| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 the scope of their capacity to apply teamwork abilities.
I think this could really work, and would hark back to the original conception of a Paladin in earlier editions of D&D as a mantle you earned rather than one you just had at first level. Without just simply making it a generic prestige class.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who is an adherent of lawful good paladins, I'm in favor of this scheme. A mundane chassis with options to Branch out into specific kinds of righteous divine champions is tantalizing.
I agree with warlord as a basic. (I'd name it warlord, since cavalier imply rider, which is not necessary). Still I'd rather make warlord full scale not-supernatural, while paladin prestige path for warriors who act in proper way and so on.
you could become paladin from position of warlord, fighter, ranger, cleric, monk, brawler
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally down with demoting the paladin to a prestige class. I like most of your points except the oath thing. I liked orders from PF1 cavalier better. Oaths imply something you have to follow and thats a can of worms best left closed. Unless you want to enjoy 9 flavors of pally cavalier falls threads. Overall, I like it. /signed
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
4E Warlord is my favourite class in any edition/version of D&D, so anything that brings it to Pathfinder works for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also really like this idea, and would advocate for it. It is going to be highly problematic for me if the paladin is the only core character that gets the highest level proficiencies with armor, and requires any kind of religious or alignment requirements enforced into its design. But I am highly skeptical that people can let go of the paladin as a base class. It seems like the idea of the paladin class is so baked into the lore of "the world's oldest RPG" at this point that it would be a "deal-breaker" for too many fans to envision them dropping it as a base class. I hope I am wrong though and the developers are with you on this idea. People want the paladin to be a character that requires convictions beyond simple training, and I agree that an archetype would fit that mold very nicely, if not what ever is going to be the "prestige class-like" option that has been hinted at.
It is also possible that the design team has backed themselves somewhat into a corner with this ones somewhat, because if the fighter is weapon-centric, who else could possibly fit the bill of stalwart-defender?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Order works just as well! Was getting the name mixed up, honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Order works just as well! Was getting the name mixed up, honestly.
/fistbump
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is enough space for both classes to remain separate things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this idea. I don't like how they are planning on making Paladin's the armor class. Mostly because I think you should be able to make an armor focused character without getting into all the morality stuff that makes a Paladin.
I kind of think Paladin should be one of the universal(ish) archetypes that they mentioned complete with LG alignment and code of conduct. That way you could use a cleric, fighter, or cavalier/knight as the base class for a spellcasting, offense, or defense focused Paladin.
I like this idea. I don't like how they are planning on making Paladin's the armor class. Mostly because I think you should be able to make an armor focused character without getting into all the morality stuff that makes a Paladin.
I kind of think Paladin should be one of the universal(ish) archetypes that they mentioned complete with LG alignment and code of conduct. That way you could use a cleric, fighter, or cavalier/knight as the base class for a spellcasting, offense, or defense focused Paladin.
Or, a prestige class perhaps?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't worry about "heavy armor" being limited to Paladin or it being "the" armor class. Armor is obviously part of vanilla Paladin trope, P1E Paladin get AC and Save boosting effects, it isn't a stretch P2E would get this. Doesn't mean other classes cannot also get "Armor Path" Feats, does not mean Paladins cannot get non-"Armor Path" Feats. Such abilities are likely to function slightly differently, because otherwise there is no point in distinct ability, but who says that means non-Paladin Armor abilities will be worse? In fact it sounds like Paladin is more focused around defending OTHERS around them at least as much as personal defence ("turtling"). In Core game, Paizo will inevitably have to prioritize some things over others, and service to vanilla tropes is obvious priority. The Archetype poll showed pretty clearly the Swashbuckler-Paladin archetype (Valiant Bravo?) was favorite Paladin archetype, so I would expect non-Armor focused Paladin archetype/Paths sooner than later. If Paizo could do Weapon/Armor Mastery with P1E Fighter, I am not worried with what they can do with P2E Fighter.
Or, a prestige class perhaps?I like this idea. I don't like how they are planning on making Paladin's the armor class. Mostly because I think you should be able to make an armor focused character without getting into all the morality stuff that makes a Paladin.
I kind of think Paladin should be one of the universal(ish) archetypes that they mentioned complete with LG alignment and code of conduct. That way you could use a cleric, fighter, or cavalier/knight as the base class for a spellcasting, offense, or defense focused Paladin.
Personally I prefer archetypes to prestige classes or multi-classing in general. I would be happy if prestige classes don't make it into PF2e and were replaced entirely with archetypes. But that's not an argument for this thread so yah a prestige class would accomplish the same goal in this case.
I like prestige classes as "specialized training from organization X only given to powerful and loyal agents"
So things like red mantis assassin, where you have some generic skills and then get special training by the org you're a member of.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Stamps with Kjeldorns seal of approval*
Good work small yet frighteningly strong Rat/Mouse!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And why can't a cavalier be a fighter specialization?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also because that leads to merging all classes into one CLASS and therefore creating mythical monster TRULY UNCHAINED PATHFINDER
I'd like to see the Paladin disappear into an archetype or prestige class, too, but I doubt that sacred cow is ready to be slaughtered. A valiant bravo could be done as a cleric or even a rogue archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the concept of the Paladin actually going into the path of a Prestige class and/or archtype. For me the Paladin have always felt like a "level1 prestige class" compared to a lot of other classes.
Good thread, have my vote! or like.... or whatever currency you are after these days.... bitcoin?
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.
Count my vote in for making Paladin (and Inquisitor) into prestige classes. Holy champions (and behind-the-scenes, above-the-law troubleshooters) should have to prove themselves before being let into such positions of . . . prestige.
bit coin is evil
Bitcoin is Chaotic Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That Idea of having the paladin build off of the cavalier remind me of something old...
I do not!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the Paladin should be the Warpriest. I never understood why they decided to split the Class between Antipaladin, Grey Paladin and the like. For me Paladin means: martial knight devoted to a god. So the code of conduct should be the same than a Cleric and the alignment the same than the god, and abracadabra here you go.
After that you have acces to goodies to break the opposites alignments and detect them, a few martials things, a few support/debuff mechanics and some spells.
I think a lot of people do not see the paladin as a martial knight devoted to a god. I don't think devotion to a god is mandatory however if we change that slightly to a higher purpose then I would agree their. I don't think the war priests current set up allows for a paladin at least not the kind of paladin I have in mind.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Paladins can be devoted to a God in my head, but don't need to be. In my head, Paladins are people who get power by being just that good a person. They are empowered by their own righteousness (or wickedness for an Antipaladin).
This is why I tend to favor the 'four corners' model. To me, being a Paladin is about extreme beliefs.
Yeah, Paladins can be devoted to a God in my head, but don't need to be. In my head, Paladins are people who get power by being just that good a person. They are empowered by their own righteousness (or wickedness for an Antipaladin).
This is why I tend to favor the 'four corners' model. To me, being a Paladin is about extreme beliefs.
Well that method certainly makes smite work better. provided smite isn't completely reworked into something completely different.
Yeah, Paladins can be devoted to a God in my head, but don't need to be. In my head, Paladins are people who get power by being just that good a person. They are empowered by their own righteousness (or wickedness for an Antipaladin).
This is why I tend to favor the 'four corners' model. To me, being a Paladin is about extreme beliefs.
I think the possibility here is that we split the Paladin concept into two: The mechanical chassis of a Martial Heavy Warrior with 4th level divine spellcasting, and the Philisphoical concept of the "Dedicated/Fanatical Warrior".
Well at least on one side you could have the "empowered by god" type of warriors on the 4 sides, while you can have the "empowered by ideals" on the extremes. Technically they dont have that much of a difference to make two seperate classes, but i think it might be easier to have some of these concepts that carry the chassis of a paladin however less restricted and maybe weaker as a result. Then you have the "Dedicated/Fanatics" of the extremes that have strict rules but stronger because of it.
Well I suspose since the paladin is probably gonna be set up with a paladin feat every other level to customize. You could have some of the abilities require certain things. Like smite evil might require a good alignment and vice versa for smite good. Some abilities could be locked behind alignment requirements for obvious reasons. So a Grey knight would not be able to get a smite evil. Might even have all together fewer choices or maybe have to focus more on armor instead of divine abilities. I think if its that way and then some sort of naming convention I would be ecstatic about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I tend to favor the 'four corners' model. To me, being a Paladin is about extreme beliefs.
I don't really see why mixed cosmic forces are more extreme than PURE LAW or PURE EVIL.
How are devils more extreme than daemons? Azatas more extreme than protean?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of tying the armor-based character to a sense of nobility more than alignment or divinity. It makes a lot of sense that it would take a more wealthy upbringing to have training and experience with armors, much less any kind of availability. This also makes it make sense that this class would be the one that would be able to specialize in highly trained mounts, without basing their mechanics on needing to be mounted. In my mind Knight is a really good generic category for this class to fall under, with cavalier, paladin, and hellknight archetypes to fall under. They could even do more cool ancestry-archetypes that we haven't even thought of or seen yet.
I'm kind of against paladins being part of another class since at least in my experience people play paladins because they want to play divine fighters and not because they want to play a flavor of knight. I think gating that behind levels would be a bad idea, especially since at the power and ability growth rate seen so far I would be surprised if they put a separation of something like that at level 10 which would be a severe time investment to get your concept up and running.
Also I'm a bit worried about the paladin possibly being a tank since tank has usually been a difficult role to create in role playing games and how offence oriented traditional paladin abilities are (their signature ability is an attack and most of their defensive abilities are passive).
as a side note how does casting work with a sword and shield paladin when it comes to divine focuses? they can't hold it in their shield arm since they're holding their shield(unless we're assuming a buckler) and they'd have to sheath their weapon to use their weapon hand making all spells they cast essentially full actions.
I'm kind of against paladins being part of another class since at least in my experience people play paladins because they want to play divine fighters and not because they want to play a flavor of knight. I think gating that behind levels would be a bad idea, especially since at the power and ability growth rate seen so far I would be surprised if they put a separation of something like that at level 10 which would be a severe time investment to get your concept up and running.
I share a lot of those concerns, my idea was to see paladin as an Archetype, available at level 1. Possibly available for the fighter, the cleric or the cavalier/knight/whatever heavy armor class, to choose, with smiting being the first level class feat replacement, or however they are managing archetypes. Letting players have a paladin that focuses on attacking, defending or casting.
A Paladin Archetype or Prestige Class could be written similar to the Cleric (i.e. If the paladin has a good alignment they get X, or if they have an evil alignment they get Y) to allow AntiPaladins to be available in the Core Rule Book.
A Paladin Archetype or Prestige Class could be written similar to the Cleric (i.e. If the paladin has a good alignment they get X, or if they have an evil alignment they get Y) to allow AntiPaladins to be available in the Core Rule Book.
Or the anti-paladin can be its own too, as can a religious zealot of any specific ideology or faith and the paladin purists could still have Paladin be its own, unique and entirely lawful good thing, without having major mechanical features (a heavy armored defender) be gated behind a single alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the anti-paladin can be its own too, as can a religious zealot of any specific ideology or faith and the paladin purists could still have Paladin be its own, unique and entirely lawful good thing, without having major mechanical features (a heavy armored defender) be gated behind a single alignment.
I only suggest combining the two because of worries about available space for archetypes, two different archetypes would definitely be best.
|
|
Yeah, Paladins can be devoted to a God in my head, but don't need to be. In my head, Paladins are people who get power by being just that good a person. They are empowered by their own righteousness (or wickedness for an Antipaladin).
This is why I tend to favor the 'four corners' model. To me, being a Paladin is about extreme beliefs.
How are any of the alignments [except True Neutral] less or more extreme than any other?
True Neutral is in the middle of an 8 pointed star, not a square.
To me, and I can't speak for anyone else, the corner Alignments are more restrictive/extreme in practice because they specifically create additional internal conflicts/circumscribed behavior. A NG character doesn't need to worry about Law or Chaos, just good, and a LN character doesn't need to worry about Good and Evil, just Law...but an extreme LG character must balance the needs of both Law and Good (prioritizing Good generally, at least in the current Paladin...but it can still cause issues). It's that kind of thing that makes a Paladin.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'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.
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'll eat my hat if the remove paladins! Simply can't see something that drastic happening.