Let me preface this with the statement that I hate house rules and lots of optional rules -- the game is just fine as written.
But the paladin is a uniquely narrow class, with fewer choices than any other. And more people hate it that any other -- it's a jarring anomaly in the game.
How do people feel (or what do they do) about tweaking the class? In particular, there are rules HERE for paladins of Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyrrany that I think we'll start using IMC.
These are from the SRD & an official WotC supplement, but I don't know which.
Opinions? :)
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Don't forget the "Have Gun Will Travel" Paladin...
Seriously, though, I don't have any problem with paladins in general, and it only seems natural that each deity should have it's own variation of a paladin, regardless of alignment.
Think about it: All deities have clerics, so why shouldn't all deities have a warrior-type to correspond with the Lawful Good Paladins? If Anti-Paladins exist (which is just an evil counterpart to the paladin), why shouldn't other alignments have similar individuals?
In the Savage Tide Adventure Path I'm running, one of my players is playing a Lawful Neutral paladin, and so far it's working well. The key to an effective paladin is playing your alignment alongside the tenets of your patron deity, and the player in my AP is doing a good job so far.
I've got some variations on the paladin... broom handle up his ass paladin... 2x4 up his ass paladin...
Actually, I was thinking of more recent variations -- these have been traditional since the game's beginnings :)
In my campigns I dissalow paladins, a fighter/ cleric ends up being more effective and versatile in the long run... the paladin class semms to be a failed attempt by some beginner gamer to make a cool prestige class into a base class. (I know thats not what happened)
the idealsof a paladin are far more suited to role-playing than to rules working...
Dragon ran several variant paladins in their special update series.
I like paladins. I really, really dislike the UA variants. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of coming up with alternate holy/unholy warriors, but for god's sake, make it creative! Not just, "Oh, okay, we'll invert this ability, change 'good' to 'evil,' and there we go!" That, to me, seems somehow to invalidate the original paladin idea.
No, I would rather see alternate "paladin" types that have a few more unique abilities and distinctions. Blackguards, holy warriors of Trithereon (or whatever they're called); these have some more distinctive features, and feel more "right" to me, even though they are prestige classes.
Several months ago, I posted up an alternate that I was creating, called the Doomknight. I haven't used it yet, but appreciated the feel that we came up with on the thread creating it. Here it is again (I took out the pretty PHB-esque chart that I have on my word processor, since it didn't translate well):
Doomknights are dark warriors in the service of evil deities of destruction. They are living embodiments of hatred, spite, and evil. They care nothing for their own lives, gladly throwing their existences away for a chance to spread as much horror as possible in the time they plague the world. They feed on their own fatalistic determination to see the world brought to ruin as much as they relish the pain and agony in others that they cause.
Blackguards are typically characters who started their lives with some other calling, and not necessarily one of evil. Only later did they feel the temptation of evil and go down their accursed path. Unlike blackguards, doomknights have almost always felt a calling towards darkness and death. They gain access to mystical powers like a cleric, but have the martial capabilities of a warrior. Many consider them anti-paladins, as they are almost the exact antithesis of the holy warriors.
Most doomknights worship Erythnul, although there are a good number of them in the service of deities such as Nerull, and even a few feel the lure of a more calculated evil, such as that espoused by Hextor, though his restrained philosophy is, more often than not, at odds with the raw, seething hatred typically felt by doomknights. If one is actually in the world of Greyhawk, Incabulos also makes an excellent patron for doomknights.
In the Forgotten Realms, Talos and Talona are the most common patrons of doomknights, although more subtle members of the class sometimes worship Cyric, and the more restrained feel a calling towards Bane or Loviator. A few find Beshaba to be a good patron, while others from more extreme climates worship Auril or Umberlee. Other deities, such as Tiamat, Garagos, and Tempus, lack the dedication to pure destruction and finality that doomknights operate on. Deities in other pantheons that sponsor doomknights include Set, Selvetarm, Urdlen, and most of the orc pantheon.
The Doomknight (Dmk)
Base Attack: As fighter
Good Save: Fortitude
Spell per Day: As paladin
Special Abilities:
Level- Ability
1- Aura of Evil, Fell Bolt
2- Dark Stamina, Unholy Courage
3- Aura of Doom
5- Rebuke Undead, Special Mount
6- Sacrificial Spell
8- Aura of Fear
15- Aura of Destruction
20- Apocalypse
-------------------------
Alignment: Any Evil
Hit Die: d10
Class Skills: Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con) Craft (Int), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Ride (Dex), Swim (Str)
Skill Points at 1st Level: (2 + Int modifier) x 4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 2 + Int modifier
Class Features
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A doomknight is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (not including tower shields).
Aura of Evil (Ex): The power of a doomknight’s aura of evil (see the detect evil spell) is equal to his doomknight level, just like the aura of a cleric of an evil deity.
Fell Bolt (Su): A doomknight can call upon the dark powers he serves to produce a burst of negative energy. Each use of a doomknight’s fell bolt deals negative energy damage equal to his class level x his Charisma bonus. A target may attempt a Fortitude save (DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the doomknight’s class level + his Charisma bonus) for half damage. This ability is a standard action to use, and can target creatures up to 30 feet away. Note that this is negative energy damage, and thus heals undead. A doomknight can use his Fell Bolt a number of times per day equal to his Charisma bonus, to a minimum of 1.
Dark Stamina (Su): At 2nd level, a doomknight becomes immune to the effects of disease and poison, including magical afflictions such as mummy rot.
Unholy Courage (Su): A doomknight’s mind is filled with the most vile, horrible thoughts a mortal could have. Combined with the resolve granted by the dark powers they serve, doomknights become completely immune to fear (magical or otherwise) starting at 2nd level.
Pestilence: At 8th level, the doomknight gains the ability to harbor such afflictions as poisons and diseases within his body and spread them to his foes. In order to retain an affliction, the doomknight must succeed on his saving throw against a poison or toxin. He suffers no negative effects on a failed save, as his body destroys the ailment. Once the doomknight has taken the toxin into his body, he can store it for up to a week. At any time, he can attempt a melee touch attack against a creature; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity. On a hit, the target is entitled to a saving throw against the poison or disease (DC 10 + ½ the doomknight’s level + his Con modifier, or the affliction’s normal DC, whichever is lower). On a failed save, the target suffers the effects of the toxin (the incubation period for a disease still applies). Whether the target saves or not, the affliction is spent from the doomknight’s body.
A doomknight can hold a number of toxins within him equal to his Constitution bonus, to a minimum of 1. Whenever a doomknight is exposed to a poison or disease, he is aware of the toxin’s presence, though not its exact abilities (he always knows if it is a disease or poison, however). He can choose whether or not to try and take the affliction into his body. If he is currently retaining his maximum number of afflictions, he can choose to replace any toxin currently held with the new one. The choice must be made before the doomknight attempts the save against the toxin. If the save is failed, the doomknight still looses the previously held toxin.
At 12th level, a doomknight can store a poison or disease indefinitely within himself, although it is still expended when it is called forth.
At 16th level, when a doomknight uses the pestilence ability in conjunction with a disease, there is no incubation period for the effects on the target.
Auras (Su): Starting at 3rd level, a doomknight’s sense of fatalism and love of destruction begins to manifest itself in an aura noticeable by other creatures. A doomknight can only manifest one aura at a time (along with their aura of evil, which is always active). Each of these auras is a continual effect. A doomknight can choose to make any creature entering the radius of an aura subject to the aura’s effects (thus excluding allies from their effects; aura of destruction is an exception, and affects all creatures around the doomknight equally). A target must make a save once upon entering the doomknight’s aura. The save DC of an aura is equal to 10 + ½ the doomknight’s class level + his Charisma modifier. A doomknight stops radiating auras if he is reduced to unconsciousness or killed. All effects generated by an aura cease when the doomknight stops radiating them. A doomknight can choose to lower his auras at will as a free action.
Aura of Doom: The first aura a doomknight gains access to is the aura of doom. An aura of doom has a radius of 15 feet. Any creature that fails a Will save becomes shaken so long as they remain within the radius of the aura and for an additional 1d4 rounds thereafter. This is a mind-effecting fear effect. Any creature who saves against this aura is immune to its effects for another 24 hours.
Aura of Fear: Starting at 8th level, a doomknight gains the power to radiate an aura of fear. Any creature that comes within 15 feet must make a Will save or become panicked for a number of rounds equal to the doomknight’s class level. A creature must save every time it enters the aura, although a creature that saves against this aura is immune to its effects for another 24 hours.
Aura of Destruction: At 15th level, a doomknight gains the ability to radiate his most powerful aura, the aura of destruction. When this aura is active, the doomknight seems to be surrounded by a dim red glow and a faint crackling noise. Any creature coming within 5 feet of the doomknight takes 2d6 points of fire damage, with a Fortitude save for half.
Rebuke Undead (Su): Starting at 5th level, a doomknight gains the ability to rebuke undead, just as a cleric of an evil deity. A doomknights effective level for rebuking undead is his class level –4. This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier.
Special Mount: At 5th level, a doomknight can call upon the services of a special mount, much as a paladin can. Unlike a paladin’s mount, a doomknight’s mount is a skeletal warhorse (light or heavy). A doomknight’s skeletal mount gains benefits just like a paladin, with the following exceptions: A doomknight’s skeletal mount has no Intelligence score, and gains no improvements over time. The skeletal mount shares no empathic link with the doomknight, nor does it gain the ability to command other creatures of its kind. Finally, the skeletal mount, unlike other skeletons, is immune to fire.
A doomknight who takes levels in blackguard can choose to make his skeletal mount his fiendish servant as well. In this case, the doomknight can treat his effective character level as two higher than normal for the purposes of benefits granted to the fiendish servant. The skeletal mount gains all of the benefits granted to a fiendish servant, including an Intelligence score and empathic link.
Sacrificial Spell: Starting at 6th level, a doomknight can trade his life force for immediate magical power. The doomknight can spontaneously cast any spell on his class spell list that he has access to by taking damage equal to 2 hit points per spell level. Nothing can reduce this damage. The life force is traded at the same time as the spell is cast; the entire process requires a standard action, or the spell’s casting time, whichever is longer.
Apocalypse: The most powerful doomknights harbor so much hatred and evil within them that they can release it in devastating bursts. At 20th level, a doomknight gains access to the apocalypse ability once per day. Using this power requires a full-round action. When activated, the doomknight can produce the combined effects of an earthquake and firestorm spell within a 100-foot radius, centered anywhere within 1,000 feet of the doomknight. Both of these effects operate at caster level 20th. Note that the doomknight is not immune to the effects of his own apocalypse. Also, as a supernatural ability, the firestorm component of this power bypasses all spell resistance; this part of the power always sets fire to the surrounding terrain and brush, unlike the spell. Provided there is combustible material present, the entire area continues to burn for a day, dealing 1d6 fire damage to anything in the area (DC 12 Reflex save for half). A large amount of water, such as using this ability in a marsh or during a heavy rain, stops the burn. The save DC for this ability is equal to 20 + the doomknight’s Charisma bonus.
Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a doomknight’s devotion grants them a small number of divine spells, much in the same way as a paladin. Their spell list primarily focuses on destructive magic. Before 4th level, a doomknight has no caster level. From 4th level on, his caster level is one half his doomknight level. A doomknight must prepare spells in advance by an hour-long prayer session at midnight or dusk. The doomknight must choose which of these will be his time for preparation when he first gains a level in the class and cannot change it thereafter. In all other regards, a doomknight’s preparation is just like a cleric’s. In order to cast a spell, a doomknight must have a Wisdom score of 10 + the spell’s level. The save DCs for this spells is 10 + the spell’s level + the doomknight’s Wisdom modifier. The base spells per day that a doomknight has access to are detailed on the table above, and he gains bonus spells per day for a high Wisdom score. A doomknight knows every spell on his class list of a level that he has access to.
Multi-classing Note: A doomknight is under a special restriction when it comes to multi-classing, in much the same manner as a paladin or monk. A doomknight’s dedication to his feelings of hatred must remain totally undiluted for him to continue to gain power. A doomknight who takes a level of any class or prestige class, other than blackguard, can never raise his doomknight level again, though he retains all his abilities. The DM remains free to declare exceptions to this rule at his choosing.
Ex-Doomknights: A doomknight who becomes non-evil looses all spellcasting and supernatural abilities granted by the class, and cannot raise his doomknight level again until he has returned to an evil alignment and atoned for his actions by means of an atonement spell.
----------------------
Doomknight Spell List
1st Level
Bane
Cause Fear
Corrupt Weapon
Darkness
Detect Fiends1
Detect Poison
Detect Undead
Divine Favor
Doom
Inflict Light Wounds
Magic Weapon
Summon Monster I*
2nd Level
Bear’s Endurance
Bull’s Strength
Eagle’s Splendor
Inflict Moderate Wounds
Owl’s Wisdom
Scare
Summon Monster II*
Undetectable Alignment
3rd Level
Bestow Curse
Blindness/Deafness
Contagion
Fireball
Inflict Serious Wounds
Poison
Summon Monster III*
4th Level
Fear
Flame Strike
Inflict Critical Wounds
Slay Living
Summon Monster IV*
Unholy Sword2
*Evil creatures only
1 This is just like the blackguard’s spell, detailed on page 182 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide
2 Like Corrupt Weapon, this is a counterpart to the paladin’s spell. Unholy Sword works exactly as the paladin spell Holy Sword, except that the extra 2d6 damage is dealt to good creatures, and the weapon radiates a magic circle against good.
----------------------
New Feats
Extra Fell Bolts
Prerequisite: Fell bolt class ability
Benefit: A doomknight can utilize his fell bolt ability an additional two times per day.
Fell Channeling
Prerequisite: Doomknight level 10
Benefit: As a single standard action, a doomknight can expend one of his daily uses of his fell bolt ability and combine the effect with a single melee attack. If the attack misses, the use of the fell bolt is wasted. If successful, the doomknight deals both the fell bolt damage and the damage from his weapon. The save DC of the fell bolt ability is increased by 1 when using this feat.
Improved Pestilence
Prerequisite: Pestilence class ability
Benefit: A doomknight automatically knows the exact abilities (save DC, type of ability damage, and amount) of any poison or disease he is exposed to. He knows learns of these abilities before having to decide whether or not to attempt capturing the affliction. Also, all save DCs for poisons and diseases delivered by his pestilence ability are increased by 2.
Masochism
Prerequisite: Fell bolt class ability
Benefit: A doomknight can choose to utilize one of this fell bolts to heal himself, much as a paladin can utilize the lay on hands ability. Unlike a paladin’s ability, the amount of healing cannot be broken up into increments; any amount of healing the fell bolt grants above the doomknight’s normal maximum hit points are wasted. A doomknight can turn as many fell bolts per day to healing as he wishes. The fell bolt still utilizes negative energy. This feat is a supernatural ability.
I like paladins. I really, really dislike the UA variants. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of coming up with alternate holy/unholy warriors, but for god's sake, make it creative! Not just, "Oh, okay, we'll invert this ability, change 'good' to 'evil,' and there we go!" That, to me, seems somehow to invalidate the original paladin idea.
I understand how you feel, but I personally think the original paladin idea should be invalidated.
For me, the most irksome point is the militant-LG premise of the class, a concept unlike that of any other class -- much more like a prestige class (as someone else suggested). The UA variants keep the basic features/concepts of the paladin, but allow for other alignments -- that alone almost fixes the class for me.
For what it's worth,
Jack
|
Aberzombie, I guess you don’t like paladins, huh? :-)
Naah, I love paladins...slow roasted over an open flame and basted with a tangy BBQ sauce. Mmmm...BBQ.
And Holy S#@tballs Saern..could your post have been any longer? Did you have to type that out elsewhere and paste it in? I know that's what I have to do with any post of decent length.
For me, the most irksome point is the militant-LG premise of the class, a concept unlike that of any other class -- much more like a prestige class (as someone else suggested).
Yeah, it's a bit off lined-up with the rest of the base classes. I've recently taken up a Paladin for a new campaign, my first Paladin - just to drive it around the block so-to-speak. I'm playing the pally as a person who has taken these oaths...and wrestles with them, although short is the list to whom he admits it. I expect somewhere along the line some quandry will lead him to become an ex-paladin unless fortune and ingenuity prevail.
Here's a thought...
When the PHB says a Paladin won't associate with anyone it knows to be evil, it really makes me wonder - shouldn't this be true of anyone who is LG. We start to deal with issues of what's the greater good, ends justifying the means and so forth...
An arguement could be made that a cleric of any non-nuetral alignment could feel himself equally unable to condone aiding or fraternizing with the unfaithful...
To the point anyway, I'm generally in favor of the UA pally's, although I agree that some of the variations come off simplistic. Perhaps if there was a means of tying Paladins to one of their god's domains... ???
Aberzombie, I guess you don’t like paladins, huh? :-)
Naah, I love paladins...slow roasted over an open flame and basted with a tangy BBQ sauce. Mmmm...BBQ.
And Holy S#@tballs Saern..could your post have been any longer? Did you have to type that out elsewhere and paste it in? I know that's what I have to do with any post of decent length.
Yes, I've got a file on my word processor with all that information, typed up in nice official Player's Handbook format. I compiled it after creating the class several months ago, and then just copy and pasted. Of course, like I said, the nice level progression chart I made on Word didn't translate well, so I had to scrap it. The one in my system also has italics, superscript, and bold font in the appropriate places, but I really didn't feel like going through the whole thing to put in the required brackets for that small enhancement here on the boards.
Think about it: All deities have clerics, so why shouldn't all deities have a warrior-type to correspond with the Lawful Good Paladins?
This is my main problem with paladins. Isn't a cleric meant to be warrior-priest? They have D8 hit dice, decent combat abilities, and a lot of spells. A paladin kind of seems like an Arthurian knight to me, so I can't see how it could be meaningfully expanded into other kinds of characters.
All of the base classes are fantasy archetypes, but the paladin is a much narrower one than the others. Almost a cleric but a bit better at fighting? Why not get rid of cleric, keep paladin and make a divine-caster base class equivalent to Wizard with far more magic, poor combat and D4 hit dice? The way the classes are set out it assumes that most priests are nerds who stay in their temples, but some take advanced combat courses and go out and crusade for their faith, i.e. clerics. Then some (paladins) learn even more combat and er... crusade a little more? And only LG guys who ride animals feel like doing this?
Whatever though, I don't disallow them, but I also haven't had anyone play one in years. As Rhavin said Fighter/Cleric is seems much better to me. That way it seems like you have a religious guy who was just a bit TOO good at fighting, and is hardcore even to the other clerics.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the knight is the best variant paladin. You get similar alignment constriction, but the abilities make a lot more sense - the emphasis is on defense and protection rather than ass-whupping and smiting. The class also does a better job of filling the (duh) knight archtype as compared with the pallie.
I'm not a big fan of the flavor for every alignment paladin. Their abilities are pretty worthless in one class, it's not like they become more interesting when spread across 4 (or 9 depending on how you slice it).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
RE: Saern's Doomknight
I like it! There's only one issue I have with it: The apocalypse ability at level 20 is WAAAAAAYYYY too powerful, IMO. And useable ONCE PER DAY?!? Once per month, maybe. Or at least once a week. Daily is a bit much. The alternative is to keep it as powerful as it is now, but make the doomknight spend XP to activate it. Like... 100xp X doomknight levels per use. This means that the 20th level doomknight is blowing 2000xp on his little light show. Better hope it's worth it. This way, you avoid people just dropping the thing all over the place.
My $0.02.
Here's a thought... When the PHB says a Paladin won't associate with anyone it knows to be evil, it really makes me wonder - shouldn't this be true of anyone who is LG...
I don't think so. Lawful Good isn't a synonym for uncompromising -- paladin is. Which is part of the reason I so dislike the class -- such limits on roleplaying :/
To the point anyway, I'm generally in favor of the UA pally's, although I agree that some of the variations come off simplistic. Perhaps if there was a means of tying Paladins to one of their god's domains... ???
I think you're spot-on here. I'm willing to take the UA variants as written, but customizing the paladin to his/her deity is an excellent idea.
In defense of paladins, I think they ARE an archetype of fantasy, and I don't think they have to be played as though you have a stick up your ass, unless you either actually have one there or are consciously choosing to be the gung ho everything is black and white kind of guy.
If you actually read any of the Arthurian tales, whether it's Mallory's version, or T.H. White's, or Marion Zimmer Bradley's, or whatever, there are some pretty earthy characters sworn to the high and knightly purposes of Arthur's court. We don't have so many English-language treatments of Charlemagne's paladins (this is where the term actually comes from), but they are real people dealing with real moral struggles in their souls as well. My favorite modern literary version of the paladin is Holger the Dane in Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions."
That said, I've come to the conclusion that the paladin doesn't get very much at high level for sacrificing all those fighter feats, and have contemplated adding a couple of special abilities, or perhaps just making some of the fighter-only feats like greater weapon spec available to them. I'm also in favor of personalizing the class to the campaign world, and coming up with interesting variants (not, as Saern noted above, cookie-cutter modifications to make a CE "anti-paladin" that's merely a mirror image of the original class.
For example, I've been working on a maritime-flavored paladin variant for my homebrew world. The idea originally came to mind as simply an order of paladins serving a certain LG sea deity, but as I played with it, I realized that the kinds of skills this order would cultivate would be quite different from their equestrian cousins. So I've ended up taking some inspiration from the ranger and druid classes, completely retooling spells, changing armor and weapon proficiencies, and generally making them less "tank-esque" and closer to the "skill-user adventurer" classes without completely gutting their combat ability. I'm not done with the scutwork yet, but will be happy to share my handiwork when it's done.
In defense of paladins, I think they ARE an archetype of fantasy, and I don't think they have to be played as though you have a stick up your...
I agree, but I do think that the archetype you allude to, and the paladin class itself, is based upon a spectacularly uncompromising moral code that is hard to get around and still stay true to the spirit or letter of the rules. IMO :)
...not, as Saern noted above, cookie-cutter modifications to make a CE "anti-paladin" that's merely a mirror image of the original class...
This is a matter of personal preference, though I'm beginning to sense that my opinion is in the minority. I'm happy to go the UA route: the paladin class stays mostly intact in it's structure and abilities, with minor modifications for each alignment represented. The alternative is to create entirely new classes for each alignment (or other) variant -- and I'm ill at ease with adding to an ever-growing list of classes.
I do think some mechanism should be added to make them more deity-specific. My solution will likely be to grant them access to one clerical domain, which might compensate for the lack of meaningful new abilites at higher levels (as suggested by Peruhain).
Regards,
Jack
In defense of paladins, I think they ARE an archetype of fantasy, and I don't think they have to be played as though you have a stick up your...I agree, but I do think that the archetype you allude to, and the paladin class itself, is based upon a spectacularly uncompromising moral code that is hard to get around and still stay true to the spirit or letter of the rules. IMO :)
I agree too, they are a fantasy archetype and I am familiar with the archetype you're talking about, but... I don't know, it's hard to explain. I'll try:
If you want the archetype of a chivalrous knight, then why not play a fighter (I'm ignoring PHBII classes seeing as we're talking about iconics)? That's one of the things the fighter is supposed to represent, and a mounted knight can easily be built with feats and made LG in alignment.
If you want to play a holy warrior, then why not play a cleric? He has miraculous powers, can fight pretty well, and is balanced between the two fields. Clearly the cleric is meant to represent a holy warrior, not your common-or-garden priest. He has the same HD as a ranger, warrior or aristocrat. He's a warrior with spiritual powers. the existence of the paladin base class I think makes people forget this, and assume that all priests are clerics and that paladins are the holy warrior archetype.
The paladin is an odd combination of the knight archetype with some weird powers from medieaval romance thrown in. In order to make one who isn't some sort of LG mounted warrior who has stepped out of a medieaval romance you have to mess with the class somehow. But the fighter and cleric can make the archetype on their own or in combination without any of the RAW having to be changed, and the cleric particularly can portray any kind of holy warrior with any weapons, armour or fighting style, of any alignment, without making any rules alterations.
As Tatterdemalion said, the paladin is just very restrictive. With the invention of prestige classes, the paladin's rules are obviously more in tune with the super-specialized PrCs than the base classes, which are deliberately open to wide interpretation in terms of charcter concept. Personally I like the UA prestige paladin rules.
One more thing though, the paladin is such a strong archetype that a paladin who is not LG and doesn't ride a horse and smite evil is not really a paladin IMO. It's just a holy warrior of a non-LG faith, and should probably be portrayed with a cleric. It seems odd to demand non-LG paladins as if every alignement has a right to them. Should there be lawful bards or chaotic monks? How about non-neutral druids?
Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved has a core class called the "champion," which is his take on the paladin. Since Arcana Evolved dispenses with alignment, champions and their abilities are keyed to a particular cause. There are champions of freedom, champions of magic, champions of death, etc. I think it's pretty well handled.
I think part of the problem with people being able to envision the paladin archetype has to do with the fantasy the most people are used to at this point in time. When D&D was first introduced, it was a mish mash of everything fantasy that was around. Barbarians were influenced by Conan, thieves were influence by Fafhrd and Mouser, magic users from Jack Vance's stories, rangers from Tolkien, bards from Celtic folklore, etc.
Paladins have a lot of their basis in things like Arthurian legend. Yes, you have "fighter" knights in Arthurian legend, but you also had knights that, so long as they never broke their vows, had various superhuman abilities. They might never be affected by fear, or they might always vanquish the evil (smiting?), but they had to uphold their moral code to maintain this benefit. While all knights were suppose to uphold a certain standard, some of the knights of the Round Table were on holy quests and held even above them. The idea that a knight would fail in this, fall, and turn to evil is where the anti-paladin/blackguard idea comes from, not so much a person that starts out as a champion of evil, but one that starts out as a champion of good that falls.
Clerics are at least partially inspired by the warrior monks of the crusades, but obviously, there is more to them than that. A lot of the spells they can cast are analogous to the micracles that many faiths ascribe to holy men (raising the dead, healing, curing disease, even calling down pillars of flame and the like). So while the cleric picked up some "baggage" in the form of militant armor and weapons, the archetype is based on lot of the traditional holy mystic rather than what paladins were based off of.
The knights in Arthurian stories weren't ordained priests, but they were formally commishioned champions of the faith, so the cleric mold doesn't quite work for them, at least as originally envisioned.
Now, I will say, with the advent of modern fantasy and the sources that most people are familiar with, the "holy knight" idea isn't nearly as prevalent, and if it doesn't really fit in a given campaign, I wouldn't argue against anyone coming up with champions of other alignments, etc. I was just pointing out that there is a basis for the class, and a reason it wasn't just part of the cleric class to begin with.
One more thing though, the paladin is such a strong archetype that a paladin who is not LG and doesn't ride a horse and smite evil is not really a paladin IMO. It's just a holy warrior of a non-LG faith, and should probably be portrayed with a cleric.
Okay, I can see that, point taken...by me anyway.
Should there be lawful bards or chaotic monks? How about non-neutral druids?
Yes, yes, and why not.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
One more thing though, the paladin is such a strong archetype that a paladin who is not LG and doesn't ride a horse and smite evil is not really a paladin IMO. It's just a holy warrior of a non-LG faith, and should probably be portrayed with a cleric. It seems odd to demand non-LG paladins as if every alignement has a right to them. Should there be lawful bards or chaotic monks? How about non-neutral druids?
Why shouldn't all faiths have access to a Paladin, if all faiths have access to Clerics? Shouldn't each faith have a warrior granted special abilities by his/her Patron Deity to become a Crusading Knight for Defending the Faith? The methods and abilities may differ, but each faith should have their own version. The variants in UA allow this to happen with a minimum of work by Players or DMs. Saern's awesome post is another option that works well to serve this same role.
As for portraying this role with a Cleric, the Cleric will always fall short of the Paladin for combat. Clerics take longer to improve their attack bonus/# of attacks than Paladins do, and are restricted on the weapons they use. This makes the Paladin a more formidable combat class than the Cleric, just as the Cleric is a more formidable spellcaster.
As for a Fighter taking the role, they do not gain access to the gifts a Paladin is granted by his/her Patron Deity in exchange for their faith and loyalty. They may get more feats, but abilities such as Detect Evil, Immunity to Disease, and Aura of Courage (among others) cannot be gained by a straight Fighter.
If you feel the role of Paladin can be better suited by cross classing, why not cross class the Paladin? Take the Paladin up to middle to high levels (8-10), then branch off. If you want more combat, branch into Fighter. Sure, you can never level up in Paladin again after branching off, but most Paladin's abilities are granted at lower levels, which allows your character access to the abilities a straight Fighter would never otherwise gain.
Taking it another step, why not do the same with a Cleric? Cross into Cleric after Paladin, and you'll have a devout follower who is strong in combat, and beginning to take the next step in becoming closer to his/her deity.
As for a Lawful Bard, Chaotic Monk, or Non-Neutral Druid, why not? As long as there's a good reason for the difference in alignment, it should be possible. Maybe the Lawful Bard is the son of the town's sheriff and never left the town? Or the Chaotic Monk is from a monastery that became cursed, resulting in an alignment shift in its membership? Or the Non-Neutral Druid's grove became polluted by the refuse of a neighboring town, causing him to turn to evil?
The beauty of D&D is that it is adaptable. Any class/alignment combination can be played if there is a good reason for it, either in a character concept, or a storyline leading to an adventure.
How do I feel about tweaking the paladin? Hahaha, need I even answer?
Naturally, I'm all for tweaking the paladin. When I run a game, one of the first house rules on the list is 'disregard alignment restrictions and universal codes of conduct' which makes paladins available to every god. If that's too simple for one of my players, I've got nothing against stealing a class from somewhere else (like UA or Saern) or making my own.
In defense of paladins, I think they ARE an archetype of fantasy, and I don't think they have to be played as though you have a stick up your...I agree, but I do think that the archetype you allude to, and the paladin class itself, is based upon a spectacularly uncompromising moral code that is hard to get around and still stay true to the spirit or letter of the rules. IMO :)
Like the historical code of chivalry, which it's based on, the paladin's code is supposed to be difficult to follow. The code is what makes the paladin into a holy warrior instead of a fighter. Of course, the DM and the rest of the party shouldn't be causing the paladin extra grief by deliberately setting up no-win situations or working against the paladin's code, either.
Paladins (of any variant) in a party change the dyanamic of the entire campaign. They cause the conflicts between Good/Evil and Law/Chaos to become a central theme for just about every adventure. Some groups enjoy this and others don't.
Using the rules for variant and/or prestige paladins in UA is always an option for integrating them more fully into a campaign. Each variant should follow a different, but equally restrictive, code that he/she swears to uphold.
As for portraying this role with a Cleric, the Cleric will always fall short of the Paladin for combat. Clerics take longer to improve their attack bonus/# of attacks than Paladins do, and are restricted on the weapons they use. This makes the Paladin a more formidable combat class than the Cleric, just as the Cleric is a more formidable spellcaster.
But to balance the game you have to make sacrifices. You want to be a holy warrior, cool, you get divine powers BUT suffer in terms of combat ability. The paladin (if we are talking pure game stats and not fantasy archetypes) fills an unecessary niche of being sort of like a cleric (the clear holy/unholy warrior archetype) but better at fighting and worse at holiness. But hey, maybe some people think the paladin is better than the cleric as a class,a nbd represents the archetype of holy warrior better. All I'm saying is that they fill the same niche in the game but their divine/combat abilities are balanced differently. The cleric's are balanced more evenly, and not only that the cleric is more open in terms of character concept. The paladin has all this baggage of being some sort of a LG Grail Knight, most of it actually built into his rules.
As for a Lawful Bard, Chaotic Monk, or Non-Neutral Druid, why not? As long as there's a good reason for the difference in alignment, it should be possible. Maybe the Lawful Bard is the son of the town's sheriff and never left the town? Or the Chaotic Monk is from a monastery that became cursed, resulting in an alignment shift in its membership? Or the Non-Neutral Druid's grove became polluted by the refuse of a neighboring town, causing him to turn to evil?
I agree, but we aren't talking about individual characters here with valid background reasons for their traits. We're talking about entire new classes with multiple members that are just like the paladin only not LG.
Let me put it another way: To demand paladins of other alignments with different codes of honour is sort of like saying "the druidic ethos is too restrictive. There should be an order of LG city-based druids who don't care about nature. Instead of their nature-based powers they get powers to detect and smite evil, and their spells are different. Other than that they are just druids." My point is, how is that a druid?
The mention of the Champion class someone made above sounds interesting. I can understand the desire for a class like this, but it needs to be open and not tied much to any archetype, like the other base classes. I'm still convinced that the paladin is tied too much to a particular archetype which, as KnightErrantJr said, is not that central to fantasy anymore.
I just think rather than make nine different types of paladins with magical warhorses/nightmares and laying on hands/curse hands, it might be more efficient to make a base class that can be easily turned to any alignment or code, like the cleric. The champion sounds like such a class, but of course it's easier for Monte Cook because he doesn't have to deal with the existence of Good and Evil like in regular D&D!
OK that's my 2 cents for what it's worth. Hopefully I didn't confuse the discussion too much...
I like paladins. I don't even mind playing LG ones as written, but my favorite is to muliclass them with those great splatbook feats like "Devoted Performer," et al. I've played a paladin/bard (great fun!), a paladin/psychic warrior (think Duncan Idaho from Dune), and, one of my favorites, a barbarian/paladin (he thought his "rage" was a holy spiritual trance). And, honestly, I really don't see why everyone dumps on them so much. I mean, yeah, they suck compared to clerics, but ALL classes suck compared to clerics unless you're in a campaign where skill points matter a lot.
Here's a thought... When the PHB says a Paladin won't associate with anyone it knows to be evil, it really makes me wonder - shouldn't this be true of anyone who is LG...I don't think so. Lawful Good isn't a synonym for uncompromising -- paladin is. Which is part of the reason I so dislike the class -- such limits on roleplaying :/
To the point anyway, I'm generally in favor of the UA pally's, although I agree that some of the variations come off simplistic. Perhaps if there was a means of tying Paladins to one of their god's domains... ???I think you're spot-on here. I'm willing to take the UA variants as written, but customizing the paladin to his/her deity is an excellent idea.
I wanted to point out here Tatter that the Paladin is actually one of the only core classes that gives you solid roleplaying guidelines. This may not be the case with all groups, but my boys and girls sometimes have a hard time "roleplaying" their characters. Much of their own personality bleeds through no matter what they have given me as a back story.
With the paladin yes, you have a narrower range of where your character can go, but some players Need that structure to help them play the game and enjoy it.
For the record, we do have one paladin in our group and he plays his part with relish and takes all the ribbing with a half smile.
just my two coppers,
-Roth
now back to reading the rest of the posts after Tatters...
KnightErrantJR touched on something I think is key to making the paladin. Code of Conduct, these written in stone rules that they must follow or fall from grace. What other class has such great roleplaying aspects?
Speaking toward making non-LG paladins this Code of Conduct idea makes it as easy as you can ask for. The LG Code of Coduct says yadda yadda yadda... Follow it, and you are granted the following abilites. For other alignments just create a new code! How simple.
I would have no problems allowing a paladin from the UA set as long as the player and I came up with a written Code of Conduct for the character to follow. Its like handing an actor his motivations before he steps on stage!
-Roth
*sigh* Every month, there's a thread about paladins, and the first few times, I posted up my views. If you want in depth stuff, look up the other three paladin threads. To simplfy- they aren't sticks in the mud unless you make them that way, and aren't nearly as limiting as some people initially assume.
I agree with Kahoolin- a non-LG paladin isn't a paladin. It's something else, which is why I made the Doomknight (good call on the use frequency, Fatespinner!). It is different from the paladin, because it is a completely different archetype.
I for one like barbarians and bards being allowed only as non-lawful, druids having to be some type of neutral, and paladins only as LG. It gives flavor with its structure, without which I feel these classes would be much more bland.
However, I will pose another question- if clerics aren't supposed to be the default priest, what is? I don't have a problem with them not being the defaults, but the rules don't state a clear alternative. Experts with ranks in Heal, Knowledge (religion), and Spellcraft?
I agree with Kahoolin- a non-LG paladin isn't a paladin. It's something else, which is why I made the Doomknight (good call on the use frequency, Fatespinner!). It is different from the paladin, because it is a completely different archetype.
There is definitely an archetypal evil warrior in fantasy media that is more than just a reversed paladin. I think the Doomknight is a pretty good go at defining them as a base class.
I for one like barbarians and bards being allowed only as non-lawful, druids having to be some type of neutral, and paladins only as LG. It gives flavor with its structure, without which I feel these classes would be much more bland.
I agree with you there too.
However, I will pose another question- if clerics aren't supposed to be the default priest, what is? I don't have a problem with them not being the defaults, but the rules don't state a clear alternative. Experts with ranks in Heal, Knowledge (religion), and Spellcraft?
Something like that. Perhaps an Adept, with a deity specific spell list? Default priests should definitely be an NPC class, as I can't see any reason why the priests of ALL religions would be capable warriors (and clerics are capable secondary combatants) with high hit points. There is definitely a gap in D&D for divine casters who are not at all combat oriented. That's why I suggested a caster with poor BAB and D4 Hit Dice earlier, as a better fit for the priest archetype. Clerics are much more like Sohei from Oriental Adventures, but the existence of the paladin makes this less obvious.
In answer to Saern, I've been playing with the idea of opening the cleric class up even further so that they are not specifically "divine warrior" types. Why should a cleric of Boccob or Fharlanghn or Olidammara wear plate armor and carry a mace? Stupid. Why should they even have heavy armor and shield proficiencies? So, I'm playing with the idea of letting clerics trade in those proficiencies in exchange for either (a) more feats specifically appropriate to their religious orders, or (b) more skill points per level. (I'm partial toward campaigns that make great use of skills). Let some clerics not be very martially-inclined at all. Let some be even more martially inclined than they already are by granting them access to more feats keyed to their deity's favored weapon. Etc.
As for non-elite, non-martial clerics like the village priest, if you want them not to have access to magic power (weren't most priests in Dragonlance like this), make them experts, otherwise you can make them adepts with a spell list modified to be appropriate to their deity (an easy way to do this is to say they have access to spells on one or more of their deity's domain lists as part of the normal spells they prepare. If you don't want to overpower the class, replace one spell per day with a domain spell and allow them to pick one domain only.
You could make clerics have a chained selection available at first or second level, like rangers with their combat styles. They could choose to be skilled, militant, or some other option.
I kind of like the idea of just experts being the typical priest, since I had a thread not too long ago bemoaning the overabundance of healing magic for a game world's NPC population, which I consider bad for storylines. The only problem I would then have is deciding when to make someone a cleric and when to make them a mundane priest. I already have trouble deciding when to make that same choice between an expert with a lot of Knowledge skills and a wizard.
...But the paladin is a uniquely narrow class, with fewer choices than any other. And more people hate it that any other -- it's a jarring anomaly in the game.
That is the point and that is the power (for a DM) of the Paladin.
Paladin’s can simply make a campaign AWESOME!
If done properly the Paladin is the greatest tool for a DM, you can steer the entire campaign by forcing the Paladin to go the direction you need him to go.
I tend to shower the Paladin with everything he could hope for, make him the most central figure in the group from the perspective of COMBAT only.
The party needs him… his is the Lancelot… he goes… the party goes.
However, everything outside of combat makes the Paladin a pain.
Things must be kept secret… information to him must be limited.
As strong holds are raised, the stakes become higher, the rumors and questions become greater and greater…
Think about it… what a high pedestal this knight has been placed… do you think the player of the Paladin wants to fall from grace… all he is held in strangle hold of his grace… and his friends around him have placed all of this at risk.
Stick to the rules… grow the Paladin in to a strong force of might, law and good… and temp all around him to betray him in secret (by small measure)… time and again… until a tipping point is reached.
The fall of a Paladin is AWESOME in its effect… and the path back to atonement can form character bonds you can’t believe…
Force Paladins play to the letter of the law… and shades of grey al around him.
|
This is my wish list for a new edition (Pelor grant that it not come too soon):
A Champion-ish class that can be tailored to individual deities/ethoi to replace paladins, blackguards, and the like.
A Cleric that isn't quite so martial. More spell-casting oriented, lower HD, etc. That way there will be less overlap with the Champion, above.
My biggest wish (somewhat related): Both of these classes are equally adept at healing, as are druids and any other healers. I would love it if players could have many choices when taking on a healer role without sacrificing how effectively they can keep their party on the mend.
Just want to chime in here real quick...
Saern, wow. I really like the Doom Knight class. But I also felt that the Apocalypse was a little bit too much... like the idea though.
I applaud you for the pestilence ability. Very nice touch. Balances the remove disease of the paladin nicely.
And the fell bolt, again, very nice. ^ ^
Mind if I use the class?
-Kurocyn
post scriptum - Count me in the "Death to all paladins camp"
This is my wish list for a new edition (Pelor grant that it not come too soon):
A Champion-ish class that can be tailored to individual deities/ethoi to replace paladins, blackguards, and the like.
A Cleric that isn't quite so martial. More spell-casting oriented, lower HD, etc. That way there will be less overlap with the Champion, above.
My biggest wish (somewhat related): Both of these classes are equally adept at healing, as are druids and any other healers. I would love it if players could have many choices when taking on a healer role without sacrificing how effectively they can keep their party on the mend.
Ditto.
Just want to chime in here real quick...
Saern, wow. I really like the Doom Knight class. But I also felt that the Apocalypse was a little bit too much... like the idea though.
I applaud you for the pestilence ability. Very nice touch. Balances the remove disease of the paladin nicely.
And the fell bolt, again, very nice. ^ ^
Mind if I use the class?
-Kurocyn
post scriptum - Count me in the "Death to all paladins camp"
I would be honored. :) Just tweak Apocalypse as you see fit (I think once a month sounds good).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
However, I will pose another question- if clerics aren't supposed to be the default priest, what is? I don't have a problem with them not being the defaults, but the rules don't state a clear alternative. Experts with ranks in Heal, Knowledge (religion), and Spellcraft?
Adepts, most likely. However, in my campaigns I tend to use the 'cloistered cleric' variant from UA as the 'majority' of priests in the world. It makes more sense to me that only a minority of the holy men (and women!) of the world would be trained to use a variety of weapons, heavy armors, and shields. Most priests are essentially wizards with divine spells and turning ability.
Obviously, the more martial the deity, the higher the cleric-to-'priest' ratio.
I wanted to point out here Tatter that the Paladin is actually one of the only core classes that gives you solid roleplaying guidelines...
Point taken. That's a benefit for many, but my players and I tend to revel in going 'outside the box.' That might very well explain some of our aversion -- it's hard to get too far outside the paladin's box, because of the roleplaying guidelines.
I agree with Kahoolin- a non-LG paladin isn't a paladin.
Arguably true. If I had designed the game, I probably would have gone a more UA-type route -- make a class called a holy warrior (or whatever), where the LG version is what we today call paladin.
Regard again :)
Jack
The Cloistered Cleric is an excellent skill instead of fighting variant.
As far as Paladins go, one of the best that I've read was Paksenarrion, who does an excellent job of being good and taking on a lot of Paladin traits, without taking on "stick" aspects.
In defense of paladins, I think they ARE an archetype of fantasy, and I don't think they have to be played as though you have a stick up your...I agree, but I do think that the archetype you allude to, and the paladin class itself, is based upon a spectacularly uncompromising moral code that is hard to get around and still stay true to the spirit or letter of the rules. IMO :)
...not, as Saern noted above, cookie-cutter modifications to make a CE "anti-paladin" that's merely a mirror image of the original class...This is a matter of personal preference, though I'm beginning to sense that my opinion is in the minority. I'm happy to go the UA route: the paladin class stays mostly intact in it's structure and abilities, with minor modifications for each alignment represented. The alternative is to create entirely new classes for each alignment (or other) variant -- and I'm ill at ease with adding to an ever-growing list of classes.
I do think some mechanism should be added to make them more deity-specific. My solution will likely be to grant them access to one clerical domain, which might compensate for the lack of meaningful new abilites at higher levels (as suggested by Peruhain).
Regards,
Jack
Personally, I can see the value of BOTH approaches and no one ever said they're mutually exclusive. Why not make use of several concepts, that way you can fill particualr niches more effectively.
A thought occurred to me don't forget Dragon 310 through 312 for ideas!
Saern, in regards to your Doomknight; I like it! It has just the right flavor for a campaign I am working on. The daily use of the Apocalypse ability is a little over powered but it could be fixed. Did you specify how much damage it did?
Yes, it operates as a combined earthquake and firestorm with a 100-foot radius at caster level 20th. I think one use per month would be more appropriate; when I made the thing, I saw the doomknight standing on a hill, destroying an entire castle or city core with this one ability. One could make it take a minute to activate as well, but that removes a lot of its potential use in a real combat situation.