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]​

 

[Shasarak]

Who do you think posted on this forum that the atomic bombing of Japan was good?

I believe it was you.

I don't want to actually call out contemporary contentious cases, so I'll mention historical ones instead: as far as I'm aware, the US government still defends the atomic bombing of Japan on grounds that it ended the war sooner than it otherwise would have, thereby achieving a net reduction in human suffering.

 

[pemerton]

I believe it was you.

Last time I checked, I was a private citizen in Australia, not the US government! I was pointing out that the view that all killing of civilians in warfare is evil is contentious, and in fact widely denied.

 

[Shasarak]

Last time I checked, I was a private citizen in Australia, not the US government! I was pointing out that the view that all killing of civilians in warfare is evil is contentious, and in fact widely denied.

Of course the US is going to deny it. Last I heard they also denied the My Lai Massacre as well.

 

[Gammadoodler]

By the reasons they put forward, and the outcomes they defend.

A LG paladin who rejects a command (say) to execute an innocent person, on grounds that the giving of the command reveals the one who gave it as unfit to hold office, does not object to holding office in general, to the notion of command, etc. His/her objection is that (eg) the would-be ruler is, in fact, destroying the community whose welfare s/he is expected to foster by giving commands of that sort.

This paladin will, eg, seek out the true holder of the office (which, in a suitably dramatic fantasy adventure scenario, might be someone who was usurped, or overlooked for the throne, etc) and seek to restore that person, thus restoring justice in the realm.

Whereas a CG paladin will not be interested in the integrity of the office, its proper holder, etc - indeed, this person would want scare quotes around "integrity" (of the office), "proper" (holder of the office) and the like because s/he thinks that these social structures, hierarchies etc are burdens on human self-realisation and flourishing, not means to it.

Honestly those core objections by both paladins sound fairly similar to each other (damage is being done to the community and therefore I disobey), and like objections that any paladin could hold. This is likely word parsing, but in both cases the objection seems to relate to a problem with a specific component of a particular system ('this ruler', 'these social hierarchies') which have likely been established as a matter of traditional law which either the CG paladin could reject because they feel like it and it interferes with goodness or the LG paladin could reject because they feel like it interferes with goodness and 'higher law'.

Robin Hood is, I think, a fairly frequently used example of Chaotic Goodness, and his core objection is that Prince John and the Sheriff are unfit by virtue of the damage they do to the community, but he maintains allegiance to King Richard as "rightful king".

Besides all that we're again getting to the conclusion that the character's rationalization of their actions determines their alignment which I, personally, find to be shaky ground on which to base such a system.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Just wow... this is almost like a your dad can beat up my dad discussion.

1. In a world where paladins can fall. They fall because a deity or deity like function or power is no longer in alignment with their actions.
2. Paladins get powers when they're in good standing with a deity or deity like function or power.
3. The Paladins' code is the general set of guidelines that define the social contract of good standing.
4. Therefore it stands to reason that the deity or deity like power is ok with how the social contract works.

There is no debate to be had here within a game framework. The arbiter is down with rule 1 is more important than rule 2.

If you want to complicate things and have a philosophical discussion with no end and potentially hundreds of pages of replies, go to town, but it's a horrible waste of time.

Be well
KB

 

[Gammadoodler]

Not sure if this is intended to be a particular reply. And if it is, the tone of "I say my piece now everyone else shut up" is hardly additive to discussion. It's somewhat ironic to reply to a discussion where you've identified replies to such discussion as a "waste of time". It is nice of you to provide permission for people to use a discussion board to discuss things though. Thanks for that.

Be well

 

[Kobold Boots]

Not sure if this is intended to be a particular reply. And if it is, the tone of "I say my piece now everyone else shut up" is hardly additive to discussion. It's somewhat ironic to reply to a discussion where you've identified replies to such discussion as a "waste of time". It is nice of you to provide permission for people to use a discussion board to discuss things though. Thanks for that.

Be well

If folks can spend hours replying to something wrong that logic clearly solves, I can spend five minutes making them aware of that. I replied to it because these wonderful alerts come to my inbox making me aware of the capability of otherwise really intelligent people to be completely incapable of basic reasoning. If my contribution bothers you, then put me on ignore but I really couldn't care less about your opinion as you're one of the people I'm talking about.

Be well
KB

 

[ddaley]

If folks can spend hours replying to something wrong that logic clearly solves, I can spend five minutes making them aware of that. I replied to it because these wonderful alerts come to my inbox making me aware of the capability of otherwise really intelligent people to be completely incapable of basic reasoning. If my contribution bothers you, then put me on ignore but I really couldn't care less about your opinion as you're one of the people I'm talking about.

Be well
KB

All I can say is this thread makes me glad that I don't play with people who agonize over things like this and cannot spend 5 minutes making the game their own.

I still base my games on the ideals of Greek Mythology, where even the gods were fallible and made mistakes.

Funny thing is, as a DM I rarely need to bring up alignment conflicts. My players call each other out "Wait... aren't you lawful? You wouldn't be doing... blah blah blah"

 

[Gammadoodler]

If folks can spend hours replying to something wrong that logic clearly solves, I can spend five minutes making them aware of that. I replied to it because these wonderful alerts come to my inbox making me aware of the capability of otherwise really intelligent people to be completely incapable of basic reasoning. If my contribution bothers you, then put me on ignore but I really couldn't care less about your opinion as you're one of the people I'm talking about.

Be well
KB

No issue at all with the "contribution" part of your piece. It's the other part, where you get offended by people talking about things while at the same time engaging in the offensive activity that seems pretty silly. But hey, if you want to continue to post about how people should stop posting, go to town, but it's a horrible waste of time.

 

[Kobold Boots]

No issue at all with the "contribution" part of your piece. It's the other part, where you get offended by people talking about things while at the same time engaging in the offensive activity that seems pretty silly. But hey, if you want to continue to post about how people should stop posting, go to town, but it's a horrible waste of time.

Correcting your point because I'm not allowing anyone to decide when I am or aren't offended by something. I'd have to care about the people having the conversation to be offended and I don't know any of you. ~ remember, let’s not get personal