Contributor
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the discussion is going nicely and everyone's having a mature, thoughtful, and understanding discourse. That's good. ^_^
Speaking only for myself: I'll be disappointed if we get Paladins For Everyone. I like the exclusively Lawful Good (with shades of variance, such as gray paladins) ideal we presently have, and I hope that's what we keep. I'm not here to persuade anyone (apart from maybe a lurking developer) or dismiss anyone else's opinion; you're welcome to hold the opinion you do.
What I would like to see are separate classes that really go all in on their own identity, like a swashbuckling warrior of Elysium who can dart among legions of devils, misdirecting attacks and perplexing more rigid-minded foes. Not just the chaotic good equivalent of the tyrant archetype.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are the only class in PF2 core that will have anything to interact with heavy armor and tanking. They've already said that's not a Fighter thing, it won't be a Ranger or Barbarian thing, it certainly doesn't make sense with any other class. That alone is mechanical reason enough, besides all the myriad other reasons, for paladins to not be LG only anymore. Because only LG divine servants getting heavy armor is weird AF.
I don't even care about specific powers, I'm the GM and on the exceedingly rare times I get to play I usually go full caster. I'm not swayed by divine grace or whatever. But for my players sake, for my NPC building's sake, for world building's sake, for preventing strife at other table's sake over alignment arguments, for consistency's sake in core classes in the CRB not behaving like weird prestige classes, it should be code or deity based instead of alignment based.
We don't know that. Paizo has been so tight lipped on Paladins we can't be certain of that.Paladins are the only class in PF2 core that will have anything to interact with heavy armor and tanking. They've already said that's not a Fighter thing, it won't be a Ranger or Barbarian thing, it certainly doesn't make sense with any other class. That alone is mechanical reason enough, besides all the myriad other reasons, for paladins to not be LG only anymore. Because only LG divine servants getting heavy armor is weird AF.
I don't even care about specific powers, I'm the GM and on the exceedingly rare times I get to play I usually go full caster. I'm not swayed by divine grace or whatever. But for my players sake, for my NPC building's sake, for world building's sake, for preventing strife at other table's sake over alignment arguments, for consistency's sake in core classes in the CRB not behaving like weird prestige classes, it should be code or deity based instead of alignment based.
Eh, I think i remember reading some designer's post talking about paladins being focused on defense and armor, so while i don't think they'll be the ONLY class that has some interaction with heavy armor after a book or two, it was strongly implied that heavy armor optimization was going to be the paladins schtick.
Edit: but given that the entire segment on fighters and actions was about shield use and how fighters get to be good at attacks of opportunity, i don't think "focused on heavy armor" is quite the same thing as the only option for tanking, nor do i think it means fighters lose access to wearing the armor.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another thread mulling the same points, from both sides.
To the OP: i"m totally OK with calling these other Paladins something different, as long as they fill the same niche (so, front line fighters with divine spells and divine gifts, auras, and a code), and it is there in the first CRB.
5e is the best solution for this. It allows the typical LG, Christian Knight Crusader based paladin, while allowing other fantasy concepts.
I wish they went warpreist and demoted the paladin to a prestige class. Though there lies the issue, what a paladin is has at least three different camps. No way to please everyone on this. Id expect the core paladin to be a more fighty cleric copy in PF2.I've come to believe the Cleric is the problem class. There's too much Fighty-Man baked into it for the very common Holy Man/White Mage non-warrior type of character, and too much Casty-Man for the warrior devoted to a god who occasionally gets a little bit of divine aid from time to time. And the Fighter+ "Paladin/Divine Champion/Holy Warrior" really only works as a prestige class which should give up significant amounts of combat ability if they're going to get much more than a base fighter.
3rd edition really broke cleric open in an attempt to make them more than a healbot. Removal of sphere access was a mistake in a class that automatically has full access to the entire list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, this will probably be unpopular, and maybe someone already suggested something like this, but what if:
Similar to how a Cleric chooses a Deity and Domain, what if a Paladin chose a code? And what if (at least in Core) he/she had 3 choices? To uphold Law (LN), to uphold Good (NG), or to uphold both (LG)? And then, different abilities are granted based on which code is chosen, and the LG code resembles the traditional PF1 Paladin, but the other two, LN and NG, are fairly different (but with some important similarities), yet all three are (mostly) balanced with each other.
Thoughts?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When only looking at the core rule book of Pathfinder 1, the Paladin as a class made some sense.
There was nothing quite like it, filling the niche of "martial holy warrior". But as PF1 grew, we got other classes the did the niche just as well (arguably better) though the paladin still had a distinct flavor.
You could create a generic holy warrior class, with an option for each alignment or deity and one of those could fulfill the flavor role that the current paladin does, without needing a class full of separate mechanics.
Honestly, to me there is no point in not folding the paladin into another class as a specific variant/archetype. Although the mechanics would probably change drastically.
The point is tradition.
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?
Because them being alignment restricted basically stops a huge swathe of character concepts until we get a splatbook which adds "Paladin but not LG!"
And once again, other people getting an option doesn't take anything away from you and an appeal to tradition means nothing when that tradition has changed every bloody edition.
It is supposed to be a narrow focus. If you want to play a champion of another deity than play a cleric and modify accordingly. The alignment of the paladin is the cornerstone of the class. It defines him like no other aspect and all the powers built around the class are thematic and justified in lore associated with the holy Christian warrior concept.
But maybe the time for certain classes like paladin, rogue and ranger is over. If backgrounds can give you skills that you need then why not fold sneak attack into a martial package and spell casting into cleric and druid packages? The Detect Evil spell has been nerfed so heavily as to be pointless. The other paladin abilities could easily show up on variant cleric. Ranger abilities can be purchased from druid class options and two weapon fighting is simply a fighter feat option. Just take criminal, outlander or priest backgrounds for the rogue, ranger & paladin respectively and be done with it. Add in a bit of flexibility under multi-classing and wah lah. You got three classes
I'd add two other codes: Maintain Balance (TN) and Oppose Tyranny (CN.) This way in core there is a code for every alignment. I can play a Paladin of Pharasma just fine, or Zun-Kuton, Cayden Cailen or even Rovagug.Okay, this will probably be unpopular, and maybe someone already suggested something like this, but what if:
Similar to how a Cleric chooses a Deity and Domain, what if a Paladin chose a code? And what if (at least in Core) he/she had 3 choices? To uphold Law (LN), to uphold Good (NG), or to uphold both (LG)? And then, different abilities are granted based on which code is chosen, and the LG code resembles the traditional PF1 Paladin, but the other two, LN and NG, are fairly different (but with some important similarities), yet all three are (mostly) balanced with each other.
Thoughts?
Eh. I wouldn't. Neither of those seem very Paladin-esque to me. And I'm kind of on the side of those who wish to maintain the flavor of the class. Those really seem more Cavalier-esque to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, this will probably be unpopular, and maybe someone already suggested something like this, but what if:
Similar to how a Cleric chooses a Deity and Domain, what if a Paladin chose a code? And what if (at least in Core) he/she had 3 choices? To uphold Law (LN), to uphold Good (NG), or to uphold both (LG)? And then, different abilities are granted based on which code is chosen, and the LG code resembles the traditional PF1 Paladin, but the other two, LN and NG, are fairly different (but with some important similarities), yet all three are (mostly) balanced with each other.
Thoughts?
Take a look at the cleric and domain thread. Anathema is already causing fall arguments. I'm in the paladin is LG only camp but im fine blowing into an every alignment thing for the sake of everybody. Though trash the codes because they only cause headaches. YMMV
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how long will those who want to play those characters have to wait for the Cavalier? Possibly they never get them. And even if they do get them a Cavalier is not a divinely called champion of a god. Why is it only Gods whose faithful are either LG,LN or NG get to have Paladins?Eh. I wouldn't. Neither of those seem very Paladin-esque to me. And I'm kind of on the side of those who wish to maintain the flavor of the class. Those really seem more Cavalier-esque to me.I'd add two other codes: Maintain Balance (TN) and Oppose Tyranny (CN.) This way in core there is a code for every alignment. I can play a Paladin of Pharasma just fine, or Zun-Kuton, Cayden Cailen or even Rovagug.Okay, this will probably be unpopular, and maybe someone already suggested something like this, but what if:
Similar to how a Cleric chooses a Deity and Domain, what if a Paladin chose a code? And what if (at least in Core) he/she had 3 choices? To uphold Law (LN), to uphold Good (NG), or to uphold both (LG)? And then, different abilities are granted based on which code is chosen, and the LG code resembles the traditional PF1 Paladin, but the other two, LN and NG, are fairly different (but with some important similarities), yet all three are (mostly) balanced with each other.
Thoughts?
See, that's part of the issue here. To me, that's a Cleric. A Paladin is not (again, to me) simply a Divine Champion or Holy Warrior. They are bastions of Righteousness. A Cleric is a Holy Warrior, a Cavalier is a Knight. A Paladin is both, but also more. They're heroes. In like, the "Legendary/Mythological" sense. In my opinion, anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is why you "go play a Warpriest" types never acknowledge that the Paladin is the only divine warrior with a full BAB.
Because that's class mechanics. And mechanics can be separated from RP.
Holy warrior doesn't require full BAB.
And as the rest of you post mentioned, BAB is now dead. So it's not a useful point.
I have at least been talking about what should be done with PF2*, not what should have been done with PF1.
*Although that ship has already sailed too.
Edit: Just noticed this thread devolved into name calling and skull bashing.
I'm out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its definitely about not wanting others to have fun rather than a disagreement about things like setting, traditions of game design, using rp restrictions to balance classes and flavor.What if instead of being just LG, they can implement different order types varying on different types of lawful and/or good alignments, then implement anathema to those types of orders, giving oaths and guidelines on what paladins of each orders can or cannot do. It gets rid of the whole vague questions on what is considered lawful or good, it adds more flexibility and customization to the class while maintaining the code of honor that's associated with honorable holy knights.That's what I've been advocating.
But the idea that other people might have fun is just too much for some of these people. Either that, or they're just pathologically averse to game mechanics, that are supposed to be objective, actually being spelled out so people know how to use them consistently.
With codes and anathema, you would still have paladin orders that utilize rp restrictions, and I'm sure many of those orders will have codes that will push people into the purview of lawful good. At it will do in those cases is create hard guidelines on what is legal and what causes a paladin to fall, your order's (and your paladin's) views on what is right and wrong.
At the same time, it will allow players to create paladin's of orders that focus more on the goodly aspects, and others that focus more on Lawful aspects, letting players create paladins that forces strict law and order for the greater good of mankind (kinda like the law faction of Shin Megami Tensei), or a vigilante who believes that it is impossible to root out all the evils in the world that threaten society through legal means (kinda like batman).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until a class can be fully and fairly divorced from fundamentalist baggage that is promoted with bludgeons like 'tradition' and 'it's the only way' and 'my way or the highway' the class will be a glaring recollection to many communities of harsher times in RL when such organizations were used to terrorize and attack other peoples.
Divorcing it from such spectres of reality would enable it to shed the checkered past and allow it to move forward into a brighter future as a force of Goodness, or a Champion of Ideals.
...rather than a secret special club of rabid fundamentalists.
Truth in Text: I have played *one* paladin, in PFS, and that's probably the only place she could be played, because most GMs outside of PFS would have had her fall for being a curmudgeonly old grandmother who's Seen Some Things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, that's part of the issue here. To me, that's a Cleric. A Paladin is not (again, to me) simply a Divine Champion or Holy Warrior. They are bastions of Righteousness. A Cleric is a Holy Warrior, a Cavalier is a Knight. A Paladin is both, but also more. They're heroes. In like, the "Legendary/Mythological" sense. In my opinion, anyway.
This is a strong indication to me that your vision of the paladin is a prestige class available at first level and centered as a character designed to be played the way the game intended.
You are very welcome to that opinion. It could even be true in the sense that Gary wanted the Paladin to be the character that everyone considering playing a martial character aspired to live up to. It also seems like a very restrictive way to play a game designed to let players design their own characters that are roughly balanced against one another.
To me, this feels more like an argument for please make sure Golarion is designed around the a mechanic that lets me easily step into a role that is, in-world, regarded as the hight of honor and nobility and welcomed everywhere where Law and Goodness are held in high regard. Does this require 1/12 of the games allotted space for character classes? Can in be accomplished with an Archetype? Or does that suddenly just make it too ordinary for you?
Why does having a dedicated class for something that is supposed to feel extraordinary make it feel less special than having it occupy a less common role?
At this point Archetype is the only mechanical feature I know of in the new system that would accommodate this kind of niche role, if there is a better one, I would gladly accept it, I just don't see the value in having a base class for the kind of character that is supposed to fall outside the realm of ordinary adventurer.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is tradition.
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?
Because any narrative concept you want to achieve as a lawful good holy warrior can be achieved with the warpriest, so the paladin class is just taking up page space.
What I would like to see are separate classes that really go all in on their own identity, like a swashbuckling warrior of Elysium who can dart among legions of devils, misdirecting attacks and perplexing more rigid-minded foes. Not just the chaotic good equivalent of the tyrant archetype.
There's no room in the CRB for all of those specific classes. They would need to be in a separate book, and your LG specific class should be in that separate book too. One would hope that the LG class' abilities would have a lawful component to them, as the P1E paladin doesn't have any.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
a role that is, in-world, regarded as the hight of honor and nobility and welcomed everywhere where Law and Goodness are held in high regard.
I've never understood this. How does the world at large KNOW a PC is a paladin? They don't have anything visually different. Other have similar abilities [other have lay on hands or heal by touch] and most paladin don't have an identifiable effect [does smite evil DO something visually? Auras? Imm to disease?].
So, unless a paladin hires a crier/mistral to go ahead and regale the area with tales of his goodness and plain old awesomeness, I can't see why he'd be treated any different from any other dude in armor that has a holy symbol on it... Even if the paladin goes around letting ever person they meet that they are indeed paladin, how does the local population know you're telling the truth? You pull out your paladin union card?
See, that's part of the issue here. To me, that's a Cleric. A Paladin is not (again, to me) simply a Divine Champion or Holy Warrior. They are bastions of Righteousness. A Cleric is a Holy Warrior, a Cavalier is a Knight. A Paladin is both, but also more. They're heroes. In like, the "Legendary/Mythological" sense. In my opinion, anyway.This is a strong indication to me that your vision of the paladin is a prestige class available at first level and centered as a character designed to be played the way the game intended.
You are very welcome to that opinion. It could even be true in the sense that Gary wanted the Paladin to be the character that everyone considering playing a martial character aspired to live up to. It also seems like a very restrictive way to play a game designed to let players design their own characters that are roughly balanced against one another.
To me, this feels more like an argument for please make sure Golarion is designed around the a mechanic that lets me easily step into a role that is, in-world, regarded as the hight of honor and nobility and welcomed everywhere where Law and Goodness are held in high regard. Does this require 1/12 of the games allotted space for character classes? Can in be accomplished with an Archetype? Or does that suddenly just make it too ordinary for you?
Why does having a dedicated class for something that is supposed to feel extraordinary make it feel less special than having it occupy a less common role?
At this point Archetype is the only mechanical feature I know of in the new system that would accommodate this kind of niche role, if there is a better one, I would gladly accept it, I just don't see the value in having a base class for the kind of character that is supposed to fall outside the realm of ordinary adventurer.
Eh. Maybe you're right. I don't know. Honestly, I'm not really that concerned about all this. I'm about a billion times more passionate about halflings getting wisdom instead of charisma. So, whatever, I guess.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to see are separate classes that really go all in on their own identity, like a swashbuckling warrior of Elysium who can dart among legions of devils, misdirecting attacks and perplexing more rigid-minded foes. Not just the chaotic good equivalent of the tyrant archetype.There's no room in the CRB for all of those specific classes. They would need to be in a separate book, and your LG specific class should be in that separate book too.
That is my personal preference. If Paladins remain locked to Lawful Good, they shouldn't be a Core class. Make some Alignment book that has different classes, either for every Corner Alignment or all of them, and have Paladin as the Lawful Good class.
From what I read of Walsh, I don't think his Paladins would meet my personal standards and my preference as a DM would be "You're a Self-Righteous Fighter, not a Paladin." And on the same notion, I imagine Walsh would think "You're a Soft-Hearted Fighter without the gumption to be a Paladin." in his own games.
That two people who supposedly both enjoy playing Lawful Good characters adhering to a Code can disagree and screw each other over personal preferences for what the 'Right' way to play it is, really reinforces to me that it shouldn't be a Core class.
Since its going to be a Core class though, I say it really needs to be opened up.
I've never understood this. How does the world at large KNOW a PC is a paladin? They don't have anything visually different. Other have similar abilities [other have lay on hands or heal by touch] and most paladin don't have an identifiable effect [does smite evil DO something visually? Auras? Imm to disease?].
So, unless a paladin hires a crier/mistral to go ahead and regale the area with tales of his goodness and plain old awesomeness, I can't see why he'd be treated any different from any other dude in armor that has a holy symbol on it... Even if the paladin goes around letting ever person they meet that they are indeed paladin, how does the local population know you're telling the truth? You pull out your paladin union card?
If paladin is a profession (class) that people fall from and make up some of the most told stories in the land, it seems like people would know what a paladin is, and some characters would be capable of demonstrating their capacity for it. That would make them rather trust-worthy, although also a great target for impersonation.
In the new system, what is a holy warrior? A fighter with a holy symbol? A cleric? Mechanically, the way those two characters interact with the word would be different enough that people would notice. Is the paladin going to be mistakable as one of these characters? If so, are the different enough mechanically to justify a unique class anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'll try it again...
Not all books are equal. The core rulebook has a lot more weight than any splatbooks that come after. Would you say that an option in the core rulebook has the same weight as an option in a splatbook like Occult Adventures, or perhaps a 3rd party product like Book of Erotic Fantasy?
It's something called *expectations*. In the core books, you are safe. Outside them, you need to ask the GM for permission.
Second: exceptions do not unmake the rule. The rule is: Paladins are LG. Optional exceptions can be taken, with the GM's consent. And I've already talked about how I think other alignment champions should be made: their own unique classes, not mere shadows of the Paladin.
Third: the Paladin''s lore is so much bigger than Golarion itself... There's no single RPG setting that cannot be destroyed by a fan who knows about it more than the own author. That's why we have retcons and such.
What I'm trying to tell people here is: the Paladin, as a LG-only class, generates expectations and reactions that simply unmaking the rule wouldn't :)
Honestly, I don't know why the many concepts people come up in a thread like this cannot be their own unique classes, with their own unique abilities and descriptions. I don't want the Holy Warrior to be a Paladin-expy, I want it to be the Holy Warrior! I don't want the Hellknight to be a Paladin-expy, I want it to be the Hellknight! And so on.
Everyone gets their shiny class, with their own unique shiny powers, with their own unique shiny fluff.
The only ones who would complain to such a thing are the designers themselves: this means more work to them. No one said designing RPGs was a easy task... But alas, we'll give them the proper money for that ^^
Edit: we have produced many books talking about the Paladin's relationship with the local law. For examples of how that really happens, I suggest:
AD&D 2e: The Complete Paladin's Handbook.
D&D 3.X: Book of Exalted Deeds.
"
My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.
— Lord Alfred Tennyson, "Sir Galahad"
"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*summarization of hundreds of posts* "I WANT"
A personal emotion and desire.
Done.
/endthread
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'll try it again...
Not all books are equal. The core rulebook has a lot more weight than any splatbooks that come after. Would you say that an option in the core rulebook has the same weight as an option in a splatbook like Occult Adventures, or perhaps a 3rd party product like Book of Erotic Fantasy?
It's something called *expectations*. In the core books, you are safe. Outside them, you need to ask the GM for permission.
Second: exceptions do not unmake the rule. The rule is: Paladins are LG. Optional exceptions can be taken, with the GM's consent. And I've already talked about how I think other alignment champions should be made: their own unique classes, not mere shadows of the Paladin.
Third: the Paladin''s lore is so much bigger than Golarion itself... There's no single RPG setting that cannot be destroyed by a fan who knows about it more than the own author. That's why we have retcons and such.What I'm trying to tell people here is: the Paladin, as a LG-only class, generates expectations and reactions that simply unmaking the rule wouldn't :)
Honestly, I don't know why the many concepts people come up in a thread like this cannot be their own unique classes, with their own unique abilities and descriptions. I don't want the Holy Warrior to be a Paladin-expy, I want it to be the Holy Warrior! I don't want the Hellknight to be a Paladin-expy, I want it to be the Hellknight! And so on.
Everyone gets their shiny class, with their own unique shiny powers, with their own unique shiny fluff.
The only ones who would complain to such a thing are the designers themselves: this means more work to them. No one said designing RPGs was a easy task... But alas, we'll give them the proper money for that ^^
First, people understand your meaning, they just don't agree with it.
Second, there being a separate class for each of them is an intriguing idea indeed. Lets turn their current Paladin chassis into a Cavalier or something, and petition the devs to make an Alignment Book that has a Lawful Good only Paladin, and other classes restricted to other alignments.
Paladin players, being supposed fans of chivalry and gallantry, will all happily accept delayed access to their class so that everyone gets their Alignment Class at the same time. Throw in a sidebar saying "You can play these classes outside their alignment with X adjustment, but this is subject to GM discretion." if its so important.
Would be a great idea for an expansion book, they can really dedicate the page space the Paladin and alignment in general need to really define their ethos. And we'd get some shiny new classes out of it.
I strongly expect paladin will remain alignment locked or good only as is, given that they've already shown clerics with alignment restrictions + anathema, and have stated they're including a sidebar(guideline?) on playing without alignment in core.
If paladin is a profession (class) that people fall from and make up some of the most told stories in the land, it seems like people would know what a paladin is, and some characters would be capable of demonstrating their capacity for it. That would make them rather trust-worthy, although also a great target for impersonation.
I'm not questioning people know what a paladin is: I'm sure they have some idea. My question is how they know that THIS PC is one. Because he says so?
In the new system, what is a holy warrior? A fighter with a holy symbol? A cleric? Mechanically, the way those two characters interact with the word would be different enough that people would notice. Is the paladin going to be mistakable as one of these characters? If so, are the different enough mechanically to justify a unique class anyway?
About the only way I can figure out what class someone is is to cast a spell that detects spells [they do exist]. Other than that? There really isn't a way to tell. For me, a PC is going to be treated by what they do and their individual reputation and not by what class they have. So IMO, a paladin would be treated well if they are known for the good deeds they have personally done and not because 'tradition' or an unseeable 'class'.
If paladin is a profession (class) that people fall from and make up some of the most told stories in the land, it seems like people would know what a paladin is, and some characters would be capable of demonstrating their capacity for it. That would make them rather trust-worthy, although also a great target for impersonation.I'm not questioning people know what a paladin is: I'm sure they have some idea. My question is how they know that THIS PC is one. Because he says so?
In the new system, what is a holy warrior? A fighter with a holy symbol? A cleric? Mechanically, the way those two characters interact with the word would be different enough that people would notice. Is the paladin going to be mistakable as one of these characters? If so, are the different enough mechanically to justify a unique class anyway?About the only way I can figure out what class someone is is to cast a spell that detects spells [they do exist]. Other than that? There really isn't a way to tell. For me, a PC is going to be treated by what they do and their individual reputation and not by what class they have. So IMO, a paladin would be treated well if they are known for the good deeds they have personally done and not because 'tradition' or an unseeable 'class'.
How do you know this other guy is a wizard, and not a sorcerer, or a weird home-brewed variant of the bard class?
It starts to get quite philosophical here, but I just assume the class appears right under their name, which is over their heads :P
This a thousand times. If Paladin is going to remain alignment locked to LG, it needs to be turned into a prestige class, or an archetype. Things that are traditionally reserved for restricted playstyles.That is my personal preference. If Paladins remain locked to Lawful Good, they shouldn't be a Core class. Make some Alignment book that has different classes, either for every Corner Alignment or all of them, and have Paladin as the Lawful Good class.What I would like to see are separate classes that really go all in on their own identity, like a swashbuckling warrior of Elysium who can dart among legions of devils, misdirecting attacks and perplexing more rigid-minded foes. Not just the chaotic good equivalent of the tyrant archetype.There's no room in the CRB for all of those specific classes. They would need to be in a separate book, and your LG specific class should be in that separate book too.
That makes sense, I guess. I think at that point I just wouldn't want it to be called by the name of Paladin, but it's not super important to me.
How do you know this other guy is a wizard, and not a sorcerer, or a weird home-brewed variant of the bard class?
That's the point. Most people DON'T know or care. Some could quess you cast arcane type spells but that's it. No one is going to treat you different if your sheet lists sorcerer vs wizard vs bard: It's going to depend on your actions. Somehow some think that changes when the sheet says paladin though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, paladins do have palpable auras, and generally wear holy symbols of their god. There's a fair amount of context clue available and its kind of unreasonable to assume the average npc is going to react with the kind of suspicious paranoia an adventurer might.
Paladins have a special aura which makes everyone around them to recognize them as Paladins. This is unwritten anywhere.
To be fair, we could have just a Scan spell...