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

pemerton · May 8, 2018

zztong said:
The best part about Paladin codes, anathema, and alignment restrictions is that they can be easily ignored or house-ruled without messing up anything else.

Agreed. But as someone who enjoys both playing and GMing characters with religious convictions, I look at the system's treatment as these matters as a sign of what it envisages for the play of these PC types.

ddaley · May 8, 2018

I guess I am just old school at heart... I like that Paladins are tied to being LG. That seems to mesh well with the intent of the class.

As for the complexity, I think there is still a place for a more in depth rules system. I haven't been following the PF2 news that closely, so am not sure just how complex it is going to be. I have to admit, that reading about the paladin, some of it sounded Greek to me. "Panels to Str/Dex/Con?" No clue. "Image dice?" No clue.

Mouseferatu · May 8, 2018

ddaley said:
"Panels to Str/Dex/Con?" No clue. "Image dice?" No clue.

I could be wrong, but I'm about 90% sure that "panels" is just a typo for "penalties."

Zansy · May 8, 2018

ddaley said:
I guess I am just old school at heart... I like that Paladins are tied to being LG. That seems to mesh well with the intent of the class.

As for the complexity, I think there is still a place for a more in depth rules system. I haven't been following the PF2 news that closely, so am not sure just how complex it is going to be. I have to admit, that reading about the paladin, some of it sounded Greek to me. "Panels to Str/Dex/Con?" No clue. "Image dice?" No clue.

On paper, If there was any room for interpretation for what LG is, and what their code of conduct should be. I might be able to tolerate it. if they gave out the code of conduct and stuck to just the anathemas and the other rules deities have (their name eludes me at the moment. I apologize--) that would have been fine, it's weird to me that paladins have to follow more rules than, say, clerics of the same faith, but lose everything they have going if they break any of them. even if you put aside all those extra, universal rules - even if Clerics could theoretically "convert" in PF1 and 3.5e by changing deities, paladins don't have that privilege except to be the exact opposite of what he was, and most players don't even get that.

once again -
1 flavor of paladin ice cream. with several other shapes of sprinkles. Shapes - not even flavors.

ddaley · May 8, 2018

Zansy said:
On paper, If there was any room for interpretation for what LG is, and what their code of conduct should be. I might be able to tolerate it. if they gave out the code of conduct and stuck to just the anathemas and the other rules deities have (their name eludes me at the moment. I apologize--) that would have been fine, it's weird to me that paladins have to follow more rules than, say, clerics of the same faith, but lose everything they have going if they break any of them. even if you put aside all those extra, universal rules - even if Clerics could theoretically "convert" in PF1 and 3.5e by changing deities, paladins don't have that privilege except to be the exact opposite of what he was, and most players don't even get that.

once again -
1 flavor of paladin ice cream. with several other shapes of sprinkles. Shapes - not even flavors.

Paladins have never been for everyone. You have to want to play a paladin. I personally have never played one. I have been in a party where someone did a great job at playing a paladin. If you don't like what is expected of a paladin, then choose another class. No one says that you have to play a paladin. There is nothing special about clerics. Anyone can play one. Paladin is a more niche class.

Morrus · May 8, 2018

Mouseferatu said:
I could be wrong, but I'm about 90% sure that "panels" is just a typo for "penalties."

Damn you, autocorrect!

Zansy · May 8, 2018

ddaley said:
Paladins have never been for everyone. You have to want to play a paladin. I personally have never played one. I have been in a party where someone did a great job at playing a paladin. If you don't like what is expected of a paladin, then choose another class. No one says that you have to play a paladin. There is nothing special about clerics. Anyone can play one. Paladin is a more niche class.

The problem is not that people don't want to play paladins just because they're a niche market. paladins aren't as big a niche as you make them. If paladins were such a niche, as opposed to something iconic that a lot of people want to play, then why haven't hey just stuck with a "knight" or a "cavalier" for the core book and put the paladin in a supplement?

The real problem, my friend, that paizo isn't thinking about (or at least, are putting on the backburner) is what else a paladin could be - and it should be their every interest for paizo to make the class more accessible and attract a wider audience for it. WotC, in 5e, shows that's possible, they let the paladin pick his own code of conduct from a selection. Even if the selections are limited, and don't cover EVERY possible demographic, they still allow people to think that paladins aren't bound to the stigmas that haunt them.

there's no shortage of people who want to play a paladin. I want to play a paladin too. I just want the rules to allow me to make the paladin my own.

MechaTarrasque · May 8, 2018

I was kind of hoping the paladin (or a more generic class name like champion) would be more "channel outsider" (of the Outer Planes variety), and if you channeled angels or archons (or any good outsider, since they tend to be one big happy family in PF*), you were a paladin; devils, a hellknight, demons a blackguard, etc.

And obviously, the better you synched to the outsider, the easier the channel would be, so paladins would have a strong incentive to be good.

* and letting the paladin channel any of the gooders would make it the best champion, which makes all right with the world.

Parmandur · May 8, 2018

pemerton said:
Agreed. But as someone who enjoys both playing and GMing characters with religious convictions, I look at the system's treatment as these matters as a sign of what it envisages for the play of these PC types.

The Paladin Code is a rather bizarre mutant form of Consequentialism, whose primary goal is even stated to be avoiding complex ethical conundruma. Seems very un-Paladin.

At this point it isn't very surprising, but good gravy does each PF2 Class have a huge number of moving parts.