they would, but they could also make good paladins, if we divorce the notion that paladins have to be LG. I would be more willing to agree on he terms of warpriest over cleric though. Clerics are support casters that are very capable of combat if they use the right buffs, and warpriest are a nice middle ground between cleric and fighter. The problem is that both of these classes fail when compared to the paladin when it comes to durability. The warpriest has a smaller hit die, and fervor is not as good at healing as Lay on hands. As a matter in fact, fervor, without fey foundling, is terrible at healing, unless your DM is kind enough to let the phylactery of positive channeling boost up fervor's healing. Cleric, while a higher tier class than the paladin, does not have nearly as much support for durability right off the bat until you hit levels where you can cast quickened buffs or drop Heals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I can write fluff from a couple of characters too. What point is there to that?
The paladins mechanics, if less restrictive, can fit other roleplaying niches pretty well, but as written(restricted) it just can't because arbitrary. Other classes can play the paladin's roleplaying niche, but not vice versa. People know they can play an inquisitor, or a cleric, or a warpriest, or a fighter. Those are four different classes though, and they all play differently. Paladin is the oddball in that the class is pigeonholed two, and maybe three times over(deity, alignment, and code).
|
they would, but they could also make good paladins, if we divorce the notion that paladins have to be LG. I would be more willing to agree on he terms of warpriest over cleric though. Clerics are support casters that are very capable of combat if they use the right buffs, and warpriest are a nice middle ground between cleric and fighter. The problem is that both of these classes fail when compared to the paladin when it comes to durability. The warpriest has a smaller hit die, and fervor is not as good at healing as Lay on hands. As a matter in fact, fervor, without fey foundling, is terrible at healing, unless your DM is kind enough to let the phylactery of positive channeling boost up fervor's healing. Cleric, while a higher tier class than the paladin, does not have nearly as much support for durability right off the bat until you hit levels where you can cast quickened buffs or drop Heals.
Durability!
Thanks for letting us know you are only interested in the mechanics and not the actual concept of the class.
It's a gamist attitude.
Well I can write fluff from a couple of characters too. What point is there to that?The paladins mechanics, if less restrictive, can fit other roleplaying niches pretty well, but as written(restricted) it just can't because arbitrary.
You could replace the word paladin in that statement with any other class in Pathfinder.
How is paladin or it's specific requirements the problem?
Well I can write fluff from a couple of characters too. What point is there to that?The paladins mechanics, if less restrictive, can fit other roleplaying niches pretty well, but as written(restricted) it just can't because arbitrary.You could replace the word paladin in that statement with any other class in Pathfinder.
How is paladin or it's specific requirements the problem?
Of course, paladin restrictions are a lot different than say, a fighter. People aren't asking for a fighter that has full casting, they're asking for the mechanics of the class.
Some people actually care about the mechanics of the character they play. There is a difference between playing an inquisitor, a cleric, or a paladin in the game. Sure it can fill the roleplaying portions, but when you pull out the battle map or have to solve a problem using those nifty class features of yours you might care about what you bring to the table and what your character is supposed to do.
Are you going to tell me there's not a mechanical difference between those classes and how they play out on the table? I mean, we could all just roleplay and ignore all the mechanics I guess, but that doesn't really need classes or a majority of the rulebooks text.
Indeed.
Aren't you wanting to role-play and ignore the mechanics of alignment and paladin alignment restrictions? Just because turnabout is fair play ... It isn't as if alignment isn't just as much a part of the ruleset a anything else.
If people are asking for more relaxed requirements, yes, they're asking to ignore it a bit, but no, they aren't saying they want to ignore alignment mechanics entirely, and they want to do it to have fun, probably through roleplay and game mechanics.
No one said it wasn't a part of the rules.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what a paldin truly is is what's being missed.
Why do you presume that only your opinion as to what a paladin "truly is" should carry any weight?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because mechanics should always trump flavor.I disagree. IMO mechanics exist only to support flavor.
You can't make a game that way. That sort of thinking is what directly leads to stuff like godlike casters spitting on non-casters "Because it makes sense in the flavor!".
It never ends well.
The two things should be as separate as possible. The flavor should not inform the mechanics. The mechanics should not inform the flavor.
If neither one is informing the other, it's pretty much inevitable they'll end up in contradiction.
As I see it, mechanics in an RPG is what lets a group tell shared stories without endless arguments over who killed whom. Flavor is the stories. It's why you're all sitting there around the table instead of at home watching TV.
They don't contradict at all, because it is the players and the GM and the setting that should provide the flavor, not the mechanics.
Durability!Thanks for letting us know you are only interested in the mechanics and not the actual concept of the class.
It's a gamist attitude.
No, it's because I don't see mechanics as anything more than an aid to make my character concepts come to life. It's not really a "gamist attitude" if I happen to find that mechanics of the paladin class match up the best with my concept of "warrior who shrugs off pain and keeps going through sheer willpower". It's a common trope in fantasy, but not one well supported outside of being a paladin. Sure, Godless Healing exists, but it's so mechanically weak that it fails to execute the concept in practice. It's not really a great testament to how strong this person's will is if they can heal... maybe one third of the average standard attack he's taking. At this point, it's not just mechanically weak, but breaks the concept and flavor of the character. Paladin, on the other hand, works great. Gets cut by a sword? no prob, he spends a second or two collecting his willpower (a.k.a. spends a swift action to use lay on hands), and then rips his attacker a new one (a.k.a. a full attack). You need to stop shackling yourself so hard to what's written in the book, and embrace the spirit of what a ttrpg is all about. It's about creativity and fun. Know that the rules are not there to be a straitjacket, but rather there to serve as an aid to bring your character to life. That's even written in the first few pages of the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
