A tyrant can work well with an evil party with a betrayer lieutenant. If the number two guy is constantly trying to betray and undermine the tyrant while the tyrant is too arrogant to notice you can have a fun dynamic especially if all the players are in on it. Think Megatron and Starscream.
Alternatively if everyone in the party is the same level the Paladin doesn't need to bend the knee or force the party to do so. They're equals. There's nothing about Tyrants needing submission from those they deem equal.
Evil characters in campaigns I've played in are generally only evil to people outside the party. The party is the group they allow more flexibility because they care about them or need people to have their back.
@@andrewwahba5006 Definitely. I just think it's important to remember that even selfish people care about some select group of others usually. People don't exist in a vacuum.
I think the persistent good damage would be good when fighting fiends since it would also add their weakness to good. The same would also apply to persistent evil damage and celestials.
It's true for sure. If you know for a fact that you'll be fighting demons or undead, a champion can do CRAZY damage. My main problem is that a class's primary feature shouldn't be entirely based around countering one specific type of enemy. Compare that to a Ranger's Hunter's Edge which works on anything, no matter what creature type it is.
Nice vídeo!!! 3 things by RAW the devotion to the deity is more important than the cause so they can ignore the cause alingment if they following their deity's alignment... The tenets are redacted in order of importance, so if 2 of those are in conflict the one is first rule over the second... And the great about the champions of good reactions is that they give resistant against all damage that do stack in opposition to the rest of resistant, that mean if the attacker use a flaming sword they discount the resistant 2 times 1 against the sword damage and 1 more against the fire damage..
@@marcincaputa1710 its not too bad, you still get bonus damage on strikes against that target until the end of your next turn. Also if you chose Dhampir you can still use your touch of corruption focus spell to heal yourself
@@mattsullivan2458 I don't think that would work. Dhampirs are not Undead, they just have the negative healing ability. Touch of Corruption, to heal, says it has to target a willing Undead
For Destructive Vengeance on the Antipaladin, how's this for an improvement: (You roll Xd6 once for both) You can choose to deal half damage to yourself and full damage to the triggering enemy, or full damage to yourself and double damage to the triggering enemy. Maybe as a feat: You can choose to deal double damage to yourself to deal four times the rolled damage to your enemy. Your resistances and immunities apply to this damage. Community improvements for the win?
@@icholi88 I don't know if in the time you realize, but it's just you take X damage, it's untyped, as you can choose to cause to enemy to take negative or evil damage, and you just take damage
14:58 You misread the feature the +2 to damage rolls only applies if you are the undead So like a Skeleton Champion of evil allignment could cast Touch of Corruption on themselves as one action, then make one to two strike actions or any other abilities that let them attack to do extra damage and get a +2 to damage rolls if they hit.
My pitch: Champion Cause of Evolution: Vanguard (Chaotic Neutral). • You must act to invoke change into the world, through defiance of archaic and oppressive order, by innovating society, or by promoting growth within others around you. • You must never stay stagnant yourself for beyond a year's time. The devotion spell you get perhaps grants a special boon to a person or object form for a minute (such as flying, reinforced, or increased speed). Your special reaction lets someone else around you take a moment to shine. This acts like a super-powered helping hand to give them a bonus of +2, and either +3 or your Charisma modifier on a crit instead. On a fail you still give +1. Meanwhile, true neutral can emphasize balance, all about neutralizing the advantages of foes and hindrances of allies. Lastly, the lawful neutral can be the Gaol-Master or Sentinel. They protect tradition and order as a force to obstruct and retain others. Maybe a gimmick reaction of inflicting pain or item durability damage to enemies that act against your order.
I think I can make the Tyrant work in a way that he believes the party is over the same level as him so he doesn't follow War kill them but has more respect. He might not agree oh with the lawful good fighter who lets enemy go. He'll still probably rationalize it as maybe the fighter shows his strength in conquering by releasing people to show his power
1) The antipaladin's class name goes back to 1st edition AD&D (an early Dragon magazine, more specifically), so it's got a lot of history, even if it's bland. 2) I suspect the reason Destructive Vengeance was made so unappealing was to deter "munchkin" players that might be attracted to the antipaladin ("I can do whatever I want, AND I get a sweet extra die or three of damage every fight? Sign me up!"). 3) Why do you mention the 'upcoming' Gods & Magic at the end of the video? That book came out 8 months ago.
I feel with the evil champions, much like evil PCs in general just have a session 0 conversation about it. Maybe everyone is cool with being evil. For the one champion that needs to dominate those who are weaker, there might be some players okay with that or maybe the role is the evil champion views the party as equals and therefore no one is dominating others. I think with some communication any of these champions are playable
I am currently playing a tyrant champion. im not perfectly following the tenets because my DM agrees with you on how restrictive they are. but im playing him as someone that was once king, and is attempting to rebuild his kingdom.
Lawful Neutral probably something like the Judge Who has to follow laws not because the laws are good, but because it's a law. Punishing anyone who breaks them and judging his enemies. True Neutral would be cause of Balance. Having abilities to make sure neither evil nor good can achieve ultimate triumph and making sure there's always the opposition. Chaotic Neutral would be something like Change. Not allowing stagnation and making sure the world is moving. Making sure that no one person can be frozen in time and that things shift
I won't argue that the Anti-paladin reaction is probably the worst one in terms of mechanics, but I will say it's one hell of a roleplay action and can make players think twice before hitting one if they're a few levels lower or generally just a bit squishy. As a player, you can invoke the same fear if the GM throws some lower level enemies at you and watch as they're friend who just stabbed you dies immediately after. And of course, I know it's part of the class, but while it isn't always great, that's why you can get other reactions to use instead if the time calls for it. It would be dumb to use it every single time if you're already taking too much damage. Love the video as always!
You don't get to pick the damage type of the damage done to you, only to the triggering enemy. Also, negative damage doesn't heal undead/dhampirs unless the source specifically says so (like the harm spell or touch of corruption).
I think the evil champions could work well if the party is evil. It works best if the party is already high level though. For the Tyrant you could just say that since they are all equally powerful, it doesn't apply (a loop-hole for the sake of making the class actually playable). The evil champions are not meant to be subtle evil, they are the embodiment of evilness. I'm not sure how an Antipaladin would actually function, though. I can see it being really self-destructing... which is reflected in its abilities.
Good video, nice job ^^ I have one gripe, though. Specifically with the tyrant cause. Yes, they wouldn't be easy to fit into a party, making them uncommon was therefore a good decision. However, I think the tenets are a lot more malleable and open to interpretation that you suggested. Particularly the first one, as the requirement is for them to be "lesser than you". Party members are usually seen as equals, especially when you build an evil character that is supposed to work in a group for more than a couple of sessions. So you don't have to lord over them by default. The second tenet (you have to enforce established hierarchies and always fill a power vacuum) can be a bit more of a problem, but that is highly depending on the campaign. Works in some, but not in others. Overall, I'd say it is challenging, but not nearly impossible ^^
In my group it has worked well. ^^ He gives them a chance every time but it is rare that there is someone where he goes all out in fighting for their redemption
I'm going to play a reluctant Redeemer. The redemption will be a tick box he does so he keeps to his oath, but he's half hoping they don't want to be redeemed
Honestly, tyrant isn't really that bad depending on how literally you take the tenants of it. If say, a kobold was a tyrant, perhaps they only fine three minions (or hireling) to be what they can personally find practical, and bind other, "weaker" creatures into serving them temporarily, such as forcing an elven ranger to show them how to traverse the woods before just, letting them go and wallow in their own "inferiority"
I might be incorrect but because a paladin's exalt doesn't require the allies to have the Attack of Opportunity feat meaning if a rogue was flanking they could make the strike as a reaction applying their sneak attack damage on a hit
Anti-paladin at lower levels should use their reaction at the right time, like "1v1 me bro", then activate its reaction in the right momments to obliterate the enemy (either at the beggining of combat or to deal your final blows). Should not be a spammable ability. Like "who's the strongest among you, my enemies, for i can prove i am the strongest". Roleplay wise, it's a good move to play as a chaotic character that fights the law: lawful character will accept the challenge, but the anti-paladin can play a dirty move (his reaction) to defeat the lawful enemy and then spread his message of chaos.
Tyrant actually sounds like a blast. A tyrant hobgoblin with 3-4 goblin/kobold minions sounds like a GREAT time, if all the players are on board and the gm can actually pull off an evil campaign
Tyrant as a party leader could work theoretically if all the players would agree to roleplay as his minions. There are bunch of archetypes in an evil group. Somebody could be a Starscream lol. Of course it's easier if the are not taking it all too serious.
Evil Paladin seems really easy tho. Just treat the entire party as the hiarical object instead of just the Paladin. Like if someone disrespected your arm would that also count as a snide against you? But if you get your arm cut off you are still you. So the arm clearly isnt you. Same with the party, not literally you but still you.
Neutral paladins Tenet: follow the teachings of your god while minimizing harm. You work for a greater good that often requires sacrifices. Lawful neutral [Judge]: seek out and judge criminals and oathbreakers. You must never knowingly break a law or oath. Reaction: when an enemy attempts to attack you or an ally and is within 15 feet the weight of their crimes hangs heavy on their heart. They must make a will saving throw against your champion DC. On a success they are enfeebled 1, on a failure they are grabbed and enfeebled 1, on a crit fail they are restrained. True Neutral [Mediator]: you must seek a diplomatic solution to all problems first. Reaction: when an enemy attempts to attack you or an ally within 15 feet of you they must make a will saving throw against your diplomacy DC, as you attempt to convince them to stop. On a success they get a -2 penalty on the attack as they are distracted. On a failure they cannot continue the attack, on a critical failure they are treated as though they are under the effects of the Command spell. Chaotic Neutral [Truthseeker]: you must seek the truth in all things, regardless of who it may hurt, and must always speak the truth. Reaction:when you or an ally within 15 feet are tge target of an attack or make a saving throw you may call out to them giving them advice. Make a recall knowledge check against the attacker, or an identify spell check if the triggering effect is a spell. On a success your ally gets a bonus equal to 1+1/4 your champion level to their AC or saving throw. On a crit success treat their result as one step higher, or the attack's success as one step lower. On a failure your reaction is refunded.
One good way of making a Tyrant work with the party is: "they are at the same level as I, therefore, they are my equals." Boom, there. You no longer have to serve them, nor do you have to enslave them instantly. It's actually very cool if you manage to make a really scary character with good demonstrations of power. The group can't figure out why the hell this monstrous and powerful being is still with them, and then when asked why, he says "I thought it was obvious, but apparently, you're all unaware of your own power, so let me clarify: you're strong, very strong, enough so that it would be unrealistic to make you my servants, you are powerful enough to be my allies."
Something to point out about Glimpse of Redemption, The ally and the enemy need to be within 15 feet of the Champion to trigger it so positioning isn’t always in your favor. I have no idea how I’d pull off getting my allies and enemies using long range AoE abilities together to pull of protecting more than one ally.
I think that'd be pretty fair. A 1d6 hit point cost to use the ability every time would add up. That's basically similar to 1d6 permanent persistant damage that you can't get rid of. (assuming you use your reaction every turn)
@@Nonat1s, I mean, I'd be different if you could choose to deal negative damage to yourself, instead of it just adding extra dice to the damage you take; if that was the case, a dhampir or some sort of undead antipaladin could heal themselves with their vengeance. (probably still best balanced with the 1d6 that doesn't scale up though)
See, I think I could argue that ANY act I committed, even if most would see it as "purely good", would not be seen as an anathema. I give charity to someone, but people see me do it and my reputation increases. People are put at ease around me, so they wouldn't suspect any ill intent when I try to get something out of them. I gave to charity, but for "selfish" reasons.
Disappointed about the evil Champions... especially the Tyrant's tenants... I get what they were going for and Hell is all about the Hierarchy... But by Asmodeus... they are also all about contracts, deals, subtlety, subduing, charming you with their silver tongue... The Tyrant could be about making deals, holding your word, doing the work of Asmodeus, spreading the word of hell. Also... who thought that ability would be good for the antipaladin? If you want him to take damage fine... but do it at a reduced amount at least! And their eddicts? Basically describes a murderhobo. Just why? Evil PCs can be awesome without being murderhobos.
The way I see it evil champions thrive in an evil party. Not a pathfinder or D&D player yet, but not all campaigns are going to be heroic or antiheroic campaigns.
I know this is an old vid so there's a 90% chance this won't be seen or was already brought up (I didn't see anyone in the comments say anything), but in the case of the Antipaladin's reaction, evil damage cannot harm an evil creature (i.e. yourself). However, the reaction is still pretty bad though, especially if you choose to deal negative damage and you don't have negative healing.
Now let's see if we can make a scene where no matter the Good Alignment the Champaign has to act against their quest giver. Neutral Country where slavery is legal. Cause think of what could rope in the NG one though cause they just choose not to kill...
I think any martial class could make a good marshall so long as they have a decent charisma. Each one provides a different bonus. Fighters have higher weapon proficiency, Champions have higher AC, Rangers have massive single target bonuses, and even Monks could make for a really cool Unarmed Marshall.
@@Nonat1s Won't lie, I was actually thinking Bard, Champion, or Fighter. Ranger and Monk are a little too "selfish" with their buffs, but I suppose I can see them working (I would say the ranger gives a second body, but there aren't enough feats to mix Beast Training with Martial without gimping one or the other). It is a shame that the Martial Muse bard sucks, but I could see a Perform (Orator) Bard giving an Inspire Courage via inspirational speech of valor and glory.
@@VirtuesOfSin I'm considering making a homebrew version of the Warrior Muse on my patreon, tbh. It's just so underwhelming. It needs some serious power somewhere.
for the champion causes, its not a 'you MUST do this and that' sort of deal, like something restricts you. by virtue of being a champion, you have unmoving conviction in your beliefs and goals. you dont 'must', you just do. do what you do and never look back, and you are a champion.
our evil champion actually manages to work with a party. he just "consider" the other less than him, and that they "should" serve him. the bard does get away with "Why should I do this? I am not worthy of doing that task" or and the wizard say "I am intelligent, not strong. you are the strongest among us, and you want it done right." It becomes a situation of "you are incapable, I will do it myself". often acting in a barking orders sort of behavior, but get derailed from the others roleplaying. It takes a smart person to play someone that is, dim in that respect, to allow your character to be talked out of the behavior by "deciding something else" rather than "was disobeyed" That said... I do see where you are coming from. I don't think most people are capable of playing someone like that and reasonably put in the APG rather than being a standard choice.
I must have missed the fact that Desecrator only gets half his level to resistance. Just why though. He already doesn't have a rider, unlike all the good champion reactions.
Tyrant sounds more like Neutral Evil with Might makes Right. As Lawful Evil tend to follow the law which seems to fit more with scheming and plotting as they use the law to their advantage. But Might makes Right is a "I am the Law" type mindset of if they are strong enough to ignore the law then will if it doesn't benefit them. And the tenants of having to subjectate everyone sounds border line murder hobo and closer to CE rather than LE. If anything it sounds like Tyrant was written by one of those players who is horrible at playing an Evil character as they don't understand Evil doesn't make trying to kill and back stab everything in sight.
Hi, 3yrs to late to, but we're here anyway. I really want to play the tyrant in an RP heavy campaign, where he's constantly trying to subjugate everyone, but he's also a coward. All bark with no actual ability to execute. Kind of like invader Zim in a way.
📝 *Dear Nonat* *You miss numbered your Champion videos.* *They are one off.* *The first one has no number.* *Part 2 is labelled as part 1.* *Part 3 is labelled as Part 1.*
I shouldn't have used the words "Could Not". I meant to imply that it'd be incredibly difficult to do properly following those Tenets specifically while also functioning cohesively as a party.
The Tyrant is just as strong as the rest of the party so he doesn’t go out of his way to make them all servant or kill them... It can definitely still happen mind you. 😈
@@StanNotSoSaint that would be a skewed idea of power, if the champion uses tactics and for example stays hidden when he goes for attacks the crits will be in the champions favor with how high their AC could be.
I gotta say, I disagree with your take on the evil champion. I think it can still be pulled off just fine. Don't think you need to take it to that extreme.
It sucks, but I have to agree. They can get tanky, sure, but their damage is horribly outclassed by everything else in the game. Even support spellcasters like clerics and druids have solid damaging cantrips they can rely on. Champions really have nothing outstanding until Exalt at 9th level, and that's only 4 persistant damage.
@@Nonat1s Champions are supposed to be the defacto martial tanks with magical support. They are incredibly underpowered compared to their PF1 counterparts. Smite is woefully laughable as well. Their ability to smite doesn't improve or scale with level, which was the PF1 Paladin's shtick. All in all, the champion is, to me, the most disappointing class of PF2.
I do not agree with you that a Paladin can break his tenets just because he is in Cheliax. You can homebrew it for your campaign, of course, but overthrowing a Tyranical Evil Government... that is what Neutral and Chaotic Good Crusaders are for. Lawful Good Crusaders obey the law, even if the Law is selfserving. It's not up to a Lawful Character to break the law, no matter the reason for that law, at least when we talk about anathemas that say "respect the law". If you are in a campaign to overthrow the lawful leadership of a region, then play a Neutral or Chaotic Good Crusader. Simple as that, but a Paladin has to obey the law of the land.
I played an old-school paladin in second ed dnd and it bugged me then as it bugs me now: paladins are not lawful stupid. In an evil land with evil laws you try to subvert them. Everybody comes up with the evil djinn, brilliantly defeating the naive hero by turnig their wishes against them. But the paladin, that digs into the law to find the loophole to save the hand of the young thief stealing bread for his starving mother? Inconceivable! Is a paladin the best class to traverse the lands of an evil King? Hell no! Is it a challenge worthy of hero? Probably not. But it is an experience, my paladin of old saved many fates and a whole party tells the story of Eberhardt, who found out why Emil II had to feed the poor in his fiefdom by law (he was forced to do so, because the law forbidd anything weakening the army of the king, and starved conscribts make bad soldiers. One has the charisma to pull that off :-D).
@@bernhardglitzner4985 I fully agree with you. Lawful Good Paladins should work within the law to do good and it can make for interesting stories when you do so. But unfortunately just like you have "Redeemer" Champions kick in the door and murder everything... you will have Lawful Champions break the law, and call it "justice". At least this has been my experience now over a year later, with Pathfinder Champion players. But i admit... i have become cynical.
destructive vengeance is even worst than i tought. cause you DONT role 1d6 and deal that much dmg to you and your enemy. no no no. you role 1d6 dmg for you and then role 1d6 dmg for the enmey. meaning you could easy deal more dmg to youself form the trigger than you deal to the enemy... why just why. and remeber you dont get lay on hands so you cant just heal the ekstra dmg you just deal to youself...wow this is useless
It's weird that the Paladin HAS to respect the law of other cultures, since... Crusaders tend to not give a shit what other cultures say if it goes against their God's word.
Honestly, the tyrant is relatively easy to play; the main reason I'd be very leery about allowing it in my game is that some (possibly most) groups are not going to be OK with having a PC (as opposed to the player) in their group who thinks like this. This is the kind of character who would found the KKK - they aren't just in favour of a hierarchy where the strong rule over the weak; they're devoted champions. The first tenet, essentially, is that the strong rule the weak, and you should embody that in all your dealings. If someone is stronger than you (not necessarily physically, but it basically more powerful than you), then your rightful place is below them until you can surpass them. If someone is weaker than you, then their rightful place is below you. The second tenet is the one that requires you to enforce the rule of the strong over the weak. Democracy is weak by (twisted) definition, therefore it should be dismantled - either using whatever contradictions are within the system itself, or else by force. If a nation has discriminatory laws, then those laws should absolutely be enforced. Women aren't allowed outside without a chaperone? You're the guy who enforces that - not because you have to, but because it wouldn't occur to you not to Whether or not you enjoy it is another matter entirely, but you'd do it without mercy and without qualms. The third tenet basically requires you to make people serve you. You might be a relatively generous master, or you might enjoy mistreating them, but either way, your servants are your property to do with as you will, and even if you see yourself as kind and generous, you're still willing to punish your servants if they push too far.
Okay I really hate what they did to Smite evil. It's pretty much useless and based entirely on your reaction triggering. I hate it. Combine this with what they did a lay on hands and paladins are pretty much unplayable in this Edition.
I don't think "Neutral" champions would exist in a way that world be fun to RP. LN is basically Paladin without the good N is basically "For every evil act, you must perform a good act" and vice versa CN Would basically be the Anti Paladin minus the assholishness.
I personally think Axiomatic (LN) and Anarchic (CN) champions could be fun, caring more about order and chaos than good vs evil. Also, not all true neutral creatures believe in strict maintenance of the balance (they might just not care about order/chaos or good/evil at all), but again, I think a "supreme balance" champion could be interesting.
@@AaronScott82 I can see them making an Axiomatic Champion Code and a Anarchic Champion Code (LG, LN, LE and CG, CN, CE respectively), but I don't see a Champion becoming True Neutral unless they are stern about upholding the "Balance of All Things". I would like a God Claw champion oath.
@@VirtuesOfSin Yeah, I think the balancer concept makes the most sense as a champion cause, my comment about TN was more about the alignment in general, not related to champs.
So... I wanted to recreate a character I made in d&d 5e on Pathfinder. The character was a Gnoll (homebrew race, cause at wotc they're lazy with creativity) echo knight, the echo being his madness taking an actual place as a physical form; his Backstory was that he was ravaging the various lands with his pack and then people got pissed off and basically obliterated them, thanks to a bunch of adventurers coming by, he survived cause he hit his head quite hardly and fell to the ground, they thought he was dead and left him there, now seeking for revenge his madness draws him nearer to the Chaotic Evil alignment, being a monster against all foes, no relentlessness to any, and being Generically passive towards others. Now in Pathfinder 2e,there's no such thing as the echo knight, the closest thing would be the summoner, but that's also quite a far stretch,so I went with champion, evil champion, precisely with devastator, because it was the closest to what I wanted him to be, now his madness functions as his conduit to the deity he's serving, bringing decay and darkness to his foes, and being generally the little devil on your shoulder whenever something happens, the desecrator reaction I deemed it as the spirit/madness that engulfs him and blocks part of his attacks, and the three focus spells being still tied to it. Am I doing something wrong with the champion choice of subclass? Because I think the other two wouldn't be too fitting. P. S. I plan to play it in tandem with a redeemer champion, as being two sides of the same coin challenging similar problems in different ways, I think there's a way to work it out
![[OLD] CHAMPION CLASS GUIDE (Part 1) - PATHFINDER SECOND EDITION](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0UuFpkY8FIs/mqdefault.jpg)
![[OLD] CHAMPION CLASS GUIDE (Part 1) - PATHFINDER SECOND EDITION](/img/tr.png)
A tyrant can work well with an evil party with a betrayer lieutenant. If the number two guy is constantly trying to betray and undermine the tyrant while the tyrant is too arrogant to notice you can have a fun dynamic especially if all the players are in on it. Think Megatron and Starscream.
Alternatively if everyone in the party is the same level the Paladin doesn't need to bend the knee or force the party to do so. They're equals. There's nothing about Tyrants needing submission from those they deem equal.
Antipaladin, Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, only that it flows.
Evil characters in campaigns I've played in are generally only evil to people outside the party. The party is the group they allow more flexibility because they care about them or need people to have their back.
At least if not care about them, appreciate their usefulness in helping them achieve their own selfish goals
@@andrewwahba5006 Definitely. I just think it's important to remember that even selfish people care about some select group of others usually. People don't exist in a vacuum.
I mean, evil can mean a lot of things
I think the persistent good damage would be good when fighting fiends since it would also add their weakness to good. The same would also apply to persistent evil damage and celestials.
It's true for sure. If you know for a fact that you'll be fighting demons or undead, a champion can do CRAZY damage. My main problem is that a class's primary feature shouldn't be entirely based around countering one specific type of enemy. Compare that to a Ranger's Hunter's Edge which works on anything, no matter what creature type it is.
For the algorithm!!!
Retributive Strike and Exalt has been the bane of many enemies, until they die on their own turn.
For the algorithm!!!
An offering to the mighty Algorithm!!!
Nice vídeo!!! 3 things by RAW the devotion to the deity is more important than the cause so they can ignore the cause alingment if they following their deity's alignment... The tenets are redacted in order of importance, so if 2 of those are in conflict the one is first rule over the second... And the great about the champions of good reactions is that they give resistant against all damage that do stack in opposition to the rest of resistant, that mean if the attacker use a flaming sword they discount the resistant 2 times 1 against the sword damage and 1 more against the fire damage..
Tyrant is great for RP as evile knight or a hell knight... Dhampir antipaladin will heal from his reaction
I dont think so, you only choose what damage type you deal to the enemy, not the damage type you take
@@mattsullivan2458 dang ur right :( so its realy a shity reaction :(
@@marcincaputa1710 its not too bad, you still get bonus damage on strikes against that target until the end of your next turn. Also if you chose Dhampir you can still use your touch of corruption focus spell to heal yourself
@@mattsullivan2458 I don't think that would work. Dhampirs are not Undead, they just have the negative healing ability. Touch of Corruption, to heal, says it has to target a willing Undead
For Destructive Vengeance on the Antipaladin, how's this for an improvement:
(You roll Xd6 once for both) You can choose to deal half damage to yourself and full damage to the triggering enemy, or full damage to yourself and double damage to the triggering enemy.
Maybe as a feat: You can choose to deal double damage to yourself to deal four times the rolled damage to your enemy.
Your resistances and immunities apply to this damage.
Community improvements for the win?
Its designed for Undead PCs, negative healing is a thing
@@icholi88 I don't know if in the time you realize, but it's just you take X damage, it's untyped, as you can choose to cause to enemy to take negative or evil damage, and you just take damage
14:58 You misread the feature the +2 to damage rolls only applies if you are the undead
So like a Skeleton Champion of evil allignment could cast Touch of Corruption on themselves as one action, then make one to two strike actions or any other abilities that let them attack to do extra damage and get a +2 to damage rolls if they hit.
My pitch: Champion Cause of Evolution: Vanguard (Chaotic Neutral).
• You must act to invoke change into the world, through defiance of archaic and oppressive order, by innovating society, or by promoting growth within others around you.
• You must never stay stagnant yourself for beyond a year's time.
The devotion spell you get perhaps grants a special boon to a person or object form for a minute (such as flying, reinforced, or increased speed).
Your special reaction lets someone else around you take a moment to shine. This acts like a super-powered helping hand to give them a bonus of +2, and either +3 or your Charisma modifier on a crit instead. On a fail you still give +1.
Meanwhile, true neutral can emphasize balance, all about neutralizing the advantages of foes and hindrances of allies.
Lastly, the lawful neutral can be the Gaol-Master or Sentinel. They protect tradition and order as a force to obstruct and retain others.
Maybe a gimmick reaction of inflicting pain or item durability damage to enemies that act against your order.
I think I can make the Tyrant work in a way that he believes the party is over the same level as him so he doesn't follow War kill them but has more respect. He might not agree oh with the lawful good fighter who lets enemy go. He'll still probably rationalize it as maybe the fighter shows his strength in conquering by releasing people to show his power
1) The antipaladin's class name goes back to 1st edition AD&D (an early Dragon magazine, more specifically), so it's got a lot of history, even if it's bland. 2) I suspect the reason Destructive Vengeance was made so unappealing was to deter "munchkin" players that might be attracted to the antipaladin ("I can do whatever I want, AND I get a sweet extra die or three of damage every fight? Sign me up!"). 3) Why do you mention the 'upcoming' Gods & Magic at the end of the video? That book came out 8 months ago.
Oh no, did I say "Gods & Magic"?? Haha, I meant Secrets of Magic!! I didn't even realize that!
Make the Anti Paladin Undead with the negative healing feature and it becomes the best champion in the game.
@@icholi88 The antipaladin takes 1-6d6 additional damage of the triggering type, the one they use it one takes negative, or evil damage.
I feel with the evil champions, much like evil PCs in general just have a session 0 conversation about it. Maybe everyone is cool with being evil. For the one champion that needs to dominate those who are weaker, there might be some players okay with that or maybe the role is the evil champion views the party as equals and therefore no one is dominating others. I think with some communication any of these champions are playable
I am currently playing a tyrant champion. im not perfectly following the tenets because my DM agrees with you on how restrictive they are. but im playing him as someone that was once king, and is attempting to rebuild his kingdom.
Lawful Neutral probably something like the Judge
Who has to follow laws not because the laws are good, but because it's a law.
Punishing anyone who breaks them and judging his enemies.
True Neutral would be cause of Balance. Having abilities to make sure neither evil nor good can achieve ultimate triumph and making sure there's always the opposition.
Chaotic Neutral would be something like Change. Not allowing stagnation and making sure the world is moving. Making sure that no one person can be frozen in time and that things shift
I won't argue that the Anti-paladin reaction is probably the worst one in terms of mechanics, but I will say it's one hell of a roleplay action and can make players think twice before hitting one if they're a few levels lower or generally just a bit squishy.
As a player, you can invoke the same fear if the GM throws some lower level enemies at you and watch as they're friend who just stabbed you dies immediately after.
And of course, I know it's part of the class, but while it isn't always great, that's why you can get other reactions to use instead if the time calls for it. It would be dumb to use it every single time if you're already taking too much damage.
Love the video as always!
Dhampyr and Negative Healing might want to have a word with Anti-paladin negative damage to you, turning it into hp, which is pretty niche though.
You don't get to pick the damage type of the damage done to you, only to the triggering enemy. Also, negative damage doesn't heal undead/dhampirs unless the source specifically says so (like the harm spell or touch of corruption).
I think the evil champions could work well if the party is evil. It works best if the party is already high level though. For the Tyrant you could just say that since they are all equally powerful, it doesn't apply (a loop-hole for the sake of making the class actually playable). The evil champions are not meant to be subtle evil, they are the embodiment of evilness.
I'm not sure how an Antipaladin would actually function, though. I can see it being really self-destructing... which is reflected in its abilities.
Dhampirs heal from touch of corruption
Good video, nice job ^^
I have one gripe, though. Specifically with the tyrant cause. Yes, they wouldn't be easy to fit into a party, making them uncommon was therefore a good decision.
However, I think the tenets are a lot more malleable and open to interpretation that you suggested. Particularly the first one, as the requirement is for them to be "lesser than you". Party members are usually seen as equals, especially when you build an evil character that is supposed to work in a group for more than a couple of sessions. So you don't have to lord over them by default.
The second tenet (you have to enforce established hierarchies and always fill a power vacuum) can be a bit more of a problem, but that is highly depending on the campaign. Works in some, but not in others.
Overall, I'd say it is challenging, but not nearly impossible ^^
Very well put. I used very poor word choice there in retrospect. I should've said it'd be "difficult", not impossible.
I can't read "antipaladin" without thinking "antipasto"
Desecrator only have to corrupt that which is pure good.
Most people aren't pure good and you don't have to mess with them
Nonat1s: *Talking about mechanics*
Me: *Damn those fangs*
I think the Redeemer sounds like a lot of fun. RP wise your party might get sick of you always trying to save everyone though.
In my group it has worked well. ^^
He gives them a chance every time but it is rare that there is someone where he goes all out in fighting for their redemption
I'm going to play a reluctant Redeemer. The redemption will be a tick box he does so he keeps to his oath, but he's half hoping they don't want to be redeemed
Honestly, tyrant isn't really that bad depending on how literally you take the tenants of it. If say, a kobold was a tyrant, perhaps they only fine three minions (or hireling) to be what they can personally find practical, and bind other, "weaker" creatures into serving them temporarily, such as forcing an elven ranger to show them how to traverse the woods before just, letting them go and wallow in their own "inferiority"
I might be incorrect but because a paladin's exalt doesn't require the allies to have the Attack of Opportunity feat meaning if a rogue was flanking they could make the strike as a reaction applying their sneak attack damage on a hit
Anti-paladin at lower levels should use their reaction at the right time, like "1v1 me bro", then activate its reaction in the right momments to obliterate the enemy (either at the beggining of combat or to deal your final blows). Should not be a spammable ability. Like "who's the strongest among you, my enemies, for i can prove i am the strongest". Roleplay wise, it's a good move to play as a chaotic character that fights the law: lawful character will accept the challenge, but the anti-paladin can play a dirty move (his reaction) to defeat the lawful enemy and then spread his message of chaos.
Tyrant actually sounds like a blast. A tyrant hobgoblin with 3-4 goblin/kobold minions sounds like a GREAT time, if all the players are on board and the gm can actually pull off an evil campaign
No Nat forgetting about negative healing on undead, Undead Anti-paladins are the best champion in the game.
Great video. Promise I'll keep up this week.
Haha, no need to promise! Watch them as you enjoy them! Never feel obligated to watch my content.
Psh, of course i feel obligated. We got to get this channel all the viewers. We need nonat to be full time.
Tyrant as a party leader could work theoretically if all the players would agree to roleplay as his minions. There are bunch of archetypes in an evil group. Somebody could be a Starscream lol. Of course it's easier if the are not taking it all too serious.
This is the video I've been looking for.
Evil Paladin seems really easy tho. Just treat the entire party as the hiarical object instead of just the Paladin. Like if someone disrespected your arm would that also count as a snide against you? But if you get your arm cut off you are still you. So the arm clearly isnt you. Same with the party, not literally you but still you.
For the destructive vengeance, it does negative damage so if you have the negative damage healing trait isnt that ability ridiculously busted?
Would it be too overpowered if the antipaladin only took half damage or maybe even minimum damage from its destructive smite?
Neutral paladins Tenet: follow the teachings of your god while minimizing harm. You work for a greater good that often requires sacrifices.
Lawful neutral [Judge]: seek out and judge criminals and oathbreakers. You must never knowingly break a law or oath. Reaction: when an enemy attempts to attack you or an ally and is within 15 feet the weight of their crimes hangs heavy on their heart. They must make a will saving throw against your champion DC. On a success they are enfeebled 1, on a failure they are grabbed and enfeebled 1, on a crit fail they are restrained.
True Neutral [Mediator]: you must seek a diplomatic solution to all problems first. Reaction: when an enemy attempts to attack you or an ally within 15 feet of you they must make a will saving throw against your diplomacy DC, as you attempt to convince them to stop. On a success they get a -2 penalty on the attack as they are distracted. On a failure they cannot continue the attack, on a critical failure they are treated as though they are under the effects of the Command spell.
Chaotic Neutral [Truthseeker]: you must seek the truth in all things, regardless of who it may hurt, and must always speak the truth. Reaction:when you or an ally within 15 feet are tge target of an attack or make a saving throw you may call out to them giving them advice. Make a recall knowledge check against the attacker, or an identify spell check if the triggering effect is a spell. On a success your ally gets a bonus equal to 1+1/4 your champion level to their AC or saving throw. On a crit success treat their result as one step higher, or the attack's success as one step lower. On a failure your reaction is refunded.
Ahhhh my favorite class
Haha, while not my favorite, it's cool to theorize just how much of a bulky tank you can become as a champion.
@@Nonat1s oh, I'm well aware of the placement you gave to champions haha. I'll forgive you though because that's what a good champion does haha
One good way of making a Tyrant work with the party is: "they are at the same level as I, therefore, they are my equals."
Boom, there. You no longer have to serve them, nor do you have to enslave them instantly. It's actually very cool if you manage to make a really scary character with good demonstrations of power. The group can't figure out why the hell this monstrous and powerful being is still with them, and then when asked why, he says "I thought it was obvious, but apparently, you're all unaware of your own power, so let me clarify: you're strong, very strong, enough so that it would be unrealistic to make you my servants, you are powerful enough to be my allies."
LN Samurai
N Swordsaint
CN Ronin
Valentina's "ally" from tiktok replayed in a my head every time you said it
Something to point out about Glimpse of Redemption, The ally and the enemy need to be within 15 feet of the Champion to trigger it so positioning isn’t always in your favor.
I have no idea how I’d pull off getting my allies and enemies using long range AoE abilities together to pull of protecting more than one ally.
Yeah, this is my character's struggle. I guess maybe like a cone attack? But God damn you need to be placed PERFECTLY.
Honestly, I'd just rule the Antipaladin's Destructive Vengeance self damage doesn't scale up.
I think that'd be pretty fair. A 1d6 hit point cost to use the ability every time would add up. That's basically similar to 1d6 permanent persistant damage that you can't get rid of. (assuming you use your reaction every turn)
@@Nonat1s, I mean, I'd be different if you could choose to deal negative damage to yourself, instead of it just adding extra dice to the damage you take; if that was the case, a dhampir or some sort of undead antipaladin could heal themselves with their vengeance. (probably still best balanced with the 1d6 that doesn't scale up though)
See, I think I could argue that ANY act I committed, even if most would see it as "purely good", would not be seen as an anathema. I give charity to someone, but people see me do it and my reputation increases. People are put at ease around me, so they wouldn't suspect any ill intent when I try to get something out of them. I gave to charity, but for "selfish" reasons.
I know this video is old. But as someone who wants to transfer to PF2. Does the APG replace the PG?
Disappointed about the evil Champions... especially the Tyrant's tenants... I get what they were going for and Hell is all about the Hierarchy... But by Asmodeus... they are also all about contracts, deals, subtlety, subduing, charming you with their silver tongue... The Tyrant could be about making deals, holding your word, doing the work of Asmodeus, spreading the word of hell.
Also... who thought that ability would be good for the antipaladin? If you want him to take damage fine... but do it at a reduced amount at least! And their eddicts? Basically describes a murderhobo. Just why? Evil PCs can be awesome without being murderhobos.
I've played a tyrant champion of Zon-Kuthon..she was basically just a dominatrix who did that in the name of the god of pain lol
'i respect the law. And so I must, respectfully, break it.'
Ty on info
Can you do one for monk
The tenets of evil kind of remind me of like the mandalorian creed of like mercenary work
The way I see it evil champions thrive in an evil party. Not a pathfinder or D&D player yet, but not all campaigns are going to be heroic or antiheroic campaigns.
My favorite character I've ever made is a pf2e champion. I'm souped
I know this is an old vid so there's a 90% chance this won't be seen or was already brought up (I didn't see anyone in the comments say anything), but in the case of the Antipaladin's reaction, evil damage cannot harm an evil creature (i.e. yourself). However, the reaction is still pretty bad though, especially if you choose to deal negative damage and you don't have negative healing.
Just wanted to let you know someone read your comment. I do not know the rules enough to have an oppinion on it, sadly.
Chaotic Neutral Laws is a fun oxymoron
Please add timestamps for this video, they are so helpful for other videos
An Undead Antipaladin PC could really make use of that self damage if you always make it negative.
Now let's see if we can make a scene where no matter the Good Alignment the Champaign has to act against their quest giver. Neutral Country where slavery is legal. Cause think of what could rope in the NG one though cause they just choose not to kill...
Still debating on which class is the best base for Marshal.
I think any martial class could make a good marshall so long as they have a decent charisma. Each one provides a different bonus. Fighters have higher weapon proficiency, Champions have higher AC, Rangers have massive single target bonuses, and even Monks could make for a really cool Unarmed Marshall.
@@Nonat1s Won't lie, I was actually thinking Bard, Champion, or Fighter. Ranger and Monk are a little too "selfish" with their buffs, but I suppose I can see them working (I would say the ranger gives a second body, but there aren't enough feats to mix Beast Training with Martial without gimping one or the other).
It is a shame that the Martial Muse bard sucks, but I could see a Perform (Orator) Bard giving an Inspire Courage via inspirational speech of valor and glory.
@@VirtuesOfSin I'm considering making a homebrew version of the Warrior Muse on my patreon, tbh. It's just so underwhelming. It needs some serious power somewhere.
Soo... Lincon would be a Liberator or a Paladin?
Definitely a Liberator.
Liberators are my spirit animals
Tyrant is a one play four PCs kind of thing
I imagine Neutral Paladins would be Champions of Domains specifically,or of cycles, or anarchy,
for the champion causes, its not a 'you MUST do this and that' sort of deal, like something restricts you. by virtue of being a champion, you have unmoving conviction in your beliefs and goals. you dont 'must', you just do. do what you do and never look back, and you are a champion.
Pray be the Algo.
our evil champion actually manages to work with a party. he just "consider" the other less than him, and that they "should" serve him. the bard does get away with "Why should I do this? I am not worthy of doing that task" or and the wizard say "I am intelligent, not strong. you are the strongest among us, and you want it done right."
It becomes a situation of "you are incapable, I will do it myself". often acting in a barking orders sort of behavior, but get derailed from the others roleplaying. It takes a smart person to play someone that is, dim in that respect, to allow your character to be talked out of the behavior by "deciding something else" rather than "was disobeyed"
That said... I do see where you are coming from. I don't think most people are capable of playing someone like that and reasonably put in the APG rather than being a standard choice.
I must have missed the fact that Desecrator only gets half his level to resistance.
Just why though. He already doesn't have a rider, unlike all the good champion reactions.
Tyrant sounds more like Neutral Evil with Might makes Right. As Lawful Evil tend to follow the law which seems to fit more with scheming and plotting as they use the law to their advantage. But Might makes Right is a "I am the Law" type mindset of if they are strong enough to ignore the law then will if it doesn't benefit them. And the tenants of having to subjectate everyone sounds border line murder hobo and closer to CE rather than LE. If anything it sounds like Tyrant was written by one of those players who is horrible at playing an Evil character as they don't understand Evil doesn't make trying to kill and back stab everything in sight.
Antipaladin's classic though. :o
but yeah, not their greatest incarnation.
Excited for this!
Hi, 3yrs to late to, but we're here anyway. I really want to play the tyrant in an RP heavy campaign, where he's constantly trying to subjugate everyone, but he's also a coward. All bark with no actual ability to execute. Kind of like invader Zim in a way.
The bad guys are hard to RP in a team… almost like evil guys don’t work well with others.
📝 *Dear Nonat*
*You miss numbered your Champion videos.*
*They are one off.*
*The first one has no number.*
*Part 2 is labelled as part 1.*
*Part 3 is labelled as Part 1.*
From someone so creative normally, I was surprised to hear your bias and closed mindedness against the evil champions.
Algorithm bump!
Is that him??? The REAL MVP???
Holy shiet, why every good champion is typical goody two shoe ?
this part has no "part" in the title, and part 2 is actualy named "part 1"
+13:35 Lets agree to disagree.
I shouldn't have used the words "Could Not". I meant to imply that it'd be incredibly difficult to do properly following those Tenets specifically while also functioning cohesively as a party.
The Tyrant is just as strong as the rest of the party so he doesn’t go out of his way to make them all servant or kill them... It can definitely still happen mind you. 😈
I wonder if party has like incredibly stupid but incredibly strong Barbarian, Tyrant would have to serve him by his own law?
@@StanNotSoSaint that would be a skewed idea of power, if the champion uses tactics and for example stays hidden when he goes for attacks the crits will be in the champions favor with how high their AC could be.
I gotta say, I disagree with your take on the evil champion. I think it can still be pulled off just fine. Don't think you need to take it to that extreme.
you don't need to be a murder hobo to be evil.
I think that champions get totally nerfed in PF2. These special abilities are really lackluster in comparison to other classes.
It sucks, but I have to agree. They can get tanky, sure, but their damage is horribly outclassed by everything else in the game. Even support spellcasters like clerics and druids have solid damaging cantrips they can rely on. Champions really have nothing outstanding until Exalt at 9th level, and that's only 4 persistant damage.
@@Nonat1s Champions are supposed to be the defacto martial tanks with magical support. They are incredibly underpowered compared to their PF1 counterparts. Smite is woefully laughable as well. Their ability to smite doesn't improve or scale with level, which was the PF1 Paladin's shtick. All in all, the champion is, to me, the most disappointing class of PF2.
@@stephhanley3167 On the upside, they're one of the strongest archetype bases thanks to their armor proficiency and reactions.
@@Nonat1s They have way to many options competing for their reaction slot.
For the Algorithmn ...
Gotta check the vid out tomorrow...
I do not agree with you that a Paladin can break his tenets just because he is in Cheliax. You can homebrew it for your campaign, of course, but overthrowing a Tyranical Evil Government... that is what Neutral and Chaotic Good Crusaders are for. Lawful Good Crusaders obey the law, even if the Law is selfserving. It's not up to a Lawful Character to break the law, no matter the reason for that law, at least when we talk about anathemas that say "respect the law". If you are in a campaign to overthrow the lawful leadership of a region, then play a Neutral or Chaotic Good Crusader. Simple as that, but a Paladin has to obey the law of the land.
I played an old-school paladin in second ed dnd and it bugged me then as it bugs me now: paladins are not lawful stupid. In an evil land with evil laws you try to subvert them. Everybody comes up with the evil djinn, brilliantly defeating the naive hero by turnig their wishes against them. But the paladin, that digs into the law to find the loophole to save the hand of the young thief stealing bread for his starving mother? Inconceivable!
Is a paladin the best class to traverse the lands of an evil King? Hell no! Is it a challenge worthy of hero? Probably not. But it is an experience, my paladin of old saved many fates and a whole party tells the story of Eberhardt, who found out why Emil II had to feed the poor in his fiefdom by law (he was forced to do so, because the law forbidd anything weakening the army of the king, and starved conscribts make bad soldiers. One has the charisma to pull that off :-D).
@@bernhardglitzner4985 I fully agree with you. Lawful Good Paladins should work within the law to do good and it can make for interesting stories when you do so.
But unfortunately just like you have "Redeemer" Champions kick in the door and murder everything... you will have Lawful Champions break the law, and call it "justice".
At least this has been my experience now over a year later, with Pathfinder Champion players. But i admit... i have become cynical.
Comment for the algorithm
Hello, let me introduce you to my friend: Mr. Al Gorithm.
He’s an elitist, but at least he’s predictable. 🤓
destructive vengeance is even worst than i tought. cause you DONT role 1d6 and deal that much dmg to you and your enemy. no no no. you role 1d6 dmg for you and then role 1d6 dmg for the enmey. meaning you could easy deal more dmg to youself form the trigger than you deal to the enemy... why just why. and remeber you dont get lay on hands so you cant just heal the ekstra dmg you just deal to youself...wow this is useless
It's weird that the Paladin HAS to respect the law of other cultures, since... Crusaders tend to not give a shit what other cultures say if it goes against their God's word.
Antipaladin.......
Honestly, the tyrant is relatively easy to play; the main reason I'd be very leery about allowing it in my game is that some (possibly most) groups are not going to be OK with having a PC (as opposed to the player) in their group who thinks like this. This is the kind of character who would found the KKK - they aren't just in favour of a hierarchy where the strong rule over the weak; they're devoted champions.
The first tenet, essentially, is that the strong rule the weak, and you should embody that in all your dealings. If someone is stronger than you (not necessarily physically, but it basically more powerful than you), then your rightful place is below them until you can surpass them. If someone is weaker than you, then their rightful place is below you.
The second tenet is the one that requires you to enforce the rule of the strong over the weak. Democracy is weak by (twisted) definition, therefore it should be dismantled - either using whatever contradictions are within the system itself, or else by force. If a nation has discriminatory laws, then those laws should absolutely be enforced. Women aren't allowed outside without a chaperone? You're the guy who enforces that - not because you have to, but because it wouldn't occur to you not to Whether or not you enjoy it is another matter entirely, but you'd do it without mercy and without qualms.
The third tenet basically requires you to make people serve you. You might be a relatively generous master, or you might enjoy mistreating them, but either way, your servants are your property to do with as you will, and even if you see yourself as kind and generous, you're still willing to punish your servants if they push too far.
This is a comment
You are appreciated.
Okay I really hate what they did to Smite evil. It's pretty much useless and based entirely on your reaction triggering. I hate it. Combine this with what they did a lay on hands and paladins are pretty much unplayable in this Edition.
🫡
I don't think "Neutral" champions would exist in a way that world be fun to RP.
LN is basically Paladin without the good
N is basically "For every evil act, you must perform a good act" and vice versa
CN Would basically be the Anti Paladin minus the assholishness.
I personally think Axiomatic (LN) and Anarchic (CN) champions could be fun, caring more about order and chaos than good vs evil. Also, not all true neutral creatures believe in strict maintenance of the balance (they might just not care about order/chaos or good/evil at all), but again, I think a "supreme balance" champion could be interesting.
@@AaronScott82 I can see them making an Axiomatic Champion Code and a Anarchic Champion Code (LG, LN, LE and CG, CN, CE respectively), but I don't see a Champion becoming True Neutral unless they are stern about upholding the "Balance of All Things".
I would like a God Claw champion oath.
@@VirtuesOfSin Yeah, I think the balancer concept makes the most sense as a champion cause, my comment about TN was more about the alignment in general, not related to champs.
Algorithm Boosting Comment
So... I wanted to recreate a character I made in d&d 5e on Pathfinder.
The character was a Gnoll (homebrew race, cause at wotc they're lazy with creativity) echo knight, the echo being his madness taking an actual place as a physical form; his Backstory was that he was ravaging the various lands with his pack and then people got pissed off and basically obliterated them, thanks to a bunch of adventurers coming by, he survived cause he hit his head quite hardly and fell to the ground, they thought he was dead and left him there, now seeking for revenge his madness draws him nearer to the Chaotic Evil alignment, being a monster against all foes, no relentlessness to any, and being Generically passive towards others.
Now in Pathfinder 2e,there's no such thing as the echo knight, the closest thing would be the summoner, but that's also quite a far stretch,so I went with champion, evil champion, precisely with devastator, because it was the closest to what I wanted him to be, now his madness functions as his conduit to the deity he's serving, bringing decay and darkness to his foes, and being generally the little devil on your shoulder whenever something happens, the desecrator reaction I deemed it as the spirit/madness that engulfs him and blocks part of his attacks, and the three focus spells being still tied to it. Am I doing something wrong with the champion choice of subclass? Because I think the other two wouldn't be too fitting.
P. S. I plan to play it in tandem with a redeemer champion, as being two sides of the same coin challenging similar problems in different ways, I think there's a way to work it out