One of the major changes that I agree with is adding versatility to classes. Paladins of a few alignments, Rangers with more options then "Bow" or "2 swords", fighters with more then just feats. A lot of the classes are aligned I believe too closely to there classes.
The classes need Versatility. Taking your first level in paladin should be any where from "Freedom fighter of Kord", "Magic Protector of Boccob" or "Death night of Nerul" (to use the greyhawk deities). Rangers are hunters, so everything from "Batman", an urban track, to "Vampire hunter D", a mercenary for higher who specializes in Undead, should be written into the class.
The cleric and wizard I believe are close to the "Versatility" we need, with the rogue's special abilities being closer.
I hope this request goes heard across the board, its important that these classes are capable of doing of what many players want to do. A wizard of abjuration and a wizard of necromancy should feel as fall apart thematically and mechanically as humanly possible. Any suggestions on this?
I'm usually on the side of the fence that has the smaller voice. A LG paladin is the only paladin. He is the champion of Good and upholder of Law. Just because he is LG doesn't mean that he can't worship a Deity that is not. Some Deities just don't use Paladins and would not support such training in their churches. I really dislike the UA's different Paladins. It makes the Paladin in the PHB less unique. If you wanted to play an Evil Paladin, go for the Blackguard. It is Evil's "Paladin". As for a Chaotic Good, they wouldn't train something as rigorous as a Paladin to protect good and uphold Chaos, that's counter productive. Leave the Paladin as is.
Ranger, I don't mind making some changes to him. They made the class too focused. I think he needs a little broadening to mimic what 2nd Ed. had. But those are just thoughts.
I know the name "Paladin" almost always means good. The "Paladin" class I think we need is more of a "Zealot" class. Personally, i think that the paladin should be a prestige class, after all, it only makes sense that one trains to become a warrior of light, instead of being one out of the gates.
I just feel the classes are too specialized. Versatility, options and some specialization is optimal for a first level character. I'm in the boat of people that think that there should really only be 3 classes (the generic ones printed in Unearthed Arcana), but its a thought worth considering before the particularly specialized classes are released in book form.
I, too, would only like to see LG Paladins (there are plenty of 3E PrCs for other types of "holy warriors"), and I fear that if PF will "strip down" paladins and rangers to their basic elements, we will end up with a system similar to True20 and its customized "roles". And True20 already does it extremely well, and while I absolutely love that system, I'd rather keep these strong core classes (with alignment restrictions and all) in the core rules.
Besides, I never liked those "substitution" levels or variants (i.e. paladins of slaughter and whatever) because while they added more versatility and options, it was a head-ache (as a DM) to pour through all sorts of class variants in a dozen splat books each time I was creating an NPC *or* someone wanted to add versatility to his PC.
Personally, I would like to see the alignment requirements vanish from the Paladin. All religions should have the option of such holy (or unholy warrior) from the start. I think requiring a prestige class to do so is silly. If you make other aligned holy warriors a prestige class then the standard paladin should also be a presitge class (accessed mainly from the fighter or cleric core classes). The only reason a paladin is lawful good is because Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson said so. That is not a solid enough reason or tradition for not losing the alignment requirements in my view. The core of the paladin is about zealotry (not meant in an insulting manner) and martial skill for the faith.
After all, the ranger was originally a good only class and losing that requisite actually improved the game and the class itself.
In general i am against alignment requirements for core classes and the blocked advancement (if you are class x and take levels in class y then you can no longer advance in class x). In my opinion, those sort of restrictions are more perview of prestige classes if at all.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
fliprushman wrote: I'm usually on the side of the fence that has the smaller voice. A LG paladin is the only paladin. He is the champion of Good and upholder of Law. Just because he is LG doesn't mean that he can't worship a Deity that is not. Some Deities just don't use Paladins and would not support such training in their churches. I really dislike the UA's different Paladins. It makes the Paladin in the PHB less unique. If you wanted to play an Evil Paladin, go for the Blackguard. It is Evil's "Paladin". As for a Chaotic Good, they wouldn't train something as rigorous as a Paladin to protect good and uphold Chaos, that's counter productive. Leave the Paladin as is. The Blackguard (and other non-LG champion PrCs) is a prestige class, so more difficult to reach for players than the standard paladin. A campaign at low-levels would have to exclude them - but why? Either make all these champions PrCs (something I don't like), or make them all base classes.
Regarding the Paladin of Freedom, I see your argument, but I am working from a different premise. To me, the paladin is not trained (true, the lawful paladin will be trained - that's one aspect of being lawful). He is called. Thus the chaotic paladin would have received no training whatsoever, but he is a champion for good called by his deity.
Overall, I hate alignment restrictions, whether it's bards, barbarians, assassins or paladins. Classes based on association with fiends I can see, and even to some extent monks given the focus on their strong discipline. I don't care much whether PRPG removes these limits though, as it's fairly easily houseruled.
Asgetrion wrote: Besides, I never liked those "substitution" levels or variants (i.e. paladins of slaughter and whatever) because while they added more versatility and options, it was a head-ache (as a DM) to pour through all sorts of class variants in a dozen splat books each time I was creating an NPC *or* someone wanted to add versatility to his PC. If you are creating an NPC and do not want to go through the chore of browsing through 30 books and magazines, why do you do it? There is no requirement to add a moonwarded ranger of totemic barbarians to your campaign.
And if a player wants to add versatility, you can either say no (and restrict what books are allowed in your campaign), or tell him to provide you with the material, so the browsing and compiling is his chore. Granted, you still have to read that and consider adjustments to the campaign, which, depending on the option, might be a headache.
But IMO, options are always better than no options. You can always ignore them, but it is much more difficult to come up with them in the first place. Also, if the options are all in the core PRPG book, you do not need to browse through all the splat books/magazines, just the one book (until they bring out more books, which you can chose to ignore). I'd agree, though, that some of the more controversial options (non-LG paladins, for example) should perhaps be clearly marked as options, so DMs who do not want them and want to stick to the traditional paladin can ignore them more easily.
To address the OP: I'm all for variants. I liked the substitution class levels and alternative class features. Versatility is one of the best things of the game as it is now, to me. So I am fully in support of the OP. I do hope that the changes they make to the classes still allow for backwards compatibility with the substitution levels that already exist, without too many balancing problems.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Crave wrote: Any suggestions on this? Have you looked at the SRD under Variant Rules - Classes? There you will find barbarians that gain different abilities depending on their totem animal, three different bards, a scholarly cleric that's not a heavily armored tank, a druid that can rage like a barbarian instead of having an animal companion, a fighter that's a street-gang tough instead of a soldier, monks that specialize in different fighting styles, three variant paladins (CE, CG, LE), rangers that focus on cities or planar travel, a rogue that's a wilderness scout rather than an urban thief, a sorcerer that can wear light armor and fight in melee, various wizards to include three non-standard specialists for each school of magic, and other options.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Have you looked at the SRD under Variant Rules - Classes?
Near memorized them! I love these rules, and they're so close to what (I believe) needs to be done. Unfortunately its only so close. Many of these variants are too small to notice, or not worth the sacrifice. But this is the direction I believe Paizo should take. The idea that the "True20" books offer is great, and it works for its purpose. But True20 strips away the class system to nothing, which while works for many campaigns does not work for D&D. I'm hoping the Paizo classes will simply open up the options so much so that when a player takes a level in "Rogue", they can be a thief, a black widow assassin or a studied acrobat (ala indiana jones). Ranger's should be able to encompass anything from "Legolas" to "Batman". Wizards should be everything from "Necromancers" to "Summoner", clerics should accommodate light cloth priest and acolytes to the plate donning clerics we see in all the books today.
I feel these rules simply need to be written into the class instead of variants. The classes are simply too restricting as they stand, they should open themselves up to all definitions and concepts at a basic level without being as specific as a prestige class.
Recent threads in Races & Classes
|
