Maybe replace Paladin in Core with a Cavalier who can "evolve into" a Paladin.


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Balance the needs also doesn't work since when it comes to the only class that requires an "extreme" alignment(paladins) it shows that you're supposed to consider good more important than law since you fall from an evil act but not a chaotic one.

Liberty's Edge

vorArchivist wrote:
Balance the needs also doesn't work since when it comes to the only class that requires an "extreme" alignment(paladins) it shows that you're supposed to consider good more important than law since you fall from an evil act but not a chaotic one.

True, but the Code does pretty universally restrict you to Lawful behavior when it's not a choice between that and Good, and if you ever go all the way to NG you fall, which is sorta where I was going there.


Seems silly to me.

This is the same as adding a druid into the cleric, but saying this one loves natural stuff, a monk into the fighter, saying it punches things, a sorc into the wizard, saying this one doesnt need a book...

Ultimately all of these classes have class features and wouldnt add up well without major changes at that point, neither would a paladin and a cavalier.

I dont expect paizo to get rid of one of the core classes, so im not worried here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For some unknown reason, I had a flashback of good old times in Warcraft 2, when I upgraded my first knight into a paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In advanced D&D with the printing of Unearth Arcana the Paladin was a subclass of Cavalier....so there is historic support for such I suppose.


I really like this idea. Paladins are a select few, a special calling that’s more restrictive than a class usually is. (Even Clerics can be diverse with the mix of Gods and folks approach the class in several ways)

So an archetype, prestige class (I really dislike these but if they are in PF2...then there we are) or another choice given to another class makes sense.

It also adds a fun character arc, as the novice character earns that title and reward...well, I think that would be fun.

But I understand how losing a beloved class could be distasteful, and the Paladin came into its own with 3rd edition and has been a big part of the game going forward. (Looking back to before it was kinda a mess...but we didn’t have the larger connectedness we have today...so it just seemed a mess at the tables I was aware of.)

That being said, I will come clean and say I would totally be into three broad classes with a plethora of options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I go the other direction.

Don't pigeonhole paladins as "heavily armored people who ride horses."

A paladin is just someone whose faith gives them martial might. They are infused with divine energy, and use it not to cast spells, but protect themselves and those nearby them, and to enhance their attacks. You should be able to have paladin knights who clank around in armor and smite when they charge with their lances. And paladin sneaks who infiltrate cults and smite the demons they're summoning with a well-placed dagger in the ribs. And paladin kineticists who don't care that demons normally have electricity immunity, because they're smiting with lightning.

I'd open up paladins, sort of like how clerics have different domains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But in such situation really paladin would have to be prestige class - to add various paladin elements to base class.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

All the recent threads and blogs have me thinking about Paladins a lot, and how limiting "heavy armor tank" in core to a supernatural holy warrior is just a weird decision. So I've been leaning towards a completely redone version of the Cavalier to replace the Paladin... an oath-based but not supernatural Warlord/Tank, but one that starting around level 4-5 can start gaining supernatural powers and /become/ a Paladin as part of its development path. Without needing a prestige class.

My thoughts on this have been flowing in the following direction:

  • The first and primary pillar of the class is acting like a 4E Warlord. They direct their team in battle. PF1's often wonky Teamwork feats are cleaned up and become Cavalier class features that they can confer on those they work with.
  • The second pillar of the class is being really good with armor and shields, in contrast to the Fighter focusing on weapons. They develop like some combination of Starfinder's Armor Storm and Guard path Soldiers.
  • The cavalier gets selectable class features that let them get/improve an animal companion and be the best with mounted combat. But this is not baked in as a mandatory feature, because in a lot of campaigns, mounted combat is a suboptimal or frequently unavailable option.
  • The cavalier has oaths, much like in PF1. These are codes of conduct, and come with abilities as they level up. This thus represents their choice of "path," much like a wizard choosing a school or a sorcerer choosing a bloodline.
  • Starting probably a few levels in, the cavalier makes a choice. They can develop supernatural powers, becoming like a Paladin, a Hellknight, an Antipaladin, or the like depending on their oaths and/or alignment. Or they can develop even greater abilities to inspire their allies and demoralize their foes, similar to but different from a bard.
  • The "paladin-like" path develops partial spellcasting, using the Divine list. The alternate path instead gets more skills and greatly improves
...

i would much prefer that paladins were a class from level 1, though would not be opposed to making it a catchall class for warriors that fight for the varies gods and not just lg.


How do run an armored defender type who doesn't have a God then?


Planpanther wrote:
How do run an armored defender type who doesn't have a God then?

By the sound of it, Shield Fighter.


Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:
But in such situation really paladin would have to be prestige class - to add various paladin elements to base class.

Easy. Have some archetypes, or just options.

The default paladin gets all armor and shields. The Enlightened Paladin gets to add his Charisma modifier to AC (like a monk) while not wearing light or no armor.

Design smite so it grants a bonus to damage rolls even for spells. Did your flaming sphere bump into a guy you smote? Add your level to the damage roll. Also, let the "overcomes DR" thing also work to overcome energy resistance and immunity.

The Charisma-to-saves things works for everyone. If you want to open up evil paladins (maybe explicitly naming them antipaladins/blackguards), you could present lay hands and touch of corruption as options.

It's pretty easy.


I do see a relation between the classes but I would be more inclined to reverse it - a fallen Paladin falls to Cavalier.
And also, if you want to make a Non LG Knight, it's a Cavalier.
To me, Paladin is a narrow class that mostly represents the Arthurian Knight but it's so iconic that even being fairly narrow, it should still be a base class.
But I don't feel too strongly as long as it features in one way or another in the CRB & gets some expansion later on.

Oh, I agree non-mounted Cavalier should be built right into the base-class from the start. I'd also like a much wider range of mounts from the start, like lizards & stuff - even if it means divorcing these mounts from the Bestiary entries for the animals & doing it more like unchained Eidolon where you have some base-stats & a couple of flavour abilities based on the animal it is.


I grumble a bit at 'non-mounted cavalier,' because the name literally derives from the Latin word caballus, for horse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe re-name the Cavalier to 'Knight' then ?
But keep all the orders and banners and cool things that people like about the class.


the green knight cavalier was mountless.... though nothing stopped one from getting a mount though

all hail the order of the green


RangerWickett wrote:
I grumble a bit at 'non-mounted cavalier,' because the name literally derives from the Latin word caballus, for horse.

Its probably still the best name for the concept since knight implies nobility, paladin is already taken, Templar has religious connotations etc.


As much as I like the idea of Paladin & co. being a prestige class, it's already locked in that PF2 will have the same 11 base classes as PF1 launched with, plus Alchemist.


Athaleon wrote:
As much as I like the idea of Paladin & co. being a prestige class, it's already locked in that PF2 will have the same 11 base classes as PF1 launched with, plus Alchemist.

That doesn't rule out a "Knight" class taking the Paladins place to allow access to the mechanics from more than one alignment.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One possibility that leaps to mind is having the standard LG Paladin be the Core Class, but there be an Archetype (or a couple of them) that modifies some features and opens up Alignment options.

I'd actually be fine with that. Would everyone else? I mean, that's what PF1 did, more or less, with Antipaladin and the like. So would that be objectionable? Because I'd think it might be a good compromise, given that there are Archetypes in the corebook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So long as they aren't handicapped archtypes like the grey warden or whatever that one archetype is.

I would Prefer equally universal 'paladin equivalents' rather than LG as the only standard, but so long as they are on the same level as LG Paladins for PCs that is good enough.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:

So long as they aren't handicapped archtypes like the grey warden or whatever that ine archetype is.

I would Prefer equally universal 'paladin equivalents' rather than LG as the only standard, but so long as they are on the same level as LG Paladins for PCs that is good enough.

This is my general opinion as well.


FangDragon wrote:
I'll eat my hat if the remove paladins! Simply can't see something that drastic happening.

We need to figure out how to make a gingerbread hat . . . .


Urgh, i hate the alignment talk. However there is a bit to be said.
The problem with the whole alignment requirement with paladin and the notion around it in itself is akin to what Deadmanwalking said "Having to maintain their alignment", but its a very gamey term which basically means "uphold your code" for your character.

Basically if you follow the code of a Paladin that is enough to "maintain" your alignment, you dont have to go out of your way to enforce it apon others unless the code says so. If the code tell you not to lie you wont, it does not tell you to enforce it apon others.

So in all technicality and per writing it shouldnt be that hard to maintain, but through the ages you always have those who overthink and accidentally play the Witless Zealot archtype of the paladin (AKA lawful stupid) as they overshoot the requirements to actually keep their alignment and powers.

What this means for the character is of two points: This character in question is naturally tending toward good, and in those moments when his instincts sway his code picks up. If anything Paladin is the most pain in the arse core class to play as there is too many GMs or Players that either cant understand this, or is painting a glorified picture only a Archangel can achieve.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

So long as they aren't handicapped archtypes like the grey warden or whatever that one archetype is.

I would Prefer equally universal 'paladin equivalents' rather than LG as the only standard, but so long as they are on the same level as LG Paladins for PCs that is good enough.

could do this within reason, namely all must have smite evil for all good alignments and immunity to fear.... and disease..


Steelfiredragon wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

So long as they aren't handicapped archtypes like the grey warden or whatever that one archetype is.

I would Prefer equally universal 'paladin equivalents' rather than LG as the only standard, but so long as they are on the same level as LG Paladins for PCs that is good enough.

could do this within reason, namely all must have smite evil for all good alignments and immunity to fear.... and disease..

Any trades must be of equivalent value, and the general theme of stalwart divine (not necessarily deific driven) armored warrior must be maintained.

When I say equivalent value I don't necessarily mean one for one so long as the totality is of equivalent value during most levels.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


'Balance the needs'

That's not what alignment means to me at all. A character isn't balancing s#+% to have their alignment, they're living their life which is expressed as an alignment.

This is absolutely 100% true of the vast majority of people. It is a lot less true of anyone who has to maintain their Alignment. A Cleric has to actually work to avoid straying from his deity's teachings too far and losing his powers. A Paladin has to walk an even narrower road to avoid straying from their ideals.

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive, but if someone really feels they need to be LG, then they start having to potentially work to maintain that.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Neutral X / X Neutral [with the exception of True Neutral] represent extremity of its own sort. The purest of the good, the vilest of the evil. These people lack the chaotic bent towards liberty or the lawful bent towards order, they are extremists of their own sort.
I disagree. You can have 'champions of balance' in theory, but all Neutral means for most people is that they don't care enough about anything in the way of a cause or ideal to have their behavior shift them to one of the other Alignments. That's not universally true, but it's a common way to be Neutral.

I disagree that a character can work toward having an alignment. They simply are, or are not, of a particular alignment. As much as you might like to be LG, and as much as you might act like you are LG, you are still only N if your intent is to act like you are LG. If you don't want to save lives, but do it because you want powers, you are not Good, you are just acting like it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The fact that alignment is a subjective game feature that requires DM arbitration and contextualization is reason enough that any core class mechanics should not be "gated" behind alignment. A heavily armored warrior is much more likely to exist as a result of wealthy patronage (a knight) than just by adhering to a religious code, so it make the most sense to me for me for Paladin to be a 1st level Archetype for the knight that can easily have the desired alignment restriction, and leave other options on the table.
I am not caught up on names, but it seems like the name Paladin has intense associations for folks with alignment restrictions and keeping the name but opening up the class to any alignment feels more of a copy-cat move of other games than keeping the paladin what it is, making it available and playable from level 1, and not making it the only heavy armor specialist in the game. All of this would be accomplished by making it an archetype.


Quote:

One possibility that leaps to mind is having the standard LG Paladin be the Core Class, but there be an Archetype (or a couple of them) that modifies some features and opens up Alignment options.

I'd actually be fine with that. Would everyone else? I mean, that's what PF1 did, more or less, with Antipaladin and the like. So would that be objectionable? Because I'd think it might be a good compromise, given that there are Archetypes in the corebook.

Sure. I do not care so much about what's core and what's archetype, so if you gonna give me options to make hedge knight of Desna, bound to constantly patrol travelling routs to protect pilgrims, or undead hunter of Pharasma, both based on basic paladin skeleton I'm more than happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

could do this within reason, namely all must have smite evil for all good alignments and immunity to fear.... and disease..

I'd say Desnan paladin could get freedom of movement instead of those immunities. More in a core.

Also Torag dwarf-only stonelords paladins should definitely smite Chaos instead Evil, while Erastil Holly Hunter should give double holy damage if target is unmarried.


Dracoknight wrote:

Urgh, i hate the alignment talk. However there is a bit to be said.

The problem with the whole alignment requirement with paladin and the notion around it in itself is akin to what Deadmanwalking said "Having to maintain their alignment", but its a very gamey term which basically means "uphold your code" for your character.

Basically if you follow the code of a Paladin that is enough to "maintain" your alignment, you dont have to go out of your way to enforce it apon others unless the code says so. If the code tell you not to lie you wont, it does not tell you to enforce it apon others.

So in all technicality and per writing it shouldnt be that hard to maintain, but through the ages you always have those who overthink and accidentally play the Witless Zealot archtype of the paladin (AKA lawful stupid) as they overshoot the requirements to actually keep their alignment and powers.

What this means for the character is of two points: This character in question is naturally tending toward good, and in those moments when his instincts sway his code picks up. If anything Paladin is the most pain in the arse core class to play as there is too many GMs or Players that either cant understand this, or is painting a glorified picture only a Archangel can achieve.

This is a really good post. Folks often play paladins who assume their goal in life is make everyone live by their code. That is actually backwards. Paladins need to understand that the world is full of people who cant or wont live by their code. They need to fulfill their duties despite that. Sometimes that means working with chaotic and/or evil people and sometimes it means not outright killing an evil person. Being this good aint easy, but it provides a great reward when the day is done.


citricking wrote:
If you were going to put Paladin in another class I would put it as a pact option for a warlock. They get their powers from a supernatural entity and have to follow its restrictions.

I'm working on an old-school game that has Paladins and Warlocks, and I have seriously considered, on multiple occasions, that they might just be different expressions of the same class.

Might go there again, but for now, I have Warlocks operating as a subclass of Magician.


I'd rather the Paladin be replaced with the Warpriest, and simply be more strictly tailored to the deity it serves - if that happens to be a LG deity, then call them a Paladin, and choose class feats as appropriate to that deity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Paladin was an archetype, well, PF2 is apparently going to have universal archetypes in addition to class specific ones. So you can keep the cavalier / knight as I described it in my OP filling the Paladin's base class slot, and have some fun with how that Paladin archetype intersects with various classes.

The Paladin archetype plus my Cavalier is something more like the traditional Paladin. The archetype plus a Cleric yields something very like a Warpriest. The archetype plus a Bard is a crusading Evangelist. The archetype plus a Wizard is basically Gandalf. Etc

Liberty's Edge

totoro wrote:
I disagree that a character can work toward having an alignment. They simply are, or are not, of a particular alignment. As much as you might like to be LG, and as much as you might act like you are LG, you are still only N if your intent is to act like you are LG. If you don't want to save lives, but do it because you want powers, you are not Good, you are just acting like it.

This is true in some ways and deeply false in others. People are very rarely capable of faking something consistently over long periods of time without, to some degree, becoming that thing in truth. That's just how human psychology tends to work. There are exceptions, but they're rare.

But yeah, faking being LG with selfish motives won't help you become a Paladin until and unless those motives stop being selfish.

But I wasn't even talking about changing your Alignment. I was talking about maintaining it. Which is a whole different thing. If you're LG, and a Paladin, presumably your motivations were already pretty pure. You just need to work to maintain that dedication rather than becoming corrupted by fame or allowing the path of expedience to tempt you, or things like that.

And avoiding giving into temptation is absolutely work.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Maybe replace Paladin in Core with a Cavalier who can "evolve into" a Paladin. All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion