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]​

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

Paizo continues to hedge all its future bets on its current fanbase loving the complexity of the system above all else, even as the less-hardcore fans are cannibalized by 5e. It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

I play 70% PF, 30% 5e, I really like both systems.
The complexity and possibilities (concerning character building) of PF, the simplicity and kinda-old-school-feel of 5e (and that they completely ditched all 4e garbage...).

While playing I always find that even 5e is complex enough, so I am shocked that so far it seems that PF2 is getting even more complex than PF1. Don't know if that's a good idea.

The nerd and engineer in me likes new game systems, I mostly see the good side and always find improvements over previous versions - but from what I've seen until now I'll probably not have more than a look at PF2.
But let's see...

 

[Kobold Boots]

Paladins get weird when you try to import them into settings where religion is complicated.

Which is why alignment is important. If paladins can only be LG, then you have maybe three gods that can be patrons of them and they all want demons gone and for the most part work in concert. Complication eliminated.

If the players and DM's want paladins to be complicated, then as an expression of their idiosyncracies, they will be. It's not a game problem. Personally, I've always had one monolithic faith in my games for LG that works at times against polytheism and at other times with it. Paladins come from that monolithic faith structure and no other. It's one of the reasons its ascending.

My players tend to be a broad range of religions in real life and it rankles the preferences of some of those who ascribe to pagan thought. Then I hear it from the fundamentalists that they would really rather not have polytheism in the game and I refer them to the pagans. We're all friends so it works out. Point is, religion is complicated generally. Who you have running your game or creating your game will determine whether it affects you; moreso than the rules.

For every player that wants holy warriors of a non LG variety, you're going to have one that doesn't.

Be well
KB

 

[houser2112]

Is that touch ac or regular ac? I have poor quality chainmail, so it's a 5 -2, but i have a +3 for my proficiency. And i used my shield. Thats fine quality. Do i get the bonus for that for touch ac? So its a +3? And i have the heavily armored feat that gives me +1. And i can add my dex bonus, so another +1. And then has that buff worn off? Oh ok. And my level of course, so 5. So my touch ac is 10+5-2+3+1+1+5 so ... ummm 23?

To all you people who decry the bonus-based method of determining derived stats like armor class... do you really calculate such things on the fly every single time? Do you not have separate spaces on your character sheet "This is my touch AC, this is my normal AC, this is my flat-footed AC, etc", so that you only have to do calculations when there are temporary buffs?

 

[Zansy]

I don't know, a paladin that compromises good doesn't sound like a paladin. But you are right, paladins shouldn't have to be shackled by so many burdens, which is why I don't think they should serve deities at all. (I blame the Realms for that one actually)

Like I said, this sounds more like a point in favor of a split than one against it. All it proves is that a single class is too little design space to cover both the LG Paladin and the Divine Champion of any random deity.

I think it fits in rather well in terms of the moral issues some people must face. The kind of people who might justify not doing "the good thing" because they must do "the lawful thing", which to them, is the right thing to do.
They could be the kind to do the lawful thing because they were following orders, and obeying just authority, which to them comes first - loyalty to the law, or to a just lord comes before everything else to them. These LG people can be every bit as much paladin as a paladin who is GL.

Regarding the second quote: I don't think there's no room for both, I just think the way they're (paizo's) going at it isn't inclusive enough to allow players to have some freedom over they're character's priorities. 5e was able to make a tenets system that was independent of ailgnment. And even if wishing for pathfinder 2 to do the same thing is unrealistic, they could learn a thing or two from WotC by minimalizing the enforcement of alignment, increassing the spectrum of potential aligmments for the class, or, if nothing else, minimalizing the impact of making such a mistake, unless the paladin in question repents for their actions.

Just as another closing thought, because I keep thinking of more alternative solutions - why not rid yourself of the absolute dependency of an atonement spell, and say that a GM can allow a paladin to atone for their mistakes by doing a notable Lawful Good act (such as innocent saving lives or something? I dunno). So that even if you bind a paladin to a single alignment, the player has the agency to make mistakes and atone for them as part of the adventure, and would make it so your career as a paladin doesn't end with a single mistake or error in judgment, and you don't have to change characters or seek out an atonement spell.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm saying that there is a literary (and not purely literary) archetype, and that is where the paladin comes from.

A D&D or PF class may or may not be called a paladin, and may or may not correspond to that archetype. That's an issue of game design and, probably more importantly, game marketing. As I said, I don't know what will make a game play well for the majority of the PF2 market. What I am also saying, though, is that a version of the "paladin" that ranks the tenets of the code - thereby, for instance, expressing the worry that honour and goodness might come into conflict - is departing from the archetype.

That departure may be popular or unpopular, and may make for better gameplay or worse gameplay at someone's table. I'm offering an analysis of it, not saying whether or not it's a good thing.

So, "Here's what I think a paladin is". "RPG paladins may vary from this description"."Who cares?"

Putting it in more sociological terms (and using Weber's sociology of law and governmental authority - not everyone likes it, but I do), Aragorn here is drawing on his charismatic authority to shape the understanding and application of traditional law. He doesn't claim to be dispensing with the law - rather, he applies it: he pronounces judgement, remitting the death penalty, imposing exile instead but the exile taking the form of an honourable appointment that recognises the valour that underpins the remittance. The application upholds all that is valuable in the traditional law: valour; loyalty to the king and the stewards; loyalty to the city of Minas Tirith. It is not an act of law-making in any self-conscious sense.

It may not be a self-conscious act of law-making, but it is a self-conscious act of law-breaking. Further, if he is indeed drawing on "charismatic authority," it is a law-breaking which only he can commit and continue to call it "lawful." Still further, from a Yale sociology lecture on Weber and charismatic authority:

https://oyc.yale.edu/sociology/socy-151/lecture-19

Charismatic authority, unlike traditional authority, is a revolutionary and unstable form of authority. Weber borrows the religious term of charisma and extends its use to a secular meaning. Audiences and followers believe that charismatic leaders have a close connection to a divine power, have exceptional skills, or are exemplary in some way. Charismatic leaders promise change in the future for the society and also change people’s attitudes and values; in this way, charismatic authority is revolutionary in a way that traditional and legal-rational authority are not.

I suspect we are getting into semantics here, but it from an alignment perspective, this sounds more like "chaotic".

But a paladin doesn't need to be a lawmaker to see the good in the law and voice it. Of course - which relates directly to the 3 ways I identified to approach a game with a paladin in it - the GM can always push back. So to pick up again on @mellored's example of the orphan who inadvertently enters the forbidden palace courtyard: if the player of the paladin, speaking in character to the decision-maker, suggests as an application of the law that s/he take the orphan into service, thus rendering the orphan not a forbidden person, the GM can have the queen (or whomever is making the decision) refuse and try to insist on execution. But that would be contrary to approach (1) - which, rather, would have the queen agree with the paladin and recognise the wisdom of his/her solution. It would fit with approach (3) only if the player of the paladin fails to succeed in the appropriate resolution framework; in which case, it would be part of the process, perhaps, of discovering that the paladin's ideals are, indeed, futile. Under approach (2) the GM might just decide that the queen says no, and then the player of the paladin has to decide to break the law and disregard a legitimate command in order to save an innocent life. This seems to be what Paizo has in mind in building a hierarchy into the code.

But a paladin's values are already clear. We know what they are: truth, honour, virtue, steadfastness, courtesy, humility, courage, generosity are some of the most obvious ones.

The idea that we have to evaluate which of these the character really adheres to already takes, as a premise, that you can't adhere to them all at once: which is to say already takes as a premise that the paladin is foolish, naive, utopian, etc, in believing as s/he does.

Correct. Is it odd to assume that a character seeking to adhere absolutely to a set of idealized values in a less then ideal world would have to be some combination of foolish, naive, utopian, etc.? Even Camelot was no stranger to scandal.

Edit: I should further clarify that I don't believe that there is anything wrong with being any of these things.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Why "regardless of any ideals or purposes"? The paladin is all about grand ideals and greater purposes. Quoting 5E because the book is at hand: "...their loyalty is first to the cause of righteousness, not to crown and country."

Because people are typically subject to the laws of their surroundings. The paladin doesn't suddenly become exempt from this by virtue of class selection. As a side note, the 5E book you quote from does not presume a particular alignment for Paladins.

Why not? A character who is committed to upholding good laws sure sounds "lawful good" to me. The commitment you are describing -- to all law while remaining neutral on whether it's good or evil -- sounds like it might be something else.

To be clear, I am not saying that all paladins should only honor the laws, whatever they are. I am contending that lawfulness and goodness are not always overlapping attributes.

No, I am saying that in the mind of the paladin, they are synthesized into a single ideal. It does not follow from this that one part or the other is meaningless. You cannot easily reseparate the components of of a mixed drink, but that doesn't mean a screwdriver is the same as a glass of orange juice.

And all screwdrivers are the same right?

But if they did enforce even the bad laws, well, it'd be the "good" portion of their alignment that was vestigial, wouldn't it? As I hinted above, I think the basic problem is that you're conflating "lawful" with "lawful neutral". There is no "neutral" in "lawful good". They are allowed to notice whether or not a law is good. I cite as evidence of this the fact that it makes lawful goodness possible, whereas your definitions seem simply to render it impossible.

So lest I risk misunderstanding, are you agreeing with my understanding of your framework and conclusion? 1, 2, and 3, and always lawful good? If so, I have indeed erred, as both components of the paladin's alignment would be more properly labeled as vestigial since there is no set of actions the paladin could take which would alter or affect their alignment in any way.

 

[D1Tremere]

Philosophy and Alignment

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.

I think they are using a *deontological approach (the same as D&D core previous) because the Paladin (unlike the cleric) is being asked to do things that serve their god/faith without stopping to contemplate the long term moral consequences. The *Teleological contemplation is more the domain of the clergy, with the Paladin serving as their instrument. Thus the Paladin needs some action oriented moral philosophy that allows them to defer to the judgement of others in the end.

*Deontological (philosophy) (of an ethical theory) regarding obligation as deriving from reason or as residing primarily in certain specific rules of conduct rather than in the maximization of some good

*Teleological ethics, (teleological from Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”), theory of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. Also known as consequentialist ethics, it is opposed to deontological ethics (from the Greek deon, “duty”), which holds that the basic standards for an action’s being morally right are independent of the good or evil generated.

 

[mellored]

The law states that anyone who enters's the queen's bath area uninvited will be beheaded.
Some orphan throws his ball over a fence and climbs over the fence to get it, unknowingly entering into the queen's bath area. The paladin on guard catches that kid.

Does the paladin kill the orphan or not?

The paladin sees the loophole and invites the kid to retrieve his ball, then lets him leave. They then go to the queen and say, "Your majesty, something terrible almost happened today. Let's fix this law."

Just to continue the scenario...

The kid turns out to be an assassins in disguised, who poisioned the queens bath water. The queen is now dead because the paladin chose to ignore the law.
The king tells the paladin to hunt down and kill the assassin at all cost.

The paladin then tracks down the assassin, and finds the assassin on a rope bridge over a volcano with a new born baby on his back.
The paladin can cut the brige, sending both the assassin and baby to their doom, or let the assasin escape (the assasin will cut the bridge when he reaches the other side).

He has to act fast before the assassin escapes again. He can kill both, or let the asssassin escape. What does he do?

 

[D1Tremere]

Just to continue the scenario...

The kid turns out to be an assassins in disguised, who poisioned the queens bath water. The queen is now dead because the paladin chose to ignore the law.
The king tells the paladin to hunt down and kill the assassin at all cost.

The paladin then tracks down the assassin, and finds the assassin on a rope bridge over a volcano with a new born baby on his back.
The paladin can cut the brige, sending both the assassin and baby to their doom, or let the assasin escape (the assasin will cut the bridge when he reaches the other side).

He has to act fast before the assassin escapes again. He can kill both, or let the asssassin escape. What does he do?

First I would argue that Paladin's do not follow Kings/queens, they follow Gods and Religions.
If their God/Religion, or a true representative of such (which could be a king/queen) were to tell them that they must fulfill a duty (kill the Assassin AT ALL COST) then they would cut the bridge. This would kill the Assassin, who by their own action is dragging the child hostage to their death.
That is exactly the reason for the moral philosophical difference between clerics and paladins. A paladin doesn't have the luxury of questioning the complexity of moral circumstance, they must act. Their duties, their deontological mandate is what must be followed. They leave the moral complexities to clerics/priests.

 

[mellored]

Virtue, conviction to do good and keep order. A paladin is both optimistic and idealistic, virtuous and uncompromising. Save everybody even if it is impossible. Be a champion of good and justice. Between Rolando and El Cid there's a world of difference. El Cid was pragmatic, and cynical. He would never be what you call a paladin, even if he himself was considered a defender of the faith. Deities are orthogonal to paladins, some paladins will be defenders of faith, but only the faith of the lawful good gods. Evil and chaotic deities will have their own holy champions, but they won't be paladins, because a paladin is always striving for the greater good without compromising the order that makes life bearable. Rescue and save everybody so they can live, not just survive.

A fighter is someone who fights...

You're describing the lawful good alignment, not a class. Rolando would be the lawful good fighter. El Cid would be netural good fighter.

You mention nothing about weapons, armor, shields, mounts, smiting undead, lay on hands, charisma, or anything like that.

So, I could just as easily have a virtuous, optimistic, idealistic, and uncompromising wizard.
And the easiest way to represent that is a feat (IMO).