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]​

 

[Yaarel]

What do you think of the studious monk who wanders the earth seeking to perfect her own discipline, not interfering in the affairs of princes?

Or the anarchist firebrand who seeks to build a society where all are free and equal?

And if a "neutral" character is more open-minded and flexible in his tactics than a "chaotic" character, which one is really the more chaotic?

An Asian-esque monk is almost by definition ‘True’, seeking the Dao between Law (Yang) and Chaos (Yin).

The main question is actions to bring wellbeing to others. If yes, then Good.

If uncaring, then Neutral. If predatory or spiteful, then Evil.

A Buddha-like monk prioritizes compassion and interconnectedness, so Good.

 

[Yaarel]

In nearly every alignment thread I've ever posted in on these boards, I've made the point that the D&D alignment rules leave the sorts of things you ask about an open question. ... I don't think these sorts of questions can be answered by scouring the rulebooks for interpretive clues.

Exactly why, D&D *mechanics* cannot handle alignment narrative.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

An Asian-esque monk is almost by definition ‘True’, seeking the Dao between Law (Yang) and Chaos (Yin).

Does the fact that Pathfinder monks are by definition lawful at all suggest that you might be using a definition of "lawful" which does not quite match the game's?

 

[Yaarel]

Does the fact that Pathfinder monks are by definition lawful at all suggest that you might be using a definition of "lawful" which does not quite match the game's?

There are some martial arts temples that are more like elite military units, that are arguably Lawful for the same reasons that militaries are extremely concerned about obedience, chain of command, and uniformity.

But the question I was answering specified a ‘wandering monk’ who eschews such collectivism of politics and military, and instead is ‘seeking to perfect’ ones personal best. In other words, less Lawful. (More Yin-balanced, seeking harmony.)

Daoism values the dynamic balance between collectivist Yang and individualist Yin.

 

[pemerton]

Daoism values the dynamic balance between collectivist Yang and individualist Yin.

I'm not going to address real world philosophical and cultural frameworks, but I do want to use this post to make a point about the way alignment works in the game.

If someone said "X alignment values the dynamic balance between murdering every stranger you meet, and only murdering those who cut you off on the freeway", that would seem a bit weird. Because there is no such dynamic balance.

Likewise, from the perspective of LG, there is no dynamic balance between social order and individualism: rather, there is the effective way to pursue wellbeing, truth, beauty etc - namely, social organisation - and then there is individualism which, however well-intentioned, will (the LG person asserts) fall short.

In describing the various good alignments, I think it is helpful to focus on what each asserts/believes, but not to frame descriptions in a way that already assumes that one of those assertions is true and the others false.

Exactly why, D&D *mechanics* cannot handle alignment narrative.

Well, I think that as long as you frame your alignment descriptions in a way that doesn't assume, from the outset, that LG and CG make false claims; and as long as you focus your narrative on the disagreement between LG and CG; then it can handle them.

If you want the focus to be on what is really good - eg if rights, wellbeing, truth and/or beauty com into conflict, which one should be traded off and how? - then the alignment system gives no advice at all.

I had a thread about this a few years ago now.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But the question I was answering specified a ‘wandering monk’ who eschews such collectivism of politics and military, and instead is ‘seeking to perfect’ ones personal best. In other words, less Lawful. (More Yin-balanced, seeking harmony.)

Except that by the definitions Pathfinder is using, those monks are lawful. So whatever you think "lawful" means, it's different than what the game says "lawful" means.

Daoism values the dynamic balance between collectivist Yang and individualist Yin.

The real-life monks who inspire the class are Buddhist.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, if a campaign is set up on that premise then who would play a (traditional) paladin in it?

Well simply someone who believes that LG is the best type of Good.

In my posts I'm assuming that the truth of the various alignment claims is up for grabs, and that the campaign doesn't start from the premise that the paladin is a fool. (As I also posted, I'm leaving the question - what does "up for grabs" actually mean in the context of play? - unaddressed.)

I dont know if that would be better or worse then starting from the premise that Neutral characters are just some kind of Alignment-lite characters. What does it matter to a Paladin if everyone else thinks they are a fool when they know they are right?

 

[Yaarel]

In describing the various good alignments, I think it is helpful to focus on what each asserts/believes, but not to frame descriptions in a way that already assumes that one of those assertions is true and the others false.

Oh. You mean the nomenclature of ‘True Good’. This is just an extension of the D&D-ism ‘True Neutral’, instead of saying ‘Neutral Neutral’, that is in between Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. True refers to the first kind of Neutral. Under the influence of this D&D-ism, True Good is construed as being in between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good.

Remember Chaotic Good believes Lawful Good falls short of the measure of Good. Chaotic Good makes excellent points in its case against Lawful Good. Law can do great harm, and conformity can be deeply evil − and for the Lawful Good character these excesses of Law are an ongoing temptation.

 

[Shasarak]

Example: Good characters respect life and protect innocent life. A wizard and a paladin are both forced to choose between saving one person or five. The wizard can choose either and argue the choice's merits. They are not wrong or right, so long as they have a reasonable defense. They also lose nothing from their moral stance. The Paladin may choose to save five instead of one, but lose their Paladinhood because their god sees the five as less worthy than the one. Because of this, the Paladin must do the best they can to follow the tenants of their faith, instead of contemplating the morality. Deontology. We are not capable of knowing right and wrong, so we must rely on a set of rules strictly. Hence the need for Lawful Good Paladins.

I just have tp clarify, in your example are you saying that saving either one life or five lives is an evil act which would cause a Paladin to fall?

Or are you saying that deliberately pushing an innocent in front of trolley be an evil act even though you intended to save five people?

Because I remember a scene in a Spiderman movie where Spiderman literally throws himself in front of a train to save everyone on it rather then trying to throw anyone else in the way. Could we ask our Paladins to do any less?

 

[Shasarak]

I think it depends on "best"--the argument at the heart of LG is that it is the best over the long term, as opposed to the "random acts of kindness" of NG and the "I will tear down the evil in front of me and deal with the consequences later" of CG (now that I write that down, a tendency to "deal with the consequences later" seems like a good operational definition of a chaotic individual). I would say LG's goal is to set up organizations (or to perfect/fix existing organizations) to "do good." NG and CG types might (rightly) point out that even bureaucracies meant to "do good" tend to... dehumanize is probably a little strong, but reduce the agency of the recipients of that good, and it is not that long of a step from reducing the agency to dehumanizing. It is just the nature of efficiency.

It is probably more efficient to organise the funding, building and staffing of an orphanage to help a large number of orphans but is it more good then finding a loving family that would raise an orphan as their own child?