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]​

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Though it really makes me want to put them in a scenario where they have to choose between lawful, and good. Like telling them to execute a prisoner they know to be innocent, but was found guilty under the law.

How is it lawful to punish someone who didn't commit a crime?

 

[Kor]

I was interested in Pathfinder second edition at first.
But for someone how is still new to table top and pen and paper rpgs this still seams very complex

I really don't really understand who the target audience is for Pathfinder 2nd. Originally I was hoping they were just doing their Paizo-ized version of 5th Edition rules -- something which would have been great, especially given the poor WotC product support the line suffers from.

I enjoyed 3.5/Pathfinder for a long time, but once D&D 5th edition was introduced, I found myself jumping ship to that system. The 3.5/Pathfinder rules just added so many layers of complexity that sometimes it made it hard to introduce new players and also made high level play very monotonous. I do understand the allure of this older system to many players though, and the huge amount of sourcebooks for that system is a great selling feature for playing it.

Pathfinder 2 is just introducing yet another rule system full of complexities -- albeit different complexities. I'm sure there will be some people who will to move on from their old complex system to a new complex system, but it just feels like Paizo is now splitting its existing customer base (which is slowly dwindling) into 2 different product lines. They certainly will not be pulling in any of the 5th edition fans -- they'll be sticking with the streamlined quick and easy to play system of 5th edition.

I'm still holding out hope that some day Paizo will bring 5th edition to Golarion -- but with all their time and energy being focused on Starfinder and Pathfinder 2, I have to say that its not looking too likely. Paizo definitely has proven their skill at understanding who their target market is -- so while I may not understand this direction that Pathfinder 2 is taking, they are the experts and they likely wouldn't be pursuing the new product line if they weren't certain that it would be a success. (Heck, I thought introducing Starfinder with the old 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset was a bad idea, however it seems to be selling perfectly well, so I wish them all the best with PF2.)

 

[Yaarel]

The ‘knight’ needs to be a base class.

• The paladin (white knight) is a cleric half-caster subclass.
• The black knight is a necromancer half-caster subclass.
• The green knight is a druid half-caster subclass
• The eldritch knight (red knight?) is a wizard half-caster subclass.
• The cavalier is a non-caster ‘champion’ warrior subclass.
• The warlord is a non-caster tactician and morale subclass.

And there are other knightly concepts that need this base class for its chassis too, such as a roguish scoundrel knight.



What all these ‘knight’ archetypes have in common is:
• heavy armor
• formal military training
• urban, elite
• competence in mounted combat (but downplay it)
• leadership training
• charisma: charm, dread, inspiration, morale
• intelligence: clever combat tactics, teamwork



The knight is a central archetype. The paladin is only one component within a comprehensive knightly class.

 

[Yaarel]

Really, for the core rules, the only armors should be:

• fabric (padded gambeson, or heavy leather jacket)
• leather (boiled hard leather as lamellar tunic or solid cuirass)
• chain (tunic)
• scale (as ‘fish scale’ tunic, solid brigandine cuirass, banded segmentata, or reallife plate+mail being small metal strips linked to each other by metal rings)
• plate (cuirass)

Distinguish between torso armor only versus a full ‘suit’ that covers limbs as well.

All other kinds of armor should be on a separate list as variant options.



Make a naked person have 8 AC.

Then make a helmet add +2 AC for a base 10 AC.

So it is always useful to have a helmet in combat, and an armorless head is vulnerable.



Remove silly armor types, like ‘studded leather’. In reallife this is ‘brigandine’ armor, and is a specific kind of metal scale armor. Also remove ring armor (this is chain).



I like how D&D 3e makes wearing the torso armor alone, one weight category lighter, so a chain tunic is light armor, and a plate cuirass (breastplate) is medium armor. I hope PF2 does too.

Chain tunic and plate cuirass are iconic, so they deserve being mechanically better by being effective while also being lighter.

 

[Jhaelen]

Yuck! That must be the preview I like the least, so far. I'm slowly getting the impression they're trying to turn Pathfinder into GURPS.
And please, let go of stupid alignment restrictions! Someone's apparently stuck in the seventies.

 

[pemerton]

How is it lawful to punish someone who didn't commit a crime?

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 [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] has in mind.

 

[Aldarc]

I’m a bit disappointed too. Not at any one poster for their opinion on Paladins, but that so many are being myopic about Paizo’s supposed intentions with the class when they clearly told folks up front in the blog post exactly why the classic Paladin was in the play test and it wouldn’t be the only option in the final game.

I’d hoped for better in folks, oh well

But it is still alignment-oriented. That is my core issue, and that will not change with more options; that only exacerbates them.

 

[MoonSong]

okay, first of all you are putting words in my mouth.

That is why I said I was sorry u_u

What makes your super-narrow definition for paladin more legitimate than my more broadly applicable one? What makes you think all those "necessary tropes", which include among them being a stick in the mud, or "the party babysitter", a positive thing?

You are definining the paladin as you think it should be, and make the distinction between a holy warrior and a paladin. Now, I'm not a historian or anything, but I think that's a misleading distinction.

In our reality, Paladins, from what I could tell, are,these big-shot Elite knights that were originally charlamagne's closest people. They were, again, from what I could tell, religious, but at his time, most people, if they were somebody important in Europe, were religious. It doesn't speak much to me. As a foundational point that paladins have to be Lawful Good and serve a Lawful Good deity any more than if we were discussing those codes on a Cleric. What they did have, from what I could tell, was what we are referring to as a code of conduct, which basically said what charlamagne thought were the ideal qualities of his warriors. But who's to say that in a fantasy world there wouldn't be someone else to give different qualities of what a paladin is? I really don't mind if players who want to play the paladin of Valor and Justice have their thing, but, like it or not, paladins in RPGs are supposed to be the actual representatives of "holy warriors" in the core rulebook. that is how I see it, and that's how a lot of people will and see it, too. If you want play a holy warrior, it makes sense to be a paladin, and not have to resort "cleric/fighter/bard" combo or something else crazy just because you don't want to deal with a code of conduct, or just because you don't want to serve a Lawful Good deity and be Lawful Good++. Can you agree that it's a lot of wasted effort to not be that one type of paladin that you envision should be the only one?
On a final note, making the class more accessible to others, and giving them more than one way to play it, is not "remolding the class to what it isn't", it's forming a more inclusive perspective that appeals to a broader audience. Anyone can add almost any impositions on their character if they really wanted to enough, it's messing with those impositions once they are official that is a LOT more work. Because paizo has such a narrowminded view of what a paladin is, it means I can't play the paladin I want. It's also simple probability - the more requirements you impose, the less odds you have of meeting those requirements,the more people are not going to meet those requirements and simply not pay a pally. I agree with you that you should be able to play the paladin the way you want to, as a devout knight of order and light, but not at the cost of everyone else who wants to play it even slightly differently. To say that not every holy warrior can be a paladin is an old fashioned bias, because if it's in the core rules, it sets the standard - it represents the holy warriors, and until something else comes along, that means all of them, not just yours or mine.

Even if you told me that the paladins didn't have to be LG, but must be either Lawful or Good, that would speak volumes and expand what you can do with The class - instead of 1 way of being a paladin, you have 5, and they can all make sense. In Pathfinder1, the options were always doing anything they could get away with. Why do other classes get expanded roles and broader applications (rogue, alchemist) when paladins get stricter? Even if they have a deity to customize them, they dress the anathema on top of 1 size fits all restrictions. I just don't Think that's an intelligent way for paizo to go about it. It's a step Backwards more than anything else.

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.

 

[Pokelefi]

I really don't really understand who the target audience is for Pathfinder 2nd. Originally I was hoping they were just doing their Paizo-ized version of 5th Edition rules -- something which would have been great, especially given the poor WotC product support the line suffers from.

Well I'm not sure I think the are trying to keep there old audience and make them transition this is there reason why they seam to focus a lot on player options the things people always point out when campaign 5e to Pathfinder 1

But more choices often means choice paralysis for new or unexpired players. this would be fine if every choice was equally more or less good to take, but this is never the case if there are many options a new play would pic but would make him much weaker then the rest of the group... (this is a problem I often here or read very time I consider trying out pathfinder this scares me of I don't want to be punished for not full knowing the ins and outs to the point of kill the fun for the other players and me)

Pathfinder 2 is just introducing yet another rule system full of complexities -- albeit different complexities. I'm sure there will be some people who will to move on from their old complex system to a new complex system, but it just feels like Paizo is now splitting its existing customer base (which is slowly dwindling) into 2 different product lines. They certainly will not be pulling in any of the 5th edition fans -- they'll be sticking with the streamlined quick and easy to play system of 5th edition.

Most likely I will stick with 5e even if I like trying out difference systems (one a mother there is an rpg club/meet up in my town were there are one shot from different games are offered) even if I hoped the new edition would be a gate way into the pathfinder but the more I read the more I see the things that scared away me of pathfinder 1e

I'm still holding out hope that some day Paizo will bring 5th edition to Golarion -- but with all their time and energy being focused on Starfinder and Pathfinder 2, I have to say that its not looking too likely. Paizo definitely has proven their skill at understanding who their target market is -- so while I may not understand this direction that Pathfinder 2 is taking, they are the experts and they likely wouldn't be pursuing the new product line if they weren't certain that it would be a success. (Heck, I thought introducing Starfinder with the old 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset was a bad idea, however it seems to be selling perfectly well, so I wish them all the best with PF2.)

The setting? If so that should be possible a setting should not be tied to the rules system ( even the guys from Kobold press mention this in there Guide to world building book) I would appreciate a rule free or rule low source book about the setting and its history with a 5e players guide in the way I like the midgard setting players handbook for 5e (still need to get the hard covers of it and both pdf and hard cover of the world guide dammed oversees shipping fee)

 

[Kobold Boots]

But it is still alignment-oriented. That is my core issue, and that will not change with more options; that only exacerbates them.

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