• bionicjoey
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Thanks for providing a direct link to the Paizo post; I’m not a big fan of RL.

    The new champion seems cool. Finally they won’t be locked in by alignment on top of the actual oath that they follow. Seems a bit more similar to a 5e Paladin now. But Paizo is still stuck on forcing certain kinds of character to be “holy” and “unholy”, which is still very limiting. I wish they would open their minds a bit more.

    • Kichae
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean, they are religious defenders. Knights Templar and all that. That’s the core concept and fantasy they’re aiming for.

      Guardian Sorcerer or Guardian Oracle or something probably fits other concepts better.

      • bionicjoey
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        They don’t need to be that though. Honestly for all of 5e’s flaws, I think one thing it does far better is that there is a clear distinction between Clerics and Paladins. Clerics get their power from religion, Paladins get their power from swearing an oath. Religion doesn’t need to be a part of it at all.

        Like, if you told me there was a class called “champion” in Pathfinder and I knew nothing else about that class, I would assume it’s the champion of a cause, not of a religion.

    • Droechai@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      According to the post the holy or unholy sanctification is optional or do I misread it?

      • bionicjoey
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The post says that certain subclasses force one or the other.