Pathfinder Pally-rogue: What do?

[Byakko Yasutsuki]

I kinda wanna make a pally-rogue. 5th level. What do you guys think? How should I go about this, or at the least how should I not go about it?

P.S. feel free to min-max the fething hells out of it, but keep the munchkin on the low end.

[ThePhantomSquee]

Well, since a paladin's smite is a duration effect in PF instead of a single attack, I'm inclined to think that two-weapon fighting could be a great way to get massive damage output, if you're willing to invest the feats in it. A lot of the guides I've seen recommend going for high-critical builds, which also meshes fairly well with the rogue.

[Tralk]

Rogue mixed with Paladin sort of defeats the purpose of being a Paladin. I haven't read the entire Paladin class from Pathfinder, but since it is based heavily upon 3.5, I imagine there is still the no multiclassing caviot as well as the "Must be of Lawful Good alignment" clause.

[Arilean Saphire]

Sneaky sneaky smiting! I like it! razz
Im not terribly good at builds but i'd echo Phantom Squee up there and say high crit ranges sound like a good idea.
I would say if you are interested in the RPing aspect at all, which god you are a paladin OF will be pretty important and be reflected in your stat choices.

[Space Uppercut]

Wouldn't you lose your Paladin abilities anytime you used sneak attack? Paladin's code of fighting fair and face to face? Or has the game become all about stats and abilities now with no role-playing? (I've got the Pathfinder book, but it's in storage)

[ThePhantomSquee]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, is it time to have a discussion about paladins and alignment again? Maybe it will turn out differently the 24601st time!

Seriously guys, it specifically says rogues can be any alignment, and nowhere does it forbid a paladin from taking advantage of surprise or flanking positions. The only rogue-like thing paladins are forbidden from doing is using poison. These limitations do not in any way, shape, or form hinder role-playing.

[Space Uppercut]

ThePhantomSquee

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, is it time to have a discussion about paladins and alignment again? Maybe it will turn out differently the 24601st time!

Seriously guys, it specifically says rogues can be any alignment, and nowhere does it forbid a paladin from taking advantage of surprise or flanking positions. The only rogue-like thing paladins are forbidden from doing is using poison. These limitations do not in any way, shape, or form hinder role-playing.

Pathfinder may differ from what I read in D&D and it's not an I'm not making an argument about alignment (EDIT: Realized someone else did, but I am quick to say I'm not), since Rogues or Thieves can be any alignment. I like to think any person that uses the shadows instead of the grunt / head on form could be considered a rogue/thief. I have no problem with this combination other than this wording:

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Now, if I were a DM, I'd consider Sneak Attacking, hiding, and anything other than a stand-up fair fight to be a form of cheating. I always envisioned Paladins will to fight as a test of their faith and their abilities and if they lose, it'd be a scathe against their belief. Basically saying they were devout enough... blah blah blah. I'm pretty sure the idea that Paladins must do combat in stand-up fights is an early edition of D&D which I know more about. The wording in the Pathfinder book is vague enough for people to get away with it since it doesn't explicitly say so, so that's the DM's prerogative to let that slide.

And to play devil's advocate, a Paladin of War could merely claim he is adhering to superior tactics or the like. I'm just saying it's fishy and the Code of Conduct for Paladins has gotten so lax in the past years that they might as well just be Cavaliers.

[ThePhantomSquee]

Space Uppercut

ThePhantomSquee

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, is it time to have a discussion about paladins and alignment again? Maybe it will turn out differently the 24601st time!

Seriously guys, it specifically says rogues can be any alignment, and nowhere does it forbid a paladin from taking advantage of surprise or flanking positions. The only rogue-like thing paladins are forbidden from doing is using poison. These limitations do not in any way, shape, or form hinder role-playing.

Pathfinder may differ from what I read in D&D and it's not an I'm not making an argument about alignment (EDIT: Realized someone else did, but I am quick to say I'm not), since Rogues or Thieves can be any alignment. I like to think any person that uses the shadows instead of the grunt / head on form could be considered a rogue/thief. I have no problem with this combination other than this wording:

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Now, if I were a DM, I'd consider Sneak Attacking, hiding, and anything other than a stand-up fair fight to be a form of cheating. I always envisioned Paladins will to fight as a test of their faith and their abilities and if they lose, it'd be a scathe against their belief. Basically saying they were devout enough... blah blah blah. I'm pretty sure the idea that Paladins must do combat in stand-up fights is an early edition of D&D which I know more about. The wording in the Pathfinder book is vague enough for people to get away with it since it doesn't explicitly say so, so that's the DM's prerogative to let that slide.

And to play devil's advocate, a Paladin of War could merely claim he is adhering to superior tactics or the like. I'm just saying it's fishy and the Code of Conduct for Paladins has gotten so lax in the past years that they might as well just be Cavaliers.

I suppose I did overreact a little bit there. My apologies. I've seen paladins take so much flak due to various different interpretations of the code of conduct, alignment, and so forth, that it gets rather tiresome, and I kind of snapped.

Anyway, I think your interpretation is perfectly valid. It hovers too close to older D&D style for my preference--not to belittle AD&D or the like, but it's an unavoidable fact that the style and mood of the game has changed over the years and, well, it's very difficult to play a paladin in 3.5/PF the old way without being straitjacketed into Lawful Stupid.

There's also the issue of what, exactly, constitutes a "dishonorable" act. A strict interpretation of that could argue that using magic against an enemy fighter is dishonorable, because you're doing something they're incapable of; or that feinting or making attacks of opportunity are cheating. It's a bit like the "paladins can't lie" fallacy--if the BBEG asks your paladin, plainly and honestly, what your plan to defeat him is, does the paladin fall for lying to him?

In a similar vein would be how you interpret what, exactly, a sneak attack is. If you're interpreting it as dirty fighting moves like throwing sand into your enemy's eyes or the like, I can see why you wouldn't want a paladin doing that. On the other hand, if you see sneak attacks as striking at vital areas, I don't see what the problem is. Ruling that a paladin can only aim for an opponent's arteries if he's not getting a bonus for it seems rather silly to me.

[Byakko Yasutsuki]

Space Uppercut

Pathfinder may differ from what I read in D&D and it's not an I'm not making an argument about alignment (EDIT: Realized someone else did, but I am quick to say I'm not), since Rogues or Thieves can be any alignment. I like to think any person that uses the shadows instead of the grunt / head on form could be considered a rogue/thief. I have no problem with this combination other than this wording:

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Now, if I were a DM, I'd consider Sneak Attacking, hiding, and anything other than a stand-up fair fight to be a form of cheating. I always envisioned Paladins will to fight as a test of their faith and their abilities and if they lose, it'd be a scathe against their belief. Basically saying they were devout enough... blah blah blah. I'm pretty sure the idea that Paladins must do combat in stand-up fights is an early edition of D&D which I know more about. The wording in the Pathfinder book is vague enough for people to get away with it since it doesn't explicitly say so, so that's the DM's prerogative to let that slide.

And to play devil's advocate, a Paladin of War could merely claim he is adhering to superior tactics or the like. I'm just saying it's fishy and the Code of Conduct for Paladins has gotten so lax in the past years that they might as well just be Cavaliers.

I always figured what tactics a paladin might use depended entirely on the deity. Sure a Pally of Iomede might shy away from the stealthier methods but are you telling me a paladin of Asmodeus wouldn't use tactically advantageous backstabbing with a poison dagger?

[Space Uppercut]

ThePhantomSquee

... well, it's very difficult to play a paladin in 3.5/PF the old way without being straitjacketed into Lawful Stupid.

Paladins, when they first came out, could be "lawful stupid" in a sense since they were one of the most powerful classes in the game. They were a fighter with special abilities. So, when balance in games weren't an issue, Paladins were restrained as to why they had all that power. And I do agree that "Lawful Stupid" is just about the worst thing to ever happen in D&D. Anything where alignment dictates role-playing is a failure...

I give Paladins leeway on a lot of choices. Humans aren't perfect avatars of goodness or law. They struggle and fight and as long as that struggle is present, I don't take away powers, but do remind him that his god isn't pleased with him. Makes for some good stressful storylines.

ThePhantomSquee

There's also the issue of what, exactly, constitutes a "dishonorable" act. A strict interpretation of that could argue that using magic against an enemy fighter is dishonorable, because you're doing something they're incapable of; or that feinting or making attacks of opportunity are cheating. It's a bit like the "paladins can't lie" fallacy--if the BBEG asks your paladin, plainly and honestly, what your plan to defeat him is, does the paladin fall for lying to him?

In a similar vein would be how you interpret what, exactly, a sneak attack is. If you're interpreting it as dirty fighting moves like throwing sand into your enemy's eyes or the like, I can see why you wouldn't want a paladin doing that. On the other hand, if you see sneak attacks as striking at vital areas, I don't see what the problem is. Ruling that a paladin can only aim for an opponent's arteries if he's not getting a bonus for it seems rather silly to me.

It's not the act of attacking a vulnerable area, but the act of not attacking fairly in a straight fight. If a Paladin merely gets a sneak attack due to flanking, I'd let it slide, but a sneak attack through stealth... ehhhhhhh. But I'm prone to agree on many points.

Byakko Yasutsuki

I always figured what tactics a paladin might use depended entirely on the deity. Sure a Pally of Iomede might shy away from the stealthier methods but are you telling me a paladin of Asmodeus wouldn't use tactically advantageous backstabbing with a poison dagger?

I'm telling you that a Paladin of Asmodeus is a Blackguard, not a Paladin. xD And Blackguards or Anti-Paladins, even when first printed in Dragon, always had Sneak Attack and poisons. I guess the term Paladins have gotten broader and encompasses any "Holy" warrior.

Anyway, this isn't my game and I have no right to say: YOU'RE HAVING FUN WRONG!!!1! Have fun. I just wanted to bring my opinion in. Also, I hope you get some good role-playing in as this character. A Pally-rogue sounds off to me, but a redeemed rogue who turned pally and is trying to forsake his old ways. That's sounds interesting, but I understand you were looking at the game from a much more crunch perspective rather than the fluff. I personally prefer fluff.

[ThePhantomSquee]

Regarding the paladin of Asmodeus thing, they did actually broaden it in 4e so that paladins were just holy warriors of any deity. In Pathfinder, though, you're right, a paladin still has to be Lawful Good, so a paladin of Asmodeus would be an anti-paladin instead.

I don't think the problem is fluff vs. crunch. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive in this case. Ultimately, I think it just comes down to personal interpretation of the paladin's code.

[Space Uppercut]

ThePhantomSquee

I don't think the problem is fluff vs. crunch. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive in this case. Ultimately, I think it just comes down to personal interpretation of the paladin's code.

You're absolutely right on them not being mutually exclusive. I was merely pointing out this little tidbit:

Byakko Yasutsuki

P.S. feel free to min-max the fething hells out of it, but keep the munchkin on the low end.

And people talking on the Sneaking and Smiting rather than the character as a person. Call me old fashioned, but I look at every character sheet as a person. I'd like to see a logical story as to why THIS Paladin has rogue levels and would love to hear them. This isn't said in a sarcastic way at all, as there is no subtext over the internet, so I want that cleared away now. This could make for a very compelling, interesting character that would be a lot of fun to play. I mean, take the storytelling out of D&D and can get the same results by rolling a dice and seeing if you win or lose. Roll a d20, if it's 11 and above, you win. razz

Bah. I think that whole Paladin representing any deity to be total crap and I'll leave it at that.

[twilightwyrm]

Space Uppercut

Wouldn't you lose your Paladin abilities anytime you used sneak attack? Paladin's code of fighting fair and face to face? Or has the game become all about stats and abilities now with no role-playing? (I've got the Pathfinder book, but it's in storage)

That's the Knight you're thinking of. The Paladin never actually had said code of conduct to my knowledge, and hell there was even a feat in 3.5 that allowed you to cross Paladin and Rogue, using smite with a sneak attack.

[Space Uppercut]

twilightwyrm

That's the Knight you're thinking of. The Paladin never actually had said code of conduct to my knowledge, and hell there was even a feat in 3.5 that allowed you to cross Paladin and Rogue, using smite with a sneak attack.

I'm used to 1e and 2e, but Paladin always had the code of conduct. That Sneak Attack feat you're thinking of couldn't have been in the original set of rules for 3.5e as Paladin's had a code of conduct in it.

Copy + Paste from 3.5 book:

Quote:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate
authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison,
and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help
for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents.

But, I digress... It's not my call, it's his DM's.

[twilightwyrm]

Space Uppercut

twilightwyrm

That's the Knight you're thinking of. The Paladin never actually had said code of conduct to my knowledge, and hell there was even a feat in 3.5 that allowed you to cross Paladin and Rogue, using smite with a sneak attack.

I'm used to 1e and 2e, but Paladin always had the code of conduct. That Sneak Attack feat you're thinking of couldn't have been in the original set of rules for 3.5e as Paladin's had a code of conduct in it.

Copy + Paste from 3.5 book:

Quote:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate
authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison,
and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help
for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents.

But, I digress... It's not my call, it's his DM's.

I see nowhere in there any mention of a Paladin not being able to sneak attack, take advantage of advantageous circumstances, etc, unless you consider doing so an evil act (not entirely sure why in that case, unless you consider stabbing someone in a vital organ evil, but hacking at other parts of their body perfectly find). Yes, rogues can lie, can disrespect authority, can use poison or cheat, but so can a fighter, and a wizard, and a monk, and pretty much everyone else. The point is the rogue doesn't have to do any of those thing, even if they might theoretically be traditionally associated with the class. So unless I am misreading that code, I fail to see your point.