I wish to alter the paladin class to give it a more Arthurian knight feel; making it less 'churchy' and more 'knighty'. I do want to keep the whole 'champion of good' thing however.
Lets assume for a moment that I don't want to use the Cavalier class (or any non-core material), but I wouldn't mind stealing cues from it. I wouldn't mind new ideas/features or even better, giving a slightly new twist on existing paladin features.
Ideas, suggestions?
'findel
I hate that the immediate ideas that spring to mind are so Cavalier(knightly orders, focusing on raising the morale of allies).
Would you prefer to keep this paladin type exclusively LG?
I'm mostly brainstorming for the moment, but I'm aiming at a LG/code of conduit class with few options (i.e. hardwired catch-all knightly order).
A mix of personal prowess and inspiration, I think.
As i said, I'm mostly thinking out loud at the moment...
|
If you can get a look at Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved take a look at the Class. (It's 3.5)
When one becomes a Champion he must choose what Cause to champion (Light, Freedom, a Deity, Evil, etc.), each with a slightly different build -- like a Sorcerer Bloodline or Cavalier Order.
Comparing the various Champions and Pally PrCs (Check Complete Warrior and Complete Champion, too.) will give you a good idea of how others have designed them.
There's nothing quite like looking over the Hospitaler, Knight of the Chalice, 3.5 Paladin, Champion of Freedom, Champion of Light, Pathfinder Paladin, etc., etc. as a reference when designing your own Paladin Class.
If you can get a look at Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved take a look at the Class. (It's 3.5)
When one becomes a Champion he must choose what Cause to champion (Light, Freedom, a Deity, Evil, etc.), each with a slightly different build -- like a Sorcerer Bloodline or Cavalier Order.
Interesting, I was considering this as well (even chosen the word 'champion' for the class): a pretty vanilla 'knighty' class with four archetypical options, one of which being the paladin (virtually unchanged from RaW)...
I might work around this a bit more then...
'findel
I am not sure the paladin is a good chasis for an aurthurian knight. Smite Evil, Divine Spells and Lay On Hands/Mercies are all very strongly themed to the church and to the holy warrior idea. If you strip those away you pretty much dont have the paladin anymore. If I were you I would look at the Super genius Justicar (from Advanced Options Inquisitor Judgements). It is a non casting full bab class that focuses on the judgements of the inquisitor, which I is a better base then the paladin for this kind of idea if you aren't a fan of the cavalier.
I am not sure the paladin is a good chasis for an aurthurian knight. Smite Evil, Divine Spells and Lay On Hands/Mercies are all very strongly themed to the church and to the holy warrior idea.
I don't think the paladin is that bad of a chassis; better than the fighter IMO.
Smite Evil is actually quite cavalier-esque for me, and mechanically nearly identical to the cavalier's challenge. Divine Grace, Divine Health and Lay on Hand fit the pure knight questing for the grail kind of feel, especially when used selfishly on the paladin.
I can probably do without spells however, as those are harder to re-fluff without a patron deity. Perhaps if the spells were drawn on bard list, in a 'charismatic leader' or champion of a faerie queen kind of way?
I'm not yet excluding spells, but I have a feeling they may go away (or become a paladin feature if I go for a multi-archetypical class.
I'm not yet excluding spells, but I have a feeling they may go away (or become a paladin feature if I go for a multi-archetypical class.
Frankly if your going for a more Arthurian feel I would eliminate spells altogether. None of the Knights of the Round table, exept for perhaps Percival (if my terrible memory is correct) and Lancelot (before his fall), really had the purity of spirit and faith needed to do so, IMO of course.
Most would be Cavaliers of some sort or other, some would be fighters but follow the code of Chivalry anyways and better at general combat than at fighting unholy evil or undead, which is where the Paladin really shines.
Maybe it would be easier if you said what about the Paladin should be dropped, from your view of them?
Frankly if your going for a more Arthurian feel I would eliminate spells altogether. None of the Knights of the Round table, exept for perhaps Percival (if my terrible memory is correct) and Lancelot (before his fall), really had the purity of spirit and faith needed to do so, IMO of course
For the record, I don't want to play Pendragon RPG. There will be other arcane spellcaster than merlin, and priest actually gets spells; this is D&D/Pathfinder.
I also don't want to make the paladin an Arthurian knight, I simply seek to make it more Arthurian; more 'knighty' and less 'churchy'.
The direction my work has been going, it will be more of a cavalier-type class, with (at the moment) four archetypical options: Paladin, Blackguard, Champion and Knight-Errant. The paladin 'order' will virtually recreate the paladin as RaW.
As for the cavalier, I don't have a problem with the class, but I have somewhat of an issue with so many classes].
...that and I like to thinker with character classes...
'findel
For the record, I don't want to play Pendragon RPG. There will be other arcane spellcaster than merlin, and priest actually gets spells; this is D&D/Pathfinder.
I also don't want to make the paladin an Arthurian knight, I simply seek to make it more Arthurian; more 'knighty' and less 'churchy'.
The direction my work has been going, it will be more of a cavalier-type class, with (at the moment) four archetypical options: Paladin, Blackguard, Champion and Knight-Errant. The paladin 'order' will virtually recreate the paladin as RaW.
OK so Arthurian INSPIRED but still Pathfinder. Understood.
Do you have access to any of the old 2Ed Dragonlance stuff? Their Solamnic Knight classes might give you some idea's? They are definately Arthurian inspired but also firmly entrenched in a world where magic is common.
Do you have access to any of the old 2Ed Dragonlance stuff? Their Solamnic Knight classes might give you some idea's? They are definately Arthurian inspired but also firmly entrenched in a world where magic is common.
No, I haven't. A track worth exploring however...
Once I get home and if I have the time, I'll come back to this and give you some of the notes I have from one of my early campaign world creation attempts, I basically gutted the paladin class of anything that was supernatural/magical and built it more along the lines of Lancelot from Arthurian myths, mind you a lot of it doesn't have any mechanics as I dropped the project, and what rules i do have would mostly be in 3.0 not even 3.5.
|
I would definately keep spells, I believe they are very flavoursome for a knight. YOu can always come up with a different name to 'spells' whilst keeping the abilities.
For example, Knight's Challenge, essentially forcing a mob to attack you - pretty Knightly to me. It doesn't even need to be magical, the Knight's presence on the field is enough to justify such an ability.
Hero's Defiance - using LoH on yourself as an immediate action, also not really spelllike and more just a Heroic move to ensure you can keep going.
Thanks to the APG the Paladin spells are much more like 'Heroic and Knightly' abilities than the old days of essentially left over Cleric spells
Cavalier multi class...Need I say more?
Cavalier multi class...Need I say more?
Yes you do need ;)
Lets assume for a moment that I don't want to use the Cavalier class (or any non-core material)
@ LazarX
The Arthurian Knight is extremely tied up with the Church. The more you divorce it from the latter, the more you lose the former.
While I don't completely disagree, I feel that there is more to an arthurian knight than what the paladin is (although I also came to realize that it is mostly a matter of fluff and interpretation). The paladin gets the 'pure knight shining by example' part right, and I recently found that there less to change than what I thought. For a little while, I was simply considering giving it alternate feature in exchange of spells...
@ Asteldian Caliskan
Spells are still a bit too much cleric-like for me, even if most can be re-fluffed. As I said in the OP, I'm not interested in non-core material (including the APG).
As it stands, I'm currently creating an new 'cavalier' class with four 'orders': the champion (any good or evil), the knight (any lawful) the paladin (LG) and the blackguard (LE) to replace the paladin RaW.
thanks for the input
'findel
There really is no need to change the class. Rather, you should focus on roleplaying to present the feel as the classic version of a knight. If you can find it, look at the 2nd edition Paladin's Handbook.
There really is no need to change the class. Rather, you should focus on roleplaying to present the feel as the classic version of a knight. If you can find it, look at the 2nd edition Paladin's Handbook.
You are correct off course. Going farther, you could play a rogue and fluff-it up to a knight.
The game can function with one fighter-type class, one expert-type class and one magic-user type class and everything else being fluffed around it, but personally I like a little more. For a long time, D&D and now pathfinder has offered us a little more.
Incidentally, I do have 2E AD&D paladin's handbook. It always has been a favorite of mine; not for the kits (which was the main crunch material of those books) but for everything else around it.
As a matter of fact, I started this tread after re-reading the Paladin Handbook, and after realizing that the paradigm of the paladin kind of shifted with 3rd edition (perhaps it itself shifted after 1st edition?). Or perhaps the whole world around the paladin shifted, as the default feudal setting gave way to more of a fantasy hodge-podge where giving tithe is regarded more as an eccentric religious duty than the norm.
All that to say that there is no need to change the class, but that I'd like to change the class to represent a certain abstract concept mechanically - because that what's classes do beyond being a fighter-type, a expert-type and a magic-user type character. That has been particularly true since 3.0.
'findel
You DEFINITELY want Love and War from Fantasy Flight games.
Okay, it's 3.0 and long OOP, but it's bound to give you insight and fresh ideas on this.
Best,
I have this book too, and I'll second that recommendation. It's definitely got some nifty ideas about using chivalric stuff in a fantasy game.
Tried to google it with no results. Even trustworthy ebay failed to provided a description.
sounds intriguing...
Have you checked out "Paladin's Prevail" from Gun Metal games? While not "Core" it deals with the Paladin directly, and gives you some crunch which can, in much the same way as the Complete Paladin's Handbook, be easily flavored to fit your idea of a catch-all knightly order, but with servitors of a few different ideals contained therein.
I absolutely LOVE the 2E Paladin's Handbook, and it is the only 2E book I didn't trade in. The rules are basically useless, but as you said, the stuff around it is priceless!
I have fiddled around with making the Unearthed Arcana feeling Cavalier-Paladin (read: Munchkin), and used "Paladin's Prevail", and "Cavalier's Creed", as well as the APG and Core, and Gestalt Rules from 3E Unearthed Arcana (in the true spirit of Munchkinism) and came up with...
A Munchkin.
Did not end up with the romantic paladin I was hoping for, but did kick 7 bales of $#!* out of everything he came across, and was an elitist prick.
So best of luck 'findel. Give a nod to the two PFRPG books I mentioned. Maybe they'll help you out.
You DEFINITELY want Love and War from Fantasy Flight games.
Okay, it's 3.0 and long OOP, but it's bound to give you insight and fresh ideas on this.
Best,
Is it this?
There really is no need to change the class. Rather, you should focus on roleplaying to present the feel as the classic version of a knight. If you can find it, look at the 2nd edition Paladin's Handbook.You are correct off course. Going farther, you could play a rogue and fluff-it up to a knight.
Exactly my point, the player needs to create the character and give him meaning through roleplaying. You should not need Paizo's hand to walk you through being a paladin. The basics are already there in the core rulebook. All you need to do is insert the personality.
|
Is it this?You DEFINITELY want Love and War from Fantasy Flight games.
Okay, it's 3.0 and long OOP, but it's bound to give you insight and fresh ideas on this.
Best,
Yep !
This is your Holy Grail :)