumably, the creators of those laws believe that, by forming this structure (whatever it is), they are improving society at large by outlawing 'bad' behavior. Even in a D&D world, it seems unlikely that laws would exist for any other reason. By extension, it seems that "lawfulness" would entail a respect for the benefits to society of adherence to those laws and the need for punishment of infractions of those laws.

There is nothing inconsistent with Mellored's example. A "lawful" character can very reasonably conclude that the value of the message to society that "those found guilty will be punished" outweighs damage done by inappropriate punishment of the innocent.

You're actually agreeing with me: the punishment of the innocent is inappropriate, and inflicts damage to the ideal of the law. Even an analysis which ultimately condones the action treats that aspect of it as a negative which must be outweighed. Per se, it is not The Lawful Thing To Do.

Your additional argument seems to include an assumption that the laws include 'justice' as an ideal upon which they rest and/or purpose which they serve. This is hardly a safe assumption. Slavery has been legal in a greater part of human history than it's been illegal. Womens' suffrage is only barely 100 years old in some of the earliest adopting countries. And this is 'real life' in 'modern' culture. Is there any argument that these laws had a justifiable underlying ideal or purpose?

Arguments for the justice of slavery are horrifying, but that is a far cry from saying that they do not exist -- they are in fact sickeningly common, from Aristotle to the American Civil War. You seem to be claiming that premodern law was unconcerned with the concept of "justice", and if you are, I can't agree with that at all. Going all the way back to Hammurabi, justice has absolutely been at the forefront of lawmakers' minds. However, premodern people, just like modern people, were also concerned with rationalizing all the terrible things they did in terms of such high-minded ideals.

Is there any reason to believe that similarly abusive laws wouldn't exist in pseudo-medieval D&D fantasyland?

Of course not. We are, however, speaking of paladins.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Virtue, conviction to do good and keep order. A paladin is both optimistic and idealistic, virtuous and uncompromising. Save everybody even if it is impossible. Be a champion of good and justice. Between Rolando and El Cid there's a world of difference. El Cid was pragmatic, and cynical. He would never be what you call a paladin, even if he himself was considered a defender of the faith. Deities are orthogonal to paladins, some paladins will be defenders of faith, but only the faith of the lawful good gods. Evil and chaotic deities will have their own holy champions, but they won't be paladins, because a paladin is always striving for the greater good without compromising the order that makes life bearable. Rescue and save everybody so they can live, not just survive.

A fighter is someone who fights...

Two things here..
1. Are these attributes based on anything beside personal preference
2. If these attributes govern "what a paladin is", then you could logically have wizard paladins, rogue paladins, fighter paladins, etc. To be clear, not multiclassed characters, full-on paladins with wizard/rogue/fighter/etc. abilities.

Because paladins are empowered by Good itself, not a capricious deity.

2 things here..
1. "Good itself" sounds an awful lot like a deity, certainly from a mechanical perspective, but also from certain worldviews' perspectives
2. What exactly does "Good itself" look like? Is the paladin a pacifist who is not permitted to slay evildoers because "all life is precious"? Is the paladin an implacable force of divine enforcement where "evil must be punished at all costs"?

Like I said, this sounds more like a point in favor of a split than one against it. All it proves is that a single class is too little design space to cover both the LG Paladin and the Divine Champion of any random deity.

Not really. You're describing character, while others are describing mechanics. Nothing in the attributes you've described in your "preferred paladin" would fail to operate under the framework they've suggested.

Even if you don't care about justice, a purely lawful person wouldn't want to punish someone who didn't break the law and was convicted wrongly. Of course you might want to just be done with it and send a message, but that would be shortsighted. Execute enough people wrongly convicted and the people will stop having the incentives to follow the law. If someone who did nothing wrong doesn't benefit from the law, then there is no point in following the law. That is how revolts and revolutions are started.

Sure, but "didn't want to" and "won't" can be and often are worlds away from each other. And for the converse of your additional point. Failure to enforce the law removes the disincentives to disobedience. If someone who is convicted of a crime is not punished for it, why wouldn't other people commit the same crime? This path leads to anarchy. (To be clear, I'm not saying that these are the only possible conclusions, just that they are also reasonable ones for a "lawful" character to make)

 

[Gammadoodler]

You're actually agreeing with me: the punishment of the innocent is inappropriate, and inflicts damage to the ideal of the law. Even an analysis which ultimately condones the action treats that aspect of it as a negative which must be outweighed. Per se, it is not The Lawful Thing To Do.

I am agreeing that punishment of the innocent is a negative. I am disagreeing that it must be outweighed. People make a lot of systems, basically all of them are imperfect, but we continue to use them because the net value of the system outweighs the imperfections. It is a reasonable to conclude that the reliability of the system to operate as described is of greater benefit than the correction of an individual known imperfection.

Arguments for the justice of slavery are horrifying, but that is a far cry from saying that they do not exist -- they are in fact sickeningly common, from Aristotle to the American Civil War. You seem to be claiming that premodern law was unconcerned with the concept of "justice", and if you are, I can't agree with that at all. Going all the way back to Hammurabi, justice has absolutely been at the forefront of lawmakers' minds. However, premodern people, just like modern people, were also concerned with rationalizing all the terrible things they did in terms of such high-minded ideals.

To be clear, I'm not saying that premodern lawmakers were unconcerned with justice, I am saying that it was not their sole concern, and, quite frequently, not even their primary concern. So here, I think you're agreeing with me. To go further, it seems to me that justice is incidental to lawmaking. The primary effect of any kind of rule set that I've seen is to bring order to a situation/problem/etc. Justice is a means to preserving that order, but the goal is order.

Of course not. We are, however, speaking of paladins.

So the "lawful" paladin obeys those laws and fights for underlying ideals which may also be "horrifying"?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

To go further, it seems to me that justice is incidental to lawmaking. The primary effect of any kind of rule set that I've seen is to bring order to a situation/problem/etc. Justice is a means to preserving that order, but the goal is order.

What if the "problem" which the rule set is attempting to bring order to is "hey, there isn't enough justice in the world"?

So the "lawful" paladin obeys those laws and fights for underlying ideals which may also be "horrifying"?

No, because "good".

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think it is less about devotion and more about virtue.

Where I come from (the land of gamers founded in the late 70s early 80s) Paladins were folks of great virtue who were called to becoming paladins and empowered by their deity to do great work. Deities have churches and as such virtue and answering the call is a social pact that brings with it devotion. There is no separation of virtue from devotion or you aren't a paladin.

Virtue, conviction to do good and keep order. A paladin is both optimistic and idealistic, virtuous and uncompromising. Save everybody even if it is impossible. Be a champion of good and justice. Between Rolando and El Cid there's a world of difference. El Cid was pragmatic, and cynical. He would never be what you call a paladin, even if he himself was considered a defender of the faith. Deities are orthogonal to paladins, some paladins will be defenders of faith, but only the faith of the lawful good gods. Evil and chaotic deities will have their own holy champions, but they won't be paladins, because a paladin is always striving for the greater good without compromising the order that makes life bearable. Rescue and save everybody so they can live, not just survive.

I agree with you take on how paladins act but they are not independent of their deities or they wouldn't "fall". Additionally, at the point where the paladin answers the call of "good" you're personifying "good" or it wouldn't call or empower the paladin in the first place. They are special because they are better in the eyes of some greater power. Whether you actually call it a deity in your game or not is up to you, but if it shows favor, it's functionally a deity.

I don't know, a paladin that compromises good doesn't sound like a paladin. But you are right, paladins shouldn't have to be shackled by so many burdens, which is why I don't think they should serve deities at all. (I blame the Realms for that one actually)

I don't blame the realms. I blame the first edition rules which stated that a paladin who fell needed to do penance to a lawful good cleric of seventh level or higher to get his status back. The logic being that if you needed to go to a LG cleric who by definition must have a deity to gain his status (7th level) then the deity is the one restoring the status.

I do appreciate the realms though for clearly stating that not all paladins served deities directly with a line that said "those paladins that serve the gods". Logic being there are those that do and those that don't. Regardless, having to go to a leveled cleric, which was the case through second edition pretty much set the tone for the game system that the Realms followed.

Because paladins are empowered by Good itself, not a capricious deity.

I'm down with the capricious deity theorem, save for the fact that not all deities are capricious any more than any mortal may be. That's a matter for DM interpretation.

Like I said, this sounds more like a point in favor of a split than one against it. All it proves is that a single class is too little design space to cover both the LG Paladin and the Divine Champion of any random deity.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this.

 

[Gammadoodler]

What if the "problem" which the rule set is attempting to bring order to is "hey, there isn't enough justice in the world"?

I guess we could argue it like the chicken and the egg. I feel there is ample evidence of unjust laws throughout history to suggest that it's not a wholly sensible argument, but I can concede the potential.

No, because "good".

And thus we come full circle where someone might try to design a conundrum for a character who is both "lawful" and "good" that forces them to compromise on one or the other of those attributes.
Unless what you've been trying to say all along is that "Lawful" = "Good", in which case we have engaged in a truly silly discussion.

(Ignoring that "good" can and has meant a lot of different and conflicting things to a lot of different people)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't blame the realms. I blame the first edition rules which stated that a paladin who fell needed to do penance to a lawful good cleric of seventh level or higher to get his status back. The logic being that if you needed to go to a LG cleric who by definition must have a deity to gain his status (7th level) then the deity is the one restoring the status.

I blame the realms, and third edition, for establishing a default setting where there are multiple gods with different preferences and agendas which are all still good guys. Really, the concept of the knight-in-shining-armor that has been blessed with healing and demon-slaying powers makes less and less sense as you get further away from pseudo-historical Medieval European settings.

Paladins get weird when you try to import them into settings where religion is complicated.

 

[pemerton]

In my contributions to this thread I am not trying to argue for how Paizo should present their PF2 paladin class; nor for what is "the best" presentation of such a class in a RPG. Those are questions that have to be answered using knowledge about player preferences, market trends, etc, and I don't have that knowledge.

I am talking about the archetype of the paladin. D&D didn't invent this archetype; nor did Poul Anderson. (Though clearly he was influential on the particular way D&D first operationalised it.)

The archetype goes back to romantic, idealised conceptions of mediaeval knighthood, and of kingship. In well-known English-language writing, King Arthur stories are a "historical" illustration of this tradition; Tolkien's LotR gives us a "modern" illustration. To say that Aragorn is a ranger and hence irrrelevant (eg [MENTION=6914290]Gammadoodler[/MENTION] upthread) is a mistake. Aragorn, as a character, clearly weaves together many strands of English/European storytelling: the noble who has to hid in the woods until he can reclaim his throne (as in some versions of Robin Hood); the human who has magical powers and foresight because he has dwelled in fairyland; the king who can heal with a touch; the heroic and chivalric battle captain (evoking Arthur, or romanticised versions of Richard the Lionheart) whose presence on the battlefield is worth many ordinary swords; and, perhaps most importantly, he understands the importance of hope (that's even his name!) and trust in providence.

This hope and trust means that the notion of a "no win" situation actually gets ruled out. The only way there can be "no win" is if the paladin's beliefs and ideals are themselves shown to be wrong - ie if it is shown, in fact, that there ultimately is no justice in the world. The humility that is part of this hope and trust is also important - and is part of the explanation for why paladins are not about "law reform". Because law and justice are, in this conception, not ultimately human endeavours.

Applying this to the idea of alignment and code in the D&D context, the paladin should be seeing, and revealing, the good in law whenever it comes up. And the paladin has no duty to subjugate his or her judgement to that of someone who lies about, manipulates or ruthlessly (mis-)applies the law. Aragorn's dealing with Beregond is a clear example of this.

someone might try to design a conundrum for a character who is both "lawful" and "good" that forces them to compromise on one or the other of those attributes.

Well, of course its possible to tell a story that comes out differently from LotR: we can tell a story in which Sauron blasts Aragorn's mind through the palantir; or in which Aragorn dies outside the Black Gates; or Frodo is indeed captured and the ring lost; or in which Aragorn, like Denethor, succumbs to hubris and despair and allows Beregond to be executed.

In the RPGing context, I think there are three main options:

(1) The GM goes along with the paladin player's desire to play a paladin, and therefore presents a world in which it's clear that the pursuit of honour and justice and fidelity to law and tradition can be reconciled. (And this sort of GM will go along with imaginative reconciliations that the player puts forward, in the spirit of Aragorn.)

(2) The GM believes that the paladin's ideals are flawed, and therefore presents a world in which conflict between honour, justice and fidelity is inevitable. Further consequences of this may be that the paladin falls, or we invent workarounds for the code and alignment (as the PF2 preview does).

(3) The actual play of the game is oriented towards finding out whether or not the paladin's ideals are true or flawed.​

Personally I prefer (3), and am currently playing a paladin in such a game. (Not D&D, though - Burning Wheel.)

For a fairly light or DL-ish sort of campaign, I think (1) is appropriate.

I personally think (2) is the pits for RPGing, and wouldn't want to play a paladin in such a game, but I'm sure others disagree.

 

[Slit518]

I feel them releasing Starfinder now that long ago, and then announcing Pathfinder 2 recently was a huge mistake.

Starfinder is futuristic Pathfinder, but with a rules bridge similar to D&D 3.0 to D&D 3.5.

What is Pathfinder 2 going to be that is going to make it so radically different? If it just uses the changes Starfinder had but in a Pathfinder setting, that isn't really a huge leap, is it?

Or will Pathfinder 2 be the different from D&D and AD&D?

So far, not impressed.