|
Hey Robert...you quoted me up top but did not write anything.... not sure if that was just a "QFT" or you just forgot to write something.
Nope - the post mephit stole my comments is all.
Which was nothing more than saying "Hello - nice to see you again - glad you could join the mutual celebration."
Robert
1. Do you think players of arcane casters should have the option to memorize divine spells instead?
2. For that matter, I think I should have a choice to be able to cast spells as a fighter.
3. You don't play a paladin if you want to be sneaky and do shady things.
Just to play devil's advocate:
1. Some mechanism for limited substitution would be very welcome: maybe you trade a whole school for access to one domain spell list as if they were arcane spells, for example. Or do you believe the domain spells like fireball should be put back strictly in the wiz/sor list, "where they belong?"
2. Isn't that why we had the duskblade? And still have the Eldrtich Knight? Obviously a lot of people DO want that option.
3. I seem to recall a "gray guard" in 3.5 for that exact concept.
So, why not have the option for a "Justiciar of Law" class that has all the paladin characteristics, but smites/detects chaos instead of evil? He could have his own set of strictures, in some cases similar to the paladin's, in others more restrictive regarding the whole "uphold and enforce the law" concept? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
1. Some mechanism for limited substitution would be very welcome: maybe you trade a whole school for access to one domain spell list as if they were arcane spells, for example. Or do you believe the domain spells like fireball should be put back strictly in the wiz/sor list, "where they belong?"
Unfortunately, that's not the point. I want to play a wizard who casts all divine spells. The answer should be "then play a cleric". Until D&D (or PF as the case may be) goes all granular and allows me to pick and choose every class feature then things are still going to be packaged in sets of features. If you don't like the features in one class... play a different class. Or, house rule a different class.
As for putting things like fireball strictly back on the wiz/sorc list... yes, in fact I do think that should be limited to wiz/sorc. If wizards can not cast cure serious wounds then clerics should not be able to cast fireball. Some things define a class. Cure spells define clerics. Fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, all define arcane casters. Clerics are not supposed to be able to deal as much damage in combat as wizards. If you want to make a cleric of a fire god then fine, give him other firey stuff with a more divine or cleric-y feel. Don't just slide fireball into their column. That (forgive me for saying) seems like a lazy way of doing it. Make divine burny spells have other cool holy type effects.
2. Isn't that why we had the duskblade? And still have the Eldrtich Knight? Obviously a lot of people DO want that option.
3. I seem to recall a "gray guard" in 3.5 for that exact concept.
So, why not have the option for a "Justiciar of Law" class that has all the paladin characteristics, but smites/detects chaos instead of evil? He could have his own set of strictures, in some cases similar to the paladin's, in others more restrictive regarding the whole "uphold and enforce the law" concept? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
You must not have read my other posts where I said basically the same thing... if you want to play a shady paladin, make a new class and give it different abilities, just don't call it a paladin. It's a holy champion of the god of shadiness. Fine with me. It's just... not... a Paladin.
|
DB3, and that is exactly why you are not a paladin.
I'll have you know my very first DnD character was a paladin. He was good to a fault(though there was a squirrel I swear would have been worth becoming an ex-paladin to kill).
|
|
Options...
Like... Class Variants...
Which will likely work just about as well under Pathfinder as under 3.5.
I'm glad to see somebody atleast agrees with me a bit...
DB3, and that is exactly why you are not a paladin.I'll have you know my very first DnD character was a paladin. He was good to a fault(though there was a squirrel I swear would have been worth becoming an ex-paladin to kill).
Doesn't mean you are. Lots of people want to be, doesn't make them so.
Good to a fault usually isn't.
Doesn't mean you are. Lots of people want to be, doesn't make them so.
Good to a fault usually isn't.
Hm, how to explain how good and lawful he was... oh, of course.
He didn't hit on a nymph dressed in nothing!
Neither does a eunuch...
Besides not hitting on someone isn't inherently good or lawful. It's just not hitting on someone.
(purposeful misunderstanding)
Besides nymphs are good creatures, of course it would be evil to hit them.
|
|
Besides hitting on someone isn't inherently good or lawful.Doesn't mean you are. Lots of people want to be, doesn't make them so.
Good to a fault usually isn't.
Hm, how to explain how good and lawful he was... oh, of course.
He didn't hit on a nymph dressed in nothing!
At least he didn't sleep in his armor with his tower shield over him like the fighter she thought was her long lost love.
(purposeful misunderstanding)
I don't know why he was afraid of being attacked at night, we had a treant watching over us...
|
|
Montalve, once again you have missed my point. If they went with my idea it would IN NO WAY infringe upon anyone's fun playing a LG paladin, it would just be a choice. More options, as long as they are balanced across levels and between classes, always makes for a better game IMHO. The Paladin, as written, is far too restrictive for general use IMO. But I'm done ranting in this thread as it doesn't really matter.
If it's any consolition I get what you are saying. I do agree with you that as written the Paladim imo is too restrictive. Sorry don't give me any of "if the Paladin is not LG it's not a Paladin" garbage. In some posters opinion it's no longer a Paladin class without any basis in fact. I thought the purpose of 3.5 was to give more options to players not restrict them. For some in this thread it's seem a capital crime to want change anything. What next maybe we should play something else besides D&D.
|
|
Solution: Copy all of the text from the paladin to a new class. Allow it to be any alignment. Call it whatever you want other than Paladin. Done.
** spoiler omitted **
Solution: Ignore condensending advice allow the Paladin to be any aligment and call it Paladin or whatever the hell Meatrace wants.
I won't even go into what you said in the spoiler because it's pretty easy to sum up. Take the game as is don't change anything and suck it up if you don't like what is written because it should never be changed. Great advice. I thought everyone viewpoint on these boards was allowed. I suppose not.
See that's the point a few of you are missing. Being LG is so infused in what a paladin is it is like taking armor away from clerics or allowing a druids to use any weapon and wear plate mail.
You have many options on how you play LG , I can think of the many paladins I have played and none are Mr. lawful stupid.
They are not just holy champions for some do not serve gods .
They are the knights of honor, the defenders of the weak, the crusaders of virtue and all that is good and just. They are the embodiment of morality and the holy sword of justice. They are Paragons of good
Once you take them from LG you move them away from that path and they no longer deserve the name.
|
|
Well I didn't want to wreck the party so I shut up, but now I won't
I like the new Paladin ....and I don't.
I'm no big fan of the dragon slaying paladin or the boost vs. undead and evil outsiders. That is In don't like the double damage vs. thease creatues. Why? It make fighters and especially rangers suck.
I have no problem with Smite attacks also ignore any damage reduction and deflection bonus to her AC, but the double damage and the aura of justice. Paladin can dump wisdom since he now has good will saves and cast spells using char.
OK here comes lvl 13 paladin and lvl 13 ranger vs Dragon.- Paladin
+ 26 damage vs dragon, charisma bonus, lets say +6 (with Eagle’s Splendor or items) to attack and she ignore any damage reduction. She can spend smite evil to give smite evil to her friends for 1 minute. Spells like bless weapon, divine favor, Holy sword.
...and I almost forgot. Divine bond give the Paldin even more boost to his weapon, so does the holy sword. ....and channel and LoH and fullplate.- Ranger
+ 6 to attack and + 6 damage vs. Dragon. Fun spells like Longstrider (OK barkskin is good but he will need the AC). He can use the hunter's bond class feature, which allows him to grant any allies within 30 feet half of his favored enemy bonus against one foe as a move action. Once given, this bonus lasts for 3 rounds... 3 round = wisdom modifier(?).
But lets not tell just half the story.....
For the whole story....
DM: The dragon, after swooping in like tornado ready to rip you apart, gracefully climbs into the grey sky shaking the treetops as it passes. You see it begin to arc slowing dipping it's right wing in a steep bank, puffing out its chest as it draws forth hundreds of gallons of air in a single breath....you stand on the ground watching, realizing to your horror what will happen when he next exhales.
Paladin: Shadows on Sarenrae, my scimitar does not have 200 ft reach! When that dragon lands, however, my god-gifted smite evil will lay it low!
Ranger: (with favored enemy dragon, pulls out bow and looses an arrow) "IF it lands, mate!"
Paladin: "You mean it won't fight fair and square and stay here on the ground so I can smite it down with my trusted Smite Evil melee attack ability....doesn't it know I only get three of these per day?"
Ranger: "Not so much" (Looses a volley of favored enemy damaging arrows with rapid shot!)
Wizard: "I can make you fly"
Paladin: "WHAT? Oh yeah! That's the way to turn the tide - even the playing field.....hit me!" (digging his feet in getting ready to take off)
Wizard: "You DO have the Fly skill, right?"
Paladin: "HUH? Are you kidding me? With 2 Skill points per level, and an Intelligence dump stat......"
DM: The dragon continues it's arc, finally making the long sweeping 180 degree turn to head back your direction - it blocks out the sun with its mass as it descends towards you....it speaks loudly in arcane magic and casts a spell of protection as it closes its distance towards between you.
Ranger: (Loosing another volley of favored enemy induced damaging arrows) "Take cover, he's coming in!"
Wizard: "Don't worry about the fly skill....the spell will aid you.... a little....."
Paladin: "Fine....whatever! Good - do it!"
Wizard: (cast Fly spell and runs for cover, hollering back to the paladin over his shoulder) "The skill is harder to perform in armor and shield.....it'll be almost impossible with your trusty tower shield....you may want to lose those...."
Paladin: (dragon bearing down on him) "....run that by me one more time.....?"
Robert
|
|
Really, cause I think the same thing about what you just wrote. a backwards compatable system you can plug in previous things and expect them to work. If you need to convert those things, then it isn't backwards compatable.
You know I usually agree with you LKL _ but this time I gotta go with believing it's more what he said.
If a creature from a previous compatible 3rd party or 3.5 WotC has Power Attack feat - we need to convert the damage in his stat block to be commensurate with Pathfinder's use of Power Attack. The word and feat still are there and works the same way thematically and has the same prereqs and is the prereq for all the same feats for the most part.....but the DM needs to change the damage from the 3.5 to that of Pathfinder....not the other way around.
So I think in your case, the best bet is to have non OGL feats be altered by your gaming group to be in line with pathfinders themes and schematics.
Robert
For the whole story....
For the whole story, we need more information.
We aren't yet certain a Paladin's Smite can't be used with a ranged weapon. Particularly if the Paladin is a servant of a God with a Ranged Weapon as Favored.
Unless you have inside information you wish to share?
I'll grant you it should only be melee, but we are not certain yet.
|
|
And sadly, the vast majority of the commentary has nothing to do with the PFRPG version of the class, but rather the same old arguments about the class that always come up when the class is mentioned.However one argument has been left out: "Why play a paladin when the class stinks!"
I would play this class to twenty levels without even cracking another book.
****
DB3, and that is exactly why you are not a paladin.
AMEN, Abraham!!! That's the one arguement I'd want to rid of most!!!
Robert
|
|
For the whole story....For the whole story, we need more information.
True enough. But either way - neither of us has the full story to make such final commentary and judgement.
Granted - I don't have such inside info - I was speaking from my educated guess, however.
And I agree it would be more appropriate only as melee - the narration wasn't a sour grapes complaint - merely an example of how too often a comparison of straight numbers doesn't tell the true story.
Robert
Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready to roll one up and go vanquish some evil!
I definitely like the changes to the Paladin. A lot more fun options.
One of my main pieces of feedback on the beta is that Paladin still wasn't changed enough to not suck. HOWEVER: I still wish that it would have been changed to a generic crusader class. Being LG is too restrictive both to the player and to a campaign, and at least in games that I play in the paladin will have large patches where he is virtually useless because his abilities are SOO specific and alignment based. Core book antipaladins is the best way to go.My 2cp.
Our opinions differ :P But such is life. I still remember all the restrictions on the paladin from AD&D 1e. Like calling on the warhorse once every ten years...If mount dies month later.. oh well.. gotta wait nine years and 11 months later :) And dont get me started on the MUST BE HUMAN thing.
But I agree it is a restrictive class. And may not be suitable for every campaign type. I just do not mind there being a restrictive class listed. Its what I grew up with. And I do understand your wanting a more generic crusader type. I actually liked the 2e option along those lines. ( I just liked the pally being better than a crusader :P )
Though, I don't see this class being uberly restrictive for most campaigns I have played or DM'd. But my group and I are arguably very "vanilla".
Lets be thankful that the days of a 5th level elf are long gone. *sighs in rememberance*
wasgreg
Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready to roll one up and go vanquish some evil!
Way ahead of you. Mine is already 3rd level with enough XP to be 4th level, just needs a bit of time to level up now. Although it's beta-plus version without the mercies, but the rest seems to be about the same as the preview.
Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready to roll one up and go vanquish some evil!
Oh yah.
wasgreg
allowing a druids to use any weapon and wear plate mail.There is a PrC that lets druid wear/use metal armor/shields.
See this is why I don't like splat books. But thats a PRC not a druid. He is now a druid 10/ PRC (not a druid) 5 of whatever...so a druid up till then the PRC is not a druid but added on to it.
|
|
The solution that I suggested was to make a class as malleable as the Cleric (and whose LG version is called a Paladin) so one has more options (which is always good) and so that in a nonstandard campaign setting all the classes would be of use to the PCs.
But in all honesty....there already IS a cleric-like divine based class that is LG that is called a Paladin.
we don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Furthemore, most widely sold RPGs need to cater to 'standard' campaigns more than non-standard - otherwise you're buying a different "setting" like Ravenloft as opposed to a standard compatible RPG.
The beautiful thing about this all is it allows you to remove standard classes that dont fit into your non-standard campaign as you see fit - and that is the options capability you were championing.
Robert
exactly what I wanted to say but much better
Precisely.
"Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready to roll one up and go vanquish some evil!"
Ahhh, the Rastafarian paladin! Haven't seen one of those in a while!
"Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready to roll one up and go vanquish some evil!"
Ahhh, the Rastafarian paladin! Haven't seen one of those in a while!
LOL
wasgreg
See this is why I don't like splat books. But thats a PRC not a druid. He is now a druid 10/ PRC (not a druid) 5 of whatever...so a druid up till then the PRC is not a druid but added on to it.allowing a druids to use any weapon and wear plate mail.There is a PrC that lets druid wear/use metal armor/shields.
Exactly, which is what I am saying. A PrC that gives you exactly what you want IS NOT THE SAME as changing the druid so it can wear heavy armor and use all weapons. I'm *fine* with custom classes, house rules, prestige classes, whatever, that give you whatever you want, I'm just saying that if you make a class that can do shady stuff that class will not be a paladin. Sure, you can call it a paladin if you like, but in truth, its not a paladin. A paladin IS Lawful Good. A paladin IS a martial defender of the weak and a seeker of truth and justice. A paladin IS a paragon of good and a shining example of all that is good and righteous in the world. Anything less than that is not a paladin. Once again though, you can feel free to call it whatever you like, but it won't be a paladin in truth. Look in the book, it says "Requirement: Lawful Good" for a reason.
So, why not have the option for a "Justiciar of Law" class that has all the paladin characteristics, but smites/detects chaos instead of evil? He could have his own set of strictures, in some cases similar to the paladin's, in others more restrictive regarding the whole "uphold and enforce the law" concept? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Wouldn't that be a Hellknight?
|
And here I thought that the 75 posts since I last checked last night meant that some huge argument had broken out about the paladin mechanics...
Nope.. just the usual paladin arguments. I even saw the classic Batman vs Superman comparison...
Good times. Continue...
Jason
LOL! :)
Jason: I absolutely love the PRPG/final version paladin! kudos to you and everyone else at Paizo who had a hand in its making!
Btw, is there gonna be a Quicken Channeling type feat in the final? I play in a 3.5/PRPG hybrid campaign and the cleric uses "Quicken Turning" from 3.5 (complete divine I think). I noticed it is kinda helpful and allow the cleric to cast his memorized spells without worrying about choosing between the (cool) memorized spell vs. keeping the party alive... I noticed the paladin preview shows that he can lay on hand as a swift on himself, which is a nice touch (so he can stay up and fight in the frontlines); cleric channeling as a swift could be cool as well, but while being cool, I also see the wisdom in not allowing that, as channeling has really boosted party survivability compared to 3.5 (i.e. channeling is already super strong, as it applies to ALL party members, so I would understand if it is never made into a swift or quickened version...)
See that's the point a few of you are missing. Being LG is so infused in what a paladin is it is like taking armor away from clerics or allowing a druids to use any weapon and wear plate mail.
You have many options on how you play LG , I can think of the many paladins I have played and none are Mr. lawful stupid.
They are not just holy champions for some do not serve gods .
They are the knights of honor, the defenders of the weak, the crusaders of virtue and all that is good and just. They are the embodiment of morality and the holy sword of justice. They are Paragons of goodOnce you take them from LG you move them away from that path and they no longer deserve the name.
I AGREE WITH YOU. Now if only you even read my posts you would see we're on the same track. A LG Crusader would be called a Paladin, and would be IDENTICAL to what it is. A CN Crusader would be called, I dunno, Blackguard/Anti-Paladin, whatever. Your Paladin would not change. A Crusader by a different color would be named appropriately. Your sacred title is intact.
Saying that I should use a variant to do this sort of thing is like saying I need a variant cleric to control rather than turn. Yes, I understand that as it is now Cleric has that flexibility and Paladin does not, but I see no reason why that flexibility could not be written into the base rules. Paladins are still extremely inflexible as a class, in alignment in his personal code in spells and in class abilities. In the right fight or adventure or campaign they shine as bright as a thousand suns, but in the wrong one or even a slightly different one they flop like a flounder.
Much as the rules on sneak attack are being accomodated so the rogue feels utterly useless less often, so should the paladin.
To the person who made absurd suggestions as to wizards casting cleric spells or fighters casting spells etc for the sake of options, again, please read my posts. I said when it can be balanced over levels and between classes, more options is always better. I don't believe that a mirror image base class to paladin, let alone a host of alignment choices for a divinely inspired warrior who never compromises their beliefs, would unbalance the class, and would in fact put it on par with other still stronger and more versatile classes.
While I do like the name crusader and like the ideal of a blackguard I just do not see them being this class.
A crusader is pretty much a cleric, that is after all what they are based off of.
A blackguard should be a champion of evil, passably demon lord I just don't see them being this class . They need their own layout as this class was designed to be what it is. It is made to be a crusader and a healer, a defender
I dont like the ideal of just re skinning it as you loose the chance to make the blackguard something other then "oh the evil paladin"
that being said maybe something along the rage line. not healing hands but something that buffs them. with new "powers" gained at levels call them devotions or heresy's
If I was to make a blackguard that is what I would do. maybe a domain, some spell casting and all about buffing themselves. Screw buffing others they want power.
A crusader is pretty much a cleric, that is after all what they are based off of.
The paladin is based off the crusaders. I.E. the knights templar, hospitaliers, etc (and I could go into a whole diatribe about how they weren't particularly good, ethical, or wholesome in their beliefs and practices but that discussion is best left elsewhere).
Clerics too, to a lesser extent, but they are also largely based on greek/roman priests of which there were different churches for different deities which all coexisted in a pantheon. I'm just saying if you're using that as a point of leverage in this argument I think you'll fail since their inspiration is largely the same.
Cleric has always sort of been a funky third wheel though, they're a healer and a back-up fighter. Only in 3.x onward has the focus been on making healing really easy so they can do other stuff with their spell slots. Which is why I think they changed the armor/weapons in PFRPG.
I subscrube to the idea that the clerics are the clergy and paladins are the templars, to use a crusade-era holy roman empire analogy.
This is really getting away from the topic though. My opinion stands that, much like a wizard in a magicless world (but who actually plays that?) or a rogue in a world populated only by oozes and undead, a paladin in a scenario that isn't good vs. evil are like gimped fighters in combat. The new Paladin does a good job at minimizing this problem, but it is still there because the class as written is not very versatile. Some people think it's okay to have a SINGLE class stick out like a sore thumb in lack of versatility for the sake of tradition. I don't.
This will not deterr me from buying PFRPG the day of release however. Good job on the mechanical changes of the class!
|
|
The paladin is based off the crusaders.
No, the D&D paladin is specifically based on Ogier the Dane (Holger Danske) in the Poul Anderson novel Three Hearts and Three Lions. Pretty much all of the D&D paladin abilities and features were derived from that novel (aura of protection from evil, paladin's mount, etc...), as were the D&D gnome, the swanmay, the troll and part of the 4th level of Q1, Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
Clerics in D&D were drawn from the Templars and the warrior-priests of the Crusades. Greece and Rome, while having pantheistic religions, didn't have a warrior priest tradition.
As to your contention for the need to have several alignment types of paladins, all I can do is repeat my mantra from other similar threads: Easiest. Houserule. Ever.
Let other companies kill all of the D&D sacred cows. Kill too many, and it isn't D&D any more. Paizo is the place I go thinking they're keeping at least Gygax's spirit alive. They change that, I have no place to go...
Edit: P.S. Jason, Paizo peeps, thanks for making the paladn much closer to what I remember. A complete bad ass against evil (and not too shabby in other areas as well). :)
The paladin is based off the crusaders.No, the D&D paladin is specifically based on Ogier the Dane (Holger Danske) in the Poul Anderson novel Three Hearts and Three Lions.
Which is in turn based on the companions of Charlemagne who defended the Holy Roman Empire against the "saracen hordes". They are little more than particularly reputed knights known for their bravery and valor. This concept, mixed with the idea of healers (Hospitaliers) and knights specifically bound to the church (Templars) inspired Three Hearts and Three Lions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladinand actually here's a pretty decent explanation of where we get the term and how it relates to both charlemagne and the crusades http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/cavalier/ThePaladin.html
But if we're talking about Gygax D&D, his vision of D&D is based off of the Lankhmar books (immoral thieves) the Conan stories (an amoral Cimmerian) and Elric (Law vs. Chaos) moreso than they are Poul Anderson's classic novel. The Paladin class still has clunky and often useless class features, and in fact should just be a Prestige Class it's so ultra specific and confining.
Derek beat me to it, ya ya got em mixed up. I don't have 1e But I do have my 2e PHB handy
Cleric's: Teutonic knights, the knights templers and the Hopitalers. It also lists archbishop Turipn from the song of roland
Paladins: Roland and the 12 peers of Charleman,Sir lancealot, Sir Gawain and Sir Galahad
Derek beat me to it, ya ya got em mixed up. I don't have 1e But I do have my 2e PHB handy
Cleric's: Teutonic knights, the knights templers and the Hopitalers. It also lists archbishop Turipn from the song of roland
Paladins: Roland and the 12 peers of Charleman,Sir lancealot, Sir Gawain and Sir Galahad
*sigh* I suppose it's pointless to argue with those who won't concede commonly known facts. The Paladin as we know it borrows concepts from both the holy orders of knights (Templars, Hospitaliers) as well as the 12 peers of Charlemagne. The term Paladin is often used to describe the Templars, and the peers of Charlemagne had no particular tie to any church whereas Templars clearly did. It's a mish mash. Next you'll be telling me that Sorcerers have utterly separate historical inspiration from that of Wizard or Warlock.
|
|
The paladin is based off the crusaders.No, the D&D paladin is specifically based on Ogier the Dane (Holger Danske) in the Poul Anderson novel Three Hearts and Three Lions.Which is in turn based on the companions of Charlemagne who defended the Holy Roman Empire against the "saracen hordes". They are little more than particularly reputed knights known for their bravery and valor. This concept, mixed with the idea of healers (Hospitaliers) and knights specifically bound to the church (Templars) inspired Three Hearts and Three Lions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
and actually here's a pretty decent explanation of where we get the term and how it relates to both charlemagne and the crusades http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/cavalier/ThePaladin.htmlBut if we're talking about Gygax D&D, his vision of D&D is based off of the Lankhmar books (immoral thieves) the Conan stories (an amoral Cimmerian) and Elric (Law vs. Chaos) moreso than they are Poul Anderson's classic novel. The Paladin class still has clunky and often useless class features, and in fact should just be a Prestige Class it's so ultra specific and confining.
Then don't play it. Is this really that hard?
I don't play Paladins because I know they're too restrictive for my playstyle. But that's the point of the Paladin class, it always has been. They are the best and brightest. Other heroes will be good, and honest and true, brave and loyal, but the Paladin is all that squared. Please create another class if you like, but hands off the Paladin.
And the tension between Lawful (which needs to be pinned down by the DM which interpretation is it is [Mine is Law=the good of the many overrides the rights of the few, and chaos is liberty for all]) and Good is part of what makes the class what it is. If you don't like it, do what I do. Don't play it and leave it to those who can dance along the thin blue line.
Incidentally, Paladins can mislead, but they can't lie. The difference is between a truth (but not the whole truth) and an untruth. See OotS 663 or the Captain Carrot example. Both are scrupulously truthful but allow the wrong impression to be given. So can any Paladin.
But to make Jason happy, the Paladin is very, very powerful against solo evil. It is much less useful against multiple evils, as most of his mega damage abilities aren't working. This fits the archetype quite well for me. The Paladin is the one who rides up to the head of the evil army and challenges them to a duel, who faces down a ferocious dragon alone, or who marches through the minions taking their hits, to prevent the BBEG completing his scheme. To me, that's a Paladin: Superman, Captain America, Michael, O-Chul and Captain Carrot wrapped up in one class. What the hell, let's throw in the Silver Agent and Benton Fraser from Due South, too.
If you want to challenge the Paladin with demons, dragons or undead, then throw hordes at them to drain the smites. The Paladin is probably more powerful than the other melee classes, just, but his restrictions should be taken into account with that.
I'm also going to houserule in a feat that allows Paladins to take other creatures as double smite (I expect aberrations, giants and the like being quite popular) in case they don't want to just be the dragonslayer.
|
|
The paladin is based off the crusaders.No, the D&D paladin is specifically based on Ogier the Dane (Holger Danske) in the Poul Anderson novel Three Hearts and Three Lions.Which is in turn based on the companions of Charlemagne who defended the Holy Roman Empire against the "saracen hordes". They are little more than particularly reputed knights known for their bravery and valor. This concept, mixed with the idea of healers (Hospitaliers) and knights specifically bound to the church (Templars) inspired Three Hearts and Three Lions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
and actually here's a pretty decent explanation of where we get the term and how it relates to both charlemagne and the crusades http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/cavalier/ThePaladin.htmlBut if we're talking about Gygax D&D, his vision of D&D is based off of the Lankhmar books (immoral thieves) the Conan stories (an amoral Cimmerian) and Elric (Law vs. Chaos) moreso than they are Poul Anderson's classic novel. The Paladin class still has clunky and often useless class features, and in fact should just be a Prestige Class it's so ultra specific and confining.
What inspired the guy who inspired Gygax is irrelevant. Charlemange hid behind the Pyrenees in history, afraid to actually fight after getting his ass handed to him. The Song of Roland was about a defeat (at the hands of the Basques), not a victory, suffered while retreating from another defeat (at the hands of the Saracens). Nothing particularly heroic or D&D paladin-like about that.
You're hung up on the history of the word "paladin". Forget that, the only thing that matters is Gygax's AD&D paladin and his influences, as far as the GAME is concerned.
The name "paladin" may have its origins in that poem, but the D&D concept of the paladin is pure Anderson. And the Pathfinder paladin is a nod to the AD&D (1e) paladin, specifically inspired by Anderson.
And, no, Gygax's "vision" of D&D was inspired by everything in appendix N of the DMG, not just three authors. Much of OD&D was a blatant rip off of quite a bit of The Lord of the Rings, for one, and Tolkien's races (except the gnome, which is Anderson's) ARE the AD&D core races. Moorcock, Howard and Lieber all lack the "dwarf, elf, half orc, halfling" line up, being human-only (other than monsters and the occasional "mysterious character") milieus.
Suggesting that only morally ambiguous characters had a place in Gygax's Greyhawk is a reach, frankly.
"Clunky and useless" are subjective. They're only so in a campaign that doesn't have the "Good v. Evil" theme going. So, your way of playing may cause paladins to be less than ideal choices as PCs in YOUR game, but that isn't everyone's problem. Actually, that isn't a problem at all. Just a) don't play a paladin in your game, or b) make an EASY HOUSERULE and create all of the non-lawful good "paladins" you want. Null persperation. Problem solved. Quit being a lloron.
|
|
"Clunky and useless" are subjective. They're only so in a campaign that doesn't have the "Good v. Evil" theme going. So, your way of playing may cause paladins to be less than ideal choices as PCs in YOUR game, but that isn't everyone's problem. Actually, that isn't a problem at all. Just a) don't play a paladin in your game, or b) make an EASY HOUSERULE and create all of the non-lawful good "paladins" you want. Null persperation. Problem solved. Quit being a lloron.
To be fair, I don't think it would be an easy houserule, but it should be doable using the UA Variants as a basis.
|
|
"Clunky and useless" are subjective. They're only so in a campaign that doesn't have the "Good v. Evil" theme going. So, your way of playing may cause paladins to be less than ideal choices as PCs in YOUR game, but that isn't everyone's problem. Actually, that isn't a problem at all. Just a) don't play a paladin in your game, or b) make an EASY HOUSERULE and create all of the non-lawful good "paladins" you want. Null persperation. Problem solved. Quit being a lloron.To be fair, I don't think it would be and easy houserule, but it should be doable using the UA Variants as a basis.
Easy enough. Change some alignment effects (good to evil, law to chaos) and let "lay on hands" heal/inflict as appropriate, flip the descriptors on the powers and, well, done. Easy.
Or, as you suggest, just "Pathfinderize" the UA variants. No sweat.
The hardest part would be risking the carpal tunnel typing it all up in Word...
And, no, Gygax's "vision" of D&D was inspired by everything in appendix N of the DMG, not just three authors. Much of OD&D was a blatant rip off of quite a bit of The Lord of the Rings, for one, and Tolkien's races (except the gnome, which is Anderson's) ARE the AD&D core races. Moorcock, Howard and Lieber all lack the "dwarf, elf, half orc, halfling" line up, being human-only (other than monsters and the occasional "mysterious character") milieus
I am a big Jack Vance fan... and it is easy to see Gygax's err ummm borrowing of spells and magic systems from Vance's writting.
:P I do much of the same err umm borrowing when comming up with plot ideas for my group.
And in defence of Meatrace, I am sure he will be using variant rules to make champions of faith for the other alignments in his home brew campaign. I just immagine he feels we are are old fuddie duddies that cannot embrace change in order to make a class in a core rule book more open for every play style.
And there is much truth in that for me. :P
But if the paladin were not the Paladin ( celestial chorus accompanied with the capital P ) it wouldn't be DnD to me. It would be someother nice gaming system that I would quickly tire of. ( anyone remember the paladin in Palladium? Just a knight with better horsmanship and weapon training. BAH!)
Anyway Meat, I think I understand where you are coming from, its just we are never gonna agree on it. And that's okay. I bet we could still make some kick arse rogues or fighters and be happy :)
wasgreg
I am disappointed that the paladins smite ability gets such a boost. Already the paladin was the star of melee fighting most BBEG with a couple of smites, now they will dominate. I know I am in the minority but I would have been much happier with smites not being used on a miss or lasting 1 round or something rather than this.
even the paladin players in my groups have already suggested this part of the rule be abandoned. IMO Smite is good enough already, perhaps a little extra tweak would have been fine but this....
In the end, it was decided that smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished, making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack.
What if this means.. you activate smite..but it stays active even if you continue to miss the first umm seven times and the fighter ends up killing the bad thing. So the foe is vanquished and the smite disapates. But each use of smite still requires an activation if it connects
I seem to remember a post earlier ( maybe around page seven? ) that said seemed to suggest this.
EDIT: But Were, why would you insist on dragging us back on topic :P
wasgreg
In the end, it was decided that smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished, making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack.What if this means.. you activate smite..but it stays active even if you continue to miss the first umm seven times and the fighter ends up killing the bad thing. So the foe is vanquished and the smite disapates. But each use of smite still requires an activation if it connects
I seem to remember a post earlier ( maybe around page seven? ) that said seemed to suggest this.
EDIT: But Were, why would you insist on dragging us back on topic :P
wasgreg
hang on have I misunderstood the smite mechanic?
so is it you activate it against a foe, and when you first hit (even if you miss a couple of times) then the smite is used; or
you activate it against a foe and everytime you swing against that foe you get the smite bonus whether that is 1 time or 8 times and it only uses up 1 smite?
does the deflection bonus last & last or run out after a while?
I would be much happier with the first scenario.
edit : sorry for focussing on the mechanical stuff : ) (and perhaps getting it all wrong)
so is it you activate it against a foe, and when you first hit (even if you miss a couple of times) then the smite is used; or
you activate it against a foe and everytime you swing against that foe you get the smite bonus whether that is 1 time or 8 times and it only uses up 1 smite?
Ya, that is the question.. and I dont believe anyone has posted over here an out and out THIS is the the way it works answer. I think we are gonna have to wait on our copy to find out. BUT, I think it will be like the option one. Though I did read it as option two the first time I read through it. Unfortunately, it can be read both ways. GRRRRR. Its these lil' teasers they use to make us wish to fast forward through summer so we can get to our games that much quicker.
does the deflection bonus last & last or run out after a while?
No clue. But IF it is option one.. I would GUESS it would disipate after each smite connected. And needed to be reactivated. *shrugs*
But if the rule isn't to your groups liking no matter how it comes out I bet you guys can come up with a good fix :P
Now, were... where is your stance on the whole pally LG stance? ( JUST JOSHIN' !!!! )
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three ...
Couldn't be farther from the truth! I only mentioned Vult and Jason Nelson because they hadn't shown up yet. In particular I mentioned Jason, because did you notice he has become a celebrity since the paladin thread, now that the "Contributor" tag was added to his name? And what do you know, he did honor us by showing up after all!
I think when you bluff you're playing a game. I don't imagine paladins being so playful, even though the player of a paladin might be.And yet that's a very limiting stereotype. A paladin can be ...
That's fine, I'm not against that interpretation. Obviously I don't think paladins are stupid, but I do think their strength comes from the qualities that make other people think they are. I would use the word quixotic. But even if someone prefers to call them stupid, I'm not in a hurry to disown those qualities in an effort to prove how much a paladin can be an empathic, regular guy. For game purposes, I happen to be more interested in how a paladin is not a regular guy.
Are his fighting tactics going to be limited by not doing anything that might seem deceptive, such as a Bluff / Feint maneuver
Actually I'm in favor of applying a Charisma penalty if the paladin chooses to fight this way, or else forgo some other bonus. (Note: that does not actually limit the paladin.) The use of cunning in combat more properly belongs to fighters, rogues, rangers, and barbarians. How the paladin fights differently is what gives us the opportunity to distinguish his core class concept from the others in terms of game mechanics. I think you would agree that a paladin does not resort to dirty tactics. He does not attack you from behind. He charges head on, and he is foolish enough to believe in fighting honorably. That is both his strength and his weakness, and I think the gaming potential of rewarding the paladin for tactics opposite those of the rogue has not been fully explored.
I am a big Jack Vance fan...
Hey Greg, nice to meet another Jack Vance fan at this party :)
