Crusader, an Alternate Class for those whom want Paladin Mechanics without the Alignment restrictions


Homebrew and House Rules


Crusader

the Crusader Alternate class, for those whom want the paladin mechanics but don't want to deal with alignment restrictions or the code of conduct. i mostly took the paladin base and filed off the serial numbers while making a few tradeoffs. if you notice the lack of mercies and the lack of channel.

it is more alignment flexible than the core paladin and different enough in abilities to be similar to an archetype. it also accommodates other religions and philosophies for concepts where a deity wouldn't be appropriate because of the need for a set of ideals. it also gets around the code of conduct and alignment restrictions be being somewhat weaker, but more versatile in how it can apply it's abilities. it doesn't have the big bonus against dragons and outsiders, can't channel and doesn't have mercies, but has some combat feats and a few more skill points, even if it is set up to not utilize paladin archetypes.

if you call it a paladin without the scriptures, a paladin with the serial numbers filed off, or a paladin without the alignment restrictions as an insult, that was intentional, the Crusader steals a lot from the paladin chassis and encourages to choose a deity or religion from a wider list and work with the DM to create your own code of conduct, rather than spelling out the code for you in a prewritten format as if all paladins were the same. while you can still play a clone of Sir Roland if you desire, you have the freedom to delve into other divinely gifted crusader archetypes, which i will let you seek out for yourself, and it also makes a good class for divinely imbued knight equivalents such as a Samurai whom draws divine power from the bushido code or a Jedi whom prioritizes combat prowess over their more limited use of the supportive light side powers. it is intended to strongly resemble a paladin and has a 90% resemblance and that is the intent.


this class may be a bit controversial, but it is mostly an option for other players whom like myself, have to deal with Jerkwad DMs whom like to strip away a characters powers for the LULZ.


I do like this a lot! Very much so. Surprisingly enough, I do not feel as if it steps on the Warpriest's toes.

Your bonded weapon should have access to the unholy, axiomatic, and anarchic enchantments.

at 11th level, your horse can gain the Celestial template. Might wanna replace it with:

At 11th level, the mount gains one of these 4 templates: the Celestial, Fiendish, Entropic, or Resolute creature simple template and becomes a magical beast for the purposes of determining which spells affect it. The Crusader chooses which template is applied, but the choice must be made as one of his Patron Deity’s alignments. If his deity is true-neutral, the mount gains the template appropriate to the Crusader’s choice for his Aligned Aura class feature.

Lastly, DR gained should be able to be DR/lawful and DR/chaotic as well.


Adam B. 135 wrote:

I do like this a lot! Very much so. Surprisingly enough, I do not feel as if it steps on the Warpriest's toes.

Your bonded weapon should have access to the unholy, axiomatic, and anarchic enchantments.

at 11th level, your horse can gain the Celestial template. Might wanna replace it with:

At 11th level, the mount gains one of these 4 templates: the Celestial, Fiendish, Entropic, or Resolute creature simple template and becomes a magical beast for the purposes of determining which spells affect it. The Crusader chooses which template is applied, but the choice must be made as one of his Patron Deity’s alignments. If his deity is true-neutral, the mount gains the template appropriate to the Crusader’s choice for his Aligned Aura class feature.

Lastly, DR gained should be able to be DR/lawful and DR/chaotic as well.

i plan to fix that later.


I agree with all the points made by Adam; so nothing further to add.

I've seen several mentions of "warpriest". Is this in a new PF book? I've not bothered to purchase anything new from PF (aside from Bestiary 4) since the major disappointment (my disappointment, that is) I had with Not-So-Ultimate Combat. Er. Ultimate Combat.


I hat to say it umbrierre, but isn't the attitude you cop here a bit jerkish?

You seem to act like anyone who likes the Paladin as is is some form of inferior being whomhas no purpose in life other than laughing manically while 'harshing your mellow' ...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
this class may be a bit controversial, but it is mostly an option for other players whom like myself, have to deal with Jerkwad DMs whom like to strip away a characters powers for the LULZ.

About the worse reason for designing a class ever. If the only DM's you're ever going to find are "Jerkwads", this filed off-the-serial numbers Paladin class does not even begin to address your problem.

I would never ever design a game where the assumption is that the players or the Gamemaster are jerks. I wouldn't play or judge for such people either.


Why did you choose to count the crusader's level as fighter levels?


Da'ath wrote:

I agree with all the points made by Adam; so nothing further to add.

I've seen several mentions of "warpriest". Is this in a new PF book? I've not bothered to purchase anything new from PF (aside from Bestiary 4) since the major disappointment (my disappointment, that is) I had with Not-So-Ultimate Combat. Er. Ultimate Combat.

The Warpriest was a class being tested from the Advanced Class Guide playtest. This is a book coming this summer that will have 10 new pathfinder classes. The most recent playtest document (I think the 3rd version?) is still up for download off the Paizo website, but the test itself has been over for a while. The devs said that the Warpriest that is in that document is very close to the final version.

Notable features:
-medium BaB
-uses full BaB if using deity's favored weapon
-uses full BaB if using a weapon that the character has weapon focus in
-6th level spell casting under the Cleric list
-has a limited resource (more limited than magus arcane pool points) that it can use to cast self-only buff spells as swift actions
-gets slow bonus feat progression

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Why did you choose to count the crusader's level as fighter levels?

Actually, I am wondering this too. Upon my second look, I feel that the class may be stronger than intended. You basically gave up Paladin mercies to lose the alignment restriction and get incredible bonus feat progression. Something should be given up for what this class gained. Perhaps spellcasting? or at least a slower bonus feat progression? Something like a bonus feat every 5 levels?

Also the Crusader should count half their Crusader levels as fighter levels, like a Magus.


well, they don't get channel either. it's a bonus feat at every level divisible by 3. or 6 bonus feats at level 18. but i assumed bonus feats were weaker than mercies because there weren't many powerful feats. well, they don't have weapon training and armor training, and well, i would rather have swift action condition removal than a small bonus to hit and damage.


But the class did not only lose mercies and channel. It also lost incredibly strict roleplay restrictions. Those roleplay restrictions were included in paladin balance. It is why they are allowed to be so strong.


Adam B. 135 wrote:
But the class did not only lose mercies and channel. It also lost incredibly strict roleplay restrictions. Those roleplay restrictions were included in paladin balance. It is why they are allowed to be so strong.

roleplay restrictions do nothing to balance a class. and paladin wasn't really that powerful to begin with. it was equal in power to barbarian and ranger, which have either no alignment restrictions or much looser ones, plus something had to fill in the dead levels. in fact, you can find a few posts saying that a paladin without alignment restrictions and without a code of conduct, is no more unbalanced than a paladin whom has them.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
But the class did not only lose mercies and channel. It also lost incredibly strict roleplay restrictions. Those roleplay restrictions were included in paladin balance. It is why they are allowed to be so strong.
roleplay restrictions do nothing to balance a class.

That's an opinionated assertion, not a substantiated fact.

Quote:
...and paladin wasn't really that powerful to begin with.

That's why I assiduously (but not naggingly) lobby for an increase in their powers relative to the other classes in any game I play one (but accept it if the DM says "No"), and provide it in any game I DM. I've always thought paladins should be the most powerful of the martial classes.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
But the class did not only lose mercies and channel. It also lost incredibly strict roleplay restrictions. Those roleplay restrictions were included in paladin balance. It is why they are allowed to be so strong.
roleplay restrictions do nothing to balance a class. and paladin wasn't really that powerful to begin with. it was equal in power to barbarian and ranger, which have either no alignment restrictions or much looser ones, plus something had to fill in the dead levels. in fact, you can find a few posts saying that a paladin without alignment restrictions and without a code of conduct, is no more unbalanced than a paladin whom has them.

If they do nothing to balance a class, then they can't really be all that restrictive, as they obviously must not be stopping you from doing anything. I hear simultaneous arguments that the restrictions horribly limit the class and at the same time have no effect on it.


RDM42 wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
But the class did not only lose mercies and channel. It also lost incredibly strict roleplay restrictions. Those roleplay restrictions were included in paladin balance. It is why they are allowed to be so strong.
roleplay restrictions do nothing to balance a class. and paladin wasn't really that powerful to begin with. it was equal in power to barbarian and ranger, which have either no alignment restrictions or much looser ones, plus something had to fill in the dead levels. in fact, you can find a few posts saying that a paladin without alignment restrictions and without a code of conduct, is no more unbalanced than a paladin whom has them.
If they do nothing to balance a class, then they can't really be all that restrictive, as they obviously must not be stopping you from doing anything. I hear simultaneous arguments that the restrictions horribly limit the class and at the same time have no effect on it.

they restrict class behaviors but don't do anything to balance class power. if the class were deemed too strong, an alignment restriction is not the way to fix it. an unbalanced class is going to be unbalanced, regardless of alignment restriction.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
But the class did not only lose mercies and channel. It also lost incredibly strict roleplay restrictions. Those roleplay restrictions were included in paladin balance. It is why they are allowed to be so strong.
roleplay restrictions do nothing to balance a class. and paladin wasn't really that powerful to begin with. it was equal in power to barbarian and ranger, which have either no alignment restrictions or much looser ones, plus something had to fill in the dead levels. in fact, you can find a few posts saying that a paladin without alignment restrictions and without a code of conduct, is no more unbalanced than a paladin whom has them.
If they do nothing to balance a class, then they can't really be all that restrictive, as they obviously must not be stopping you from doing anything. I hear simultaneous arguments that the restrictions horribly limit the class and at the same time have no effect on it.
they restrict class behaviors but don't do anything to balance class power. if the class were deemed too strong, an alignment restriction is not the way to fix it. an unbalanced class is going to be unbalanced, regardless of alignment restriction.

Only if the restrictions don't alter the situations and circumstances in which those abilities can be brought to bear. If they don't do that ... Then I would say you have little to complain about. If they do do that - then yes, they do provide a balancing factor.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Crusader, an Alternate Class for those whom want Paladin Mechanics without the Alignment restrictions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules