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]​

 

[Kobold Boots]

If you ask a ton of random people what a paladin is, nine out of ten won't even bring out the holy part, let alone they being religious champions. We don't need to change the paladin, we need another class that represents holy knights/warriors, one that tries to do both would do both a disservice.

I’m with you Song, but classically, the Paladin features are a snap on to a knight foundation, differentiated by their alignment. Knights have a code of honor/chivalry but the Paladin also has the church which adds the lawful good requirement. It’s only because the game has a polytheistic bent and socially accepts churches of other alignments that the broad interpretation of paladins can exist.

Personally, I’d call them something else that evokes imagery appropriate to their faith.

 

[Pokelefi]

More correctly, the version of the Paladin being play tested is alignment oriented. That does not mean that future types published have to be.

I think he mean that one or several versions of the paladin are alignment looked or do you think they will make a exact duplicate of that paladin option that is just with out the alignment restriction? And if they drop it why have it in the first place?

 

[Aldarc]

More correctly, the version of the Paladin being play tested is alignment oriented. That does not mean that future types published have to be.

It doesn't have to be, but I don't see this as something that Paizo will concede on. In general, I wish that Paizo would throw away all class-alignment restrictions.

 

[Kobold Boots]

It doesn't have to be, but I don't see this as something that Paizo will concede on. In general, I wish that Paizo would throw away all class-alignment restrictions.

Fair. I've had some of that thought process too. Depending on the game I either throw them out completely or use alignment as a strength. I've found that the composition of the group has a lot to do with which way I go. If I need to run a game with a strong monotheist bent due to the players, then alignment is really important. If I've got a group where religion isn't a big part of their lives, then it goes away.

I'd rather have it in the core rules than out. I can always remove it without too much issue but if it's not supported in the first place then I have to create something.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think he mean that one or several versions of the paladin are alignment looked or do you think they will make a exact duplicate of that paladin option that is just with out the alignment restriction? And if they drop it why have it in the first place?

I'm thinking one step further on this because as stated in a previous post, I've had to run games with a lot of different folks with a lot of different world views.

Question: Why not have paladins of different alignments? Wouldn't gods of different domains and faiths have champions too?
Answer: Yes.

Where this falls down is that a champion of one faith would look nothing like the champion of another simply based on domain and alignment. At the point where you start modeling those differences, those champions start looking a lot like other classes, and it calls into question why you'd duplicate them.

Ex. Champion of a nature domain - Looks a lot like a ranger. Why isn't it just a ranger and be done with it?
Ex. Champion of a trickery domain - Looks a lot like a bard or rogue. Why isn't it just a bard or rogue and be done with it?
Ex. Champion of a law domain - Looks a lot like a paladin maybe that's a fit.
Ex. Champion of a chaos domain - In terms of ability structure, looks a lot like a sorcerer.

Anyway, I'm in favor of lawful good paladins based on the classical interpretation of the role. I'm not in favor of paladins of other alignments and domains looking like classical paladins with a domain change. Since this really is the crux of the problem, trying to make a classical concept more broad - you can see why the classic version is the only one in the playtest.

I wouldn't be surprised if given the crunchy nature of PF, Paizo has had this same discussion internally and needs to figure out what a "paladin" really looks like for other faiths. It's part of the reason why I'm not concerned about this. The other part is, that this is a game, and I can easily change whatever it is I don't want if it's not up to par for me.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I lurk on the Paizo forums, and one of the things I enjoy is when the devs respond to posts on the forums (especially because it almost always goes something like this: Poster A-we need a dev to clarify this issue. Dev B-feature Y is built to do X. Poster A-you are totally wrong; who asked you anyway?). Alignment questions get asked and the devs generally defend it (I can't think of a case where they didn't, but maybe someone else can). My impression is that they lean more towards law being important for paladins (because they are disciplined enough to stick to an oath) more so than good. I think they could end with paladins being lawful and having anti-paladins being conceptually more like the 5e oath breaker paladins.

Most of the stories D&D and Pathfinder draw from are morality tales, entertaining yes, but still morality tales (yes, that includes Conan, where the moral is "don't trust those slick big city types"). Many classes have a virtue at their core (although not necessarily a classic virtue). For paladins, I think the virtue is "duty." I have never DM'd a paladin fall in any system (fair amount of paladins getting severely chastised by angels when they acted like murderhobos, but no falling....), so I am indifferent to that part of the debate, but it seems to me that anything that moves the paladin away from something that represents duty is design failure.

 

[mellored]

If you ask a ton of random people what a paladin is, nine out of ten won't even bring out the holy part, let alone they being religious champions. We don't need to change the paladin, we need another class that represents holy knights/warriors, one that tries to do both would do both a disservice.

If not the holy part or religious champion... what makes a paladin different from a fighter?

I mean, you could just add an oath option to the fighter...
Paladin's Oath: (Prerequisit fighter, Lawful Good), you swear an oath to uphold the good and righteous, and you gain a +X bonus. If you ever perform an evil act, you lose this bonus.

Edit: that actually makes it more historically accurate as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

If not the holy part or religious champion... what makes a paladin different from a fighter?

I mean, you could just add an oath option to the fighter...
Paladin's Oath: (Prerequisit fighter, Lawful Good), you swear an oath to uphold the good and righteous, and you gain a +X bonus. If you ever perform an evil act, you lose this bonus.

Edit: that actually makes it more historically accurate as well.

I think most people would agree that what makes a Paladin a Paladin is their adherence to an ideal. To some people, that ideal is the moral philosophy of Law and Good. To others, that ideal is the word of the god/gods the Paladin follows. To others, it’s a code of conduct, divorced from a particular alignment or deity. That’s part of why they’re so controversial as a class. They are defined by strict adherence to something, but everyone has different ideas about what that something ought to be, and a Paladin who strictly adhered to one person’s something is necessarily not adhering as strictly as they could be to another.

 

[mellored]

I think most people would agree that what makes a Paladin a Paladin is their adherence to an ideal. To some people, that ideal is the moral philosophy of Law and Good. To others, that ideal is the word of the god/gods the Paladin follows. To others, it’s a code of conduct, divorced from a particular alignment or deity. That’s part of why they’re so controversial as a class. They are defined by strict adherence to something, but everyone has different ideas about what that something ought to be, and a Paladin who strictly adhered to one person’s something is necessarily not adhering as strictly as they could be to another.

That still doesn't answer the question.

What makes a paladin different from just a fighter who swearth an oath to some ideal/god/code/ect...
Also, why can't a wizards, rogues, or bard swear the same oath?


IMO, just make all the oaths into feats. Let anyone take them.

Oath of the Paladin: Lawful Good
Oath of the Blackguard: Chaotic Evil
Oath of the Bushido: Lawful Neutral
Oath of the Pacifist: Neutral Good
Oath of Nocticula: Chaotic Neutral
ect...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In the contemporary US legal system (and not only that system), if someone is factually innocent (ie didn't commit a crime) but has been duly convicted and sentenced, then carrying out that sentence is lawful. I imagine this is the sort of scenario that @mellored has in mind.

"Lawful" means something quite different in English-language legal parlance than it does in D&D. It may not be a crime to carry out the sentence*, but is it in accordance with the ideals on which the law rests and the purposes it serves? I think not. The whole scenario is predicated on a failure of the law to accurately determine guilt and innocence. A person sworn to uphold the law, whether an American lawyer or a Waterdhavian paladin, surely ought to do everything in their power to correct the error, not perpetuate it.

*And if, e.g., a prosecutor has evidence establishing that a defendant is innocent but withholds the evidence and prosecutes them anyway, then of course that is a crime.