|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Imbicatus wrote:You can be a warpriest or inquisitor of Iomedae or any god that is viable for paladins too, right?Voadam wrote:
Paladin of Pharasma.
Undead are abominations that should be purged from existence. Boneyard paladins are empowered to detect, smite, and counteract the foulness of the undead.
They detect the evil of undead, smite them, lay on hands to counteract the damage of the undead or explode undead on contact. They are toughened to resist the powers of the undead (bonus on saves, immune to disease) and granted mercies to counteract their foul powers. The evil descriptor is so tied into undead creation that their smites work on evil descriptor outsiders, evil dragons, and evil creatures as well as a consequence, even though their divine mandate is focused on undead.
Remove the code, the alignment requirement, and the aura of good, and you are pretty good to go.
Warpriest or Inquisitor of Pharasma.Warpriest gains Sacred Weapon, Blessings, Fervor, and channel.
Inquisitor gets Judements, Bane, and so on.
They both can smite via access to the Smite Abomination spell.
There is no need to modify the Paladin class when there are two classes that fill the same role.
Yeah, the "there's no need to modify the paladin class because other classes can achieve similar concepts" argument doesn't wash because by that logic, there's no need for the paladin in the first place. Want to play a knight in shining armor? Play a LG cleric, warpriest, or inquisitor of a war god with a mount.
Come to think of it, all kinds of classes are superfluous by this logic. No need for the ranger; just multiclass druid with fighter. No need for the druid; just play a cleric with nature-y domains. No need for the barbarian; just play a fighter with anger management problems from a tribal culture. No need for the bard; just play a sorcerer/cleric/fighter who likes to sing.
So, nope, I'm not buying selective paladin logic.