Another Paladin Suggestion


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Aura of Courage: Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions only while the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

This is/should be a noticeable thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

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?

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.
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.
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?
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.

Okay. And if nothing changed mechanically with them to allow other alignments, how does that reduce the way you play them? It doesn't. All the restriction does is limit things to only your PoV.

I have my ideal vision

...

Evil Paladins exist. There are bastions of wickedness empowered by the loathing in their soul. It is the Antipaladin alternate class. And yes, you can say antipaladins=/=paladins and that the lore and mechanics say so. Similarly, transmuters=/=necromancers and the lore and mechanics say so. We still call both wizards, and have the option of making both in the core rulebook. This is what I want if paladin is a thing. It won't happen, but it would be nice to see Tyrants and Liberators and Paladins and whatever else the other variants may be built on a chassis of a knight class. Keep the Paladin name, keep the paladin lore, give a different name and lore to the other class options. Does it really harm the idea of a Paladin if Antipaladins exist though? Because if so, why is Paladin a playable option in PF1?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps paladins should be removed from the Core book until this issue is resolved. Add in something a little less provocative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
To be fair, paladins do have palpable auras

Are they palpable? I know they can be detected as magic but detectable by everyone? As PALADIN auras? And does the paladin treat everyone they meet an ally? If any of this is written anyplace, I'd love a quote/reference.

Ryan Freire wrote:
generally wear holy symbols of their god.

And that's different than a cleric? Fighter that's pious? Warpriest? Some commoner wearing the symbol to trick you?

Ryan Freire wrote:
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.

Who said suspicion? I asked if they see a paladin walking into town and go "WOW a paladin! I trust them unconditionally and believe them without question!!!" Additionally, I DO doubt that people would offer deference to someone that just calls themself a paladin: calling yourself that and being that are different things. For all you know it's a farmhand that came into some adventuring equipment and wants to be seen as special. If someone comes up to me and says "trust me, I'm a paladin" the LAST thing I do is trust them... :P


Dude i quoted the palpable aura above. Unless your gm is one who keeps the mechanics of being in or out of an aura of courage/despair secret.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Dude i quoted the palpable aura above. Unless your gm is one who keeps the mechanics of being in or out of an aura of courage/despair secret.

So his allies know. They feel it. That can be no more special than the fact my buddies get a mood bump when I'm around, does that make me special? Any given rando doesn't feel the aura unless they are the Paladin's ally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Dude i quoted the palpable aura above. Unless your gm is one who keeps the mechanics of being in or out of an aura of courage/despair secret.

Dude, nothing says that anything is palpable. At all. Not even a little.

As to DM, sure he tells me AS A PLAYER that I got bonuses. Why would my CHARACTER know? So... Got any actual quotes/references?

Additionally, lets assume it is palpable. What about the rest of the question? What makes it a PALADIN magic effect? Not a witch aura for instance or a Draconic Manifestation [aura of courage]? Maybe a wizard aura? Or a warpriest one? Or an oracle one? or... I can keep going. Aura's aren't exactly rare and you can find ones with similar effects.

Lastly, let's assume it is palpable AND identifiable... How many people KNOW a paladin aura offhand? Does every person in the world have first hand experience with paladins and enough to KNOW how it's aura's FEEL?


Mbertorch wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
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 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.

Why wouldn't you want to call it a Paladin anymore?

It'd still have the requirement and all the features and flavor that defines a Paladin. How would it not be a Paladin anymore?


willuwontu wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
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 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.

Why wouldn't you want to call it a Paladin anymore?

It'd still have the requirement and all the features and flavor that defines a Paladin. How would it not be a Paladin anymore?

Because it has been a core class since it was invented. You want it to no longer be so. Seriously, there is no need to remove them from core. Leave them as much as is as possible. There's no need to change them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And there is no need not to change them or remove them. And so we go in a circle again.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Because it has been a core class since it was invented.

Not true. It first came out in chainmail original D&D, Supplement I – as a subclass of fighting man.

HWalsh wrote:
You want it to no longer be so.

If tradition is paramount, then it shouldn't be as the original wasn't core. ;)

HWalsh wrote:
Seriously, there is no need to remove them from core.

Seriously, there is NO reason it must be core.

HWalsh wrote:
Leave them as much as is as possible. There's no need to change them.

Please fix them as it's long overdue. Change them as MUCH as possible so as to give them as broad an appeal as possible.


again
somes it up

should be this

my final thoughts on this matter


graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Seriously, there is no need to remove them from core.
Seriously, there is NO reason it must be core.

Well, it's a legacy thing at this point, like the Druid and Ranger, been in 5 D&D PHBs and PF1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Seriously, there is no need to remove them from core.
Seriously, there is NO reason it must be core.
Well, it's a legacy thing at this point, like the Druid and Ranger, been in 5 D&D PHBs and PF1.

*shrug* It hasn't been in EVERY core, and most importantly wasn't in the first so an appeal for legacy/tradition falls flat. Do you want to have it be human only because legacy? Or it being a subclass of cavalier class? Or a stat requirement? Or, since we're bringing in D&D 4 and 5, open it up to all alignments? it's ALL in the legacy/tradition...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I don't really see a reason to absolutely, 100% sure we MUST change the paladin class to something it's not and shouldn't be.
Paladin's fans like the class as it is, with all the alignment debates and restricted code. People wanting abilities have tons of options to include in this new edition which can very well serve their ideal of holy warrior, with divine sword and healing and all of that, or really any concept they actually want - it's fairly easy to do that in a new edition. They also still are playing the game despite this "despicable ridiculous lawful stupid trash of a goody-two-shoes class" being there.
Changing that only leaves the fans of traditional paladins angry, when there's no need to do so, and it won't attract anyone to the game. No matter if it's a bad thing or good thing, it's something people can relate to and accept.
It really is changing something its fans already like very much, thank you, in favor of people who hate it and won't quite bother much with the class afterwards - because, as I said, it'll be only a shadow of its former self.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

*Buzzer*

That isn't how it works. Paladins don't have to respect unjust laws, and even if the laws were considered just that would be a Chaotic, not Evil, act. Paladins don't fall for that unless that pushes them to being non-Lawful Good. So that would never happen because that isn't how Paladins work.

According to you? Because that's how it worked in the game I was playing in, under the rules-as-written that don't include all of the subjective moral interpretations you think they do-- because you're too self-absorbed to recognize the difference between your opinions and objective facts.

Re-read the Rules as Written.

A Paladin only falls if they break the code (though you can possibly make the interpretation that going after the slavers is not respecting legitimate authority, that is tenuous at best) or performing an evil action.

As written fighting slavers and healing slaves isn't an evil act.

This is the text on the code:

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Legitimate authorities aren't slavers, even if slavery is legal.
Acting with honor, as long as you don't lie, cheat, use poison, etc you are fine.
Helping those in need - You are doing that, though it could be seen as a potential chaotic end it doesn't mesh with the description of what chaotic means in the CRB.
Pushing those who harm or threaten innocents. This is exactly what you are doing.

So nothing in what you described would make you fall.

Something I've always wondered: If being "Lawful" is so important to the paladin, why can't he "smite chaos"? Something I've been pondering for over 40 years.


knightnday wrote:

And there is no need not to change them or remove them. And so we go in a circle again.

Yes, there is: there is a strong and dedicated sector of the fanbase who likes the Paladin just as it is and would be very unsatisfied if this changes to something it should not.


graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Seriously, there is no need to remove them from core.
Seriously, there is NO reason it must be core.
Well, it's a legacy thing at this point, like the Druid and Ranger, been in 5 D&D PHBs and PF1.
*shrug* It hasn't been in EVERY core, and most importantly wasn't in the first so an appeal for legacy/tradition falls flat.

Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.


Igwilly wrote:

Honestly, I don't really see a reason to absolutely, 100% sure we MUST change the paladin class to something it's not and shouldn't be.

Paladin's fans like the class as it is, with all the alignment debates and restricted code. People wanting abilities have tons of options to include in this new edition which can very well serve their ideal of holy warrior, with divine sword and healing and all of that, or really any concept they actually want - it's fairly easy to do that in a new edition. They also still are playing the game despite this "despicable ridiculous lawful stupid trash of a goody-two-shoes class" being there.
Changing that only leaves the fans of traditional paladins angry, when there's no need to do so, and it won't attract anyone to the game. No matter if it's a bad thing or good thing, it's something people can relate to and accept.
It really is changing something its fans already like very much, thank you, in favor of people who hate it and won't quite bother much with the class afterwards - because, as I said, it'll be only a shadow of its former self.

If Antipaladin was a core class in PF2 that was, much like I'm PF1, just Paladin but with a lot of abilities inverted, would Paladin be a shadow of its former self?

If so, would this be the case if antipaladin were released in a later book? Then why is Paladin acceptable in PF1? Is it because Antipaladin is not core?


Paradozen wrote:

If Antipaladin was a core class in PF2 that was, much like I'm PF1, just Paladin but with a lot of abilities inverted, would Paladin be a shadow of its former self?

If so, would this be the case if antipaladin were released in a later book? Then why is Paladin acceptable in PF1? Is it because Antipaladin is not core?

The Paladin remains untouched in both cases, although I already told about my opinions of the antipaladin: it's a poorly-conceived class which doesn't add anything in its own. We should seriously rethink "evil paladins" to something with a life of its own. And not to mention all the stupidity of "For the Evulz!" mantra the antipaladin exposes...

With that said, core is much more important than splatbooks, that is a cold universal RPG fact.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Honestly, I don't really see a reason to absolutely, 100% sure we MUST change the paladin class to something it's not and shouldn't be.

The issue is agreeing what it should and shouldn't be and what it is or isn't.

Igwilly wrote:
Paladin's fans like the class as it is, with all the alignment debates and restricted code.

And some would like to play it without the debates: liking the class doesn't mean liking ALL of the class.

Igwilly wrote:
People wanting abilities have tons of options to include in this new edition which can very well serve their ideal of holy warrior, with divine sword and healing and all of that, or really any concept they actually want - it's fairly easy to do that in a new edition.

None of that changes the fact that the paladin MIGHT best fit what they want except for the alignment/code. it doesn't make a lot of sense to create a whole new class and spent all that page space JUST to make an alignment/code change.

Igwilly wrote:
They also still are playing the game despite this "despicable ridiculous lawful stupid trash of a goody-two-shoes class" being there.

SOme of actually don't.I don't play in a game with ANY paladin PC's, myself or other players. I here for fun not table flipping alignment/code arguments.

Igwilly wrote:
Changing that only leaves the fans of traditional paladins angry, when there's no need to do so, and it won't attract anyone to the game.

How do you KNOW it wouldn't attract anyone? Why wouldn't a 4e/5e player that's used to a more open paladin and liked it be attracted to a more open pathfinder one? You have NO idea how many hate it vs how many are ok with it vs how many really want it. Not everyone that LIKES to play LG paladins have a need to prevent others from playing a different aligned one. Some people ACTUALLY play LG characters of other classes and don't require a 'treat' for playing that alignment.

Igwilly wrote:
No matter if it's a bad thing or good thing, it's something people can relate to and accept.

As are non-LG paladins. Pathfinder has them, 4e has them, 5e has them... Plenty of people seem to relate and accept them.

Igwilly wrote:
It really is changing something its fans already like very much, thank you, in favor of people who hate it and won't quite bother much with the class afterwards - because, as I said, it'll be only a shadow of its former self.

SOME fans really like. I, personally would LOVE to play a paladin but don't because of all the issue I've experience in the past. So it's not a one way street. You may find more people like myself playing them then compared to people that can accept a change and don't play it anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.

Paladin, Knight, and Avenger are name-level class options (basically Prestige Classes) for Fighters.

Druid is a name-level option for Clerics.

Bard was a Prestige Class in 1e AD&D, but there's no precedent in D&D I'm aware of.


Aristophanes wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

*Buzzer*

That isn't how it works. Paladins don't have to respect unjust laws, and even if the laws were considered just that would be a Chaotic, not Evil, act. Paladins don't fall for that unless that pushes them to being non-Lawful Good. So that would never happen because that isn't how Paladins work.

According to you? Because that's how it worked in the game I was playing in, under the rules-as-written that don't include all of the subjective moral interpretations you think they do-- because you're too self-absorbed to recognize the difference between your opinions and objective facts.

Re-read the Rules as Written.

A Paladin only falls if they break the code (though you can possibly make the interpretation that going after the slavers is not respecting legitimate authority, that is tenuous at best) or performing an evil action.

As written fighting slavers and healing slaves isn't an evil act.

This is the text on the code:

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Legitimate authorities aren't slavers, even if slavery is legal.
Acting with honor, as long as you don't lie, cheat, use poison, etc you are fine.
Helping those in need - You are doing that, though it could be seen as a potential chaotic end it doesn't mesh with the description of what chaotic means in the CRB.
Pushing those who harm or threaten innocents. This is exactly what you are doing.

So nothing in what you described would make you fall.

Something I've always wondered: If being "Lawful" is so important to the paladin, why can't he "smite chaos"? Something I've been pondering for over 40 years.

Total, in a Planescape campaign, the Law/Chaos axis is as important, if not more so, than the Good/Law, so just use a chaos smiting variant, easy enough, now your paladin can smack slaadi up real good.


FaerieGodfather wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.

Paladin, Knight, and Avenger are name-level class options (basically Prestige Classes) for Fighters.

Druid is a name-level option for Clerics.

Bard was a Prestige Class in 1e AD&D, but there's no precedent in D&D I'm aware of.

Right on, been a while since I've cracked my Rules Cyclopedia.

The 1st Ed AD&D Bard, is indeed the original PrC, I've been playing my 1st Ed fighter/thief for decades. one day I'll get there...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.

I pointed out the original D&D didn't have paladin in core and addid it later in the Supplement I as a subclass of fighting man.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, the ranger was introduced in The Strategic Review volume 1, number 2. Not core.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of fighter.
No ranger in Basic Dungeons & Dragons.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, druids come out in the Eldritch Wizardry supplement.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of cleric.
In "Basic" edition, it came in the Companion set.
In Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, added with Player's Handbook 2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Igwilly wrote:
when there's no need to do so, and it won't attract anyone to the game.

You have no idea whether people will be attracted or not. Many of us believe that allowing multiple alignments for paladins WILL attract more people to the game.


To be honest, I think the developers are in a bit of a bind because they want to make sure everyone can play the core character concepts that they loved from 1e, and keeping the paladin out of the Core Rulebook would make a lot of people unhappy. While I personally would rather see it kept out until it could be introduced with other holy fighting classes, that is asking for a pretty big change in formatting since in first edition, new classes were not released all that often, in comparison to archetypes and prestige classes . This leaves me to believe that the most likely option is that the Paladin is getting opened up to any good and otherwise remaining as is as a core class concept.
I don't much like this option, because it feels just like following the crowd of fantasy RPGs instead of doing something new and exciting, and will probably result in the anti-paladin getting far more attention as a class when ever it comes out then I would want to see, but it walks the middle of pretty intense debate, and holding the paladin out of the play test could easily cost them a lot of feed back, derail the playtest into some kind of highly unnecessary scandal about one class, which they are already going to have to handle with the introduction of the Alchemist and the Goblin.


graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.

I pointed out the original D&D didn't have paladin in core and addid it later in the Supplement I as a subclass of fighting man.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, the ranger was introduced in The Strategic Review volume 1, number 2. Not core.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of fighter.
No ranger in Basic Dungeons & Dragons.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, druids come out in the Eldritch Wizardry supplement.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of cleric.
In "Basic" edition, it came in the Companion set.
In Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, added with Player's Handbook 2.

Ah, gotcha, you're going way back, seemingly into silly-buggers pedantry, anyway, I am not advocating for the inclusion of the Druid, Paladin, or Ranger as classes, they could all easily fit as subclasses, archetypes, or what have you.

Don't get me started on the Barbarian...


graystone wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Honestly, I don't really see a reason to absolutely, 100% sure we MUST change the paladin class to something it's not and shouldn't be.

The issue is agreeing what it should and shouldn't be and what it is or isn't.

Igwilly wrote:
Paladin's fans like the class as it is, with all the alignment debates and restricted code.

And some would like to play it without the debates: liking the class doesn't mean liking ALL of the class.

Igwilly wrote:
People wanting abilities have tons of options to include in this new edition which can very well serve their ideal of holy warrior, with divine sword and healing and all of that, or really any concept they actually want - it's fairly easy to do that in a new edition.

None of that changes the fact that the paladin MIGHT best fit what they want except for the alignment/code. it doesn't make a lot of sense to create a whole new class and spent all that page space JUST to make an alignment/code change.

Igwilly wrote:
They also still are playing the game despite this "despicable ridiculous lawful stupid trash of a goody-two-shoes class" being there.

SOme of actually don't.I don't play in a game with ANY paladin PC's, myself or other players. I here for fun not table flipping alignment/code arguments.

Igwilly wrote:
Changing that only leaves the fans of traditional paladins angry, when there's no need to do so, and it won't attract anyone to the game.

How do you KNOW it wouldn't attract anyone? Why wouldn't a 4e/5e player that's used to a more open paladin and liked it be attracted to a more open pathfinder one? You have NO idea how many hate it vs how many are ok with it vs how many really want it. Not everyone that LIKES to play LG paladins have a need to prevent others from playing a different aligned one. Some people ACTUALLY play LG characters of other classes and don't require a 'treat' for playing that alignment.

Igwilly wrote:
No matter if it's a bad thing or good thing, it's something
...

I'm sorry, classes are both fluff and abilities. If you hate one but love another... then you need another class. And no, by abilities I don't mean specific rules in specific rulebooks of specific games ¬¬

The purpose to create other classes for these other concepts is not to create carbon copies of the paladin, as *I've repeatedly told*. The purpose is to create new classes with their own life, their own abilities and so on.

Also, neither of us are keeping you (general you) from playing any concept you want. We just want our class concept; you can have yours with its own space :)

...

Also it appears that people have no idea about what tradition actually is...

Unicore wrote:

To be honest, I think the developers are in a bit of a bind because they want to make sure everyone can play the core character concepts that they loved from 1e, and keeping the paladin out of the Core Rulebook would make a lot of people unhappy. While I personally would rather see it kept out until it could be introduced with other holy fighting classes, that is asking for a pretty big change in formatting since in first edition, new classes were not released all that often, in comparison to archetypes and prestige classes . This leaves me to believe that the most likely option is that the Paladin is getting opened up to any good and otherwise remaining as is as a core class concept.

I don't much like this option, because it feels just like following the crowd of fantasy RPGs instead of doing something new and exciting, and will probably result in the anti-paladin getting far more attention as a class when ever it comes out then I would want to see, but it walks the middle of pretty intense debate, and holding the paladin out of the play test could easily cost them a lot of feed back, derail the playtest into some kind of highly unnecessary scandal about one class, which they are already going to have to handle with the introduction of the Alchemist and the Goblin.

Honestly, I understand them if they opt to take this answer. I just think it's not a good one.

I love classes and their unique abilities. It would be so much better for the game if these alignment champions and deity champion were something of their own, to grow outside the paladin's shadow, to have their own tropes and all...
I mean, look at the antipaladin. In my honest opinion, it's ridiculous. That's not a barely realistic portray of an evil person, and that only happens because it *is* just a shadow, not something of its own :)

Grand Lodge

Weather Report wrote:
graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.

I pointed out the original D&D didn't have paladin in core and addid it later in the Supplement I as a subclass of fighting man.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, the ranger was introduced in The Strategic Review volume 1, number 2. Not core.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of fighter.
No ranger in Basic Dungeons & Dragons.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, druids come out in the Eldritch Wizardry supplement.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of cleric.
In "Basic" edition, it came in the Companion set.
In Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, added with Player's Handbook 2.

Ah, gotcha, you're going way back, seemingly into silly-buggers pedantry, anyway, I am not advocating for the inclusion of the Druid, Paladin, or Ranger as classes, they could all easily fit as subclasses, archetypes, or what have you.

Don't get me started on the Barbarian...

Aaahh yes, the Barbarian.

I remember when it was first introduced in the pages of Dragon Magazine. Barbarians couldn't use magic items or accept magical help as I recall, but, like animals, with enough hd/levels, they could affect creatures normally immune to non-magical attacks. I have very fond memories of my first barb., Karnaj.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Also it appears that people have no idea about what tradition actually is...

The illusion of permanence?


Weather Report wrote:
Right on, been a while since I've cracked my Rules Cyclopedia.

Trying to make my Player's Option supplements work with Rules Cyclopedia is how I ended up designing my own simulacrum. Work in Progress.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
Also, neither of us are keeping you (general you) from playing any concept you want. We just want our class concept; you can have yours with its own space :)

Actually you are. Yes there will eventually be a supplement which gives us "Paladin that isn't LG" just like they already exist in PF1E with 0 problems. But until that supplement (1 year, 2 years?) your [general you for everyone on the side of restriction] right to have a class exclusively represent what you want has kept them from playing the concept they [general they] wanted. While ig they get what you want all you have to do is say "my Paladin is LG" and your concept is fullfilled.


Malk_Content wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Also, neither of us are keeping you (general you) from playing any concept you want. We just want our class concept; you can have yours with its own space :)
Actually you are. Yes there will eventually be a supplement which gives us "Paladin that isn't LG" just like they already exist in PF1E with 0 problems. But until that supplement (1 year, 2 years?) your [general you for everyone on the side of restriction] right to have a class exclusively represent what you want has kept them from playing the concept they [general they] wanted. While ig they get what you want all you have to do is say "my Paladin is LG" and your concept is fullfilled.

Not really, as I have specifically told. See my other posts, please.

Although, there's some heavy flawed logic there: just because something will be in a splatbook doesn't mean they're completely forbidding from playing it. The core rulebook isn't infinite and deals mostly with the basics :)

And yes, before anyone says it, I disagree with my fellows on this specific point: if, in order to keep the paladin as it should be, it needs to be in a splatbook or so, so be it. I'm fine with that.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Now, I say the following as someone for whom "paladins for everyone" is in no way a dealbreaker for PF2.

To those saying "you can still have your lawful good paladins, they're just one of the multitude of paladins for everyone, so you lose nothing and have no right to complain"... clearly something is lost, or these threads wouldn't keep on going.

Whether it's exclusionary or not, the LG-only side must still be losing something, or they wouldn't be in disagreement with you. If nothing else, it's certainly not the unimpeachable universal truth it's being presented as.

(I'm also interested to see the arguments that paladins should be a common part of all alignments, but that goblins should be exclusively evil and insane with only ultra-rare exceptions. There's a common thread there that I think might deserve further reflection... especially since each of those discussions has involved a lot of appeals to tradition, whether to PF1 or older games.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
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 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.

Why wouldn't you want to call it a Paladin anymore?

It'd still have the requirement and all the features and flavor that defines a Paladin. How would it not be a Paladin anymore?

Because it has been a core class since it was invented. You want it to no longer be so. Seriously, there is no need to remove them from core. Leave them as much as is as possible. There's no need to change them.

They'd still be in core, I'm not asking them to be removed from core, I'm saying if they're still as heavily restricted as they are, they should be grouped with things of similar restrictions. If it's a core base class, it should be more open to different backgrounds and characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, gotcha, you're going way back, seemingly into silly-buggers pedantry

I'm not the one that said "every edition of D&D". ;)

Igwilly wrote:
I'm sorry, classes are both fluff and abilities.

Not to me. Fluff is fluff and is infinitely refluffable. the lore of the world managed to survive the game adding non-LG paladins so the lore fluff is fine.

Igwilly wrote:
The purpose to create other classes for these other concepts is not to create carbon copies of the paladin, as *I've repeatedly told*.

Some may want that: I'm happy with shaving the name off the class and replacing alignment abilities with anti-enemy abilities: IE, replace smite evil with smite enemies of your church.

Igwilly wrote:
The purpose is to create new classes with their own life, their own abilities and so on.

*shrug* you COULD but that is MUCH, MUCH work for little benefit: I'd rather see different benefits for different gods to add to the paladin chassis than entire new classes.

Igwilly wrote:
Also, neither of us are keeping you (general you) from playing any concept you want.

It actually is as it's not in the game. It'll be hard to play a kineticist style characte in the new game without the class and mechanics to back it up... Same with a holy warrior concept that doesn't involve a specific alignment if that's a thing.

Igwilly wrote:
Also it appears that people have no idea about what tradition actually is...

You aren't taking the entirety of tradition but just that part you want to keep: If you truly valued tradition above all, you'd want human only paladins...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Now, I say the following as someone for whom "paladins for everyone" is in no way a dealbreaker for PF2.

To those saying "you can still have your lawful good paladins, they're just one of the multitude of paladins for everyone, so you lose nothing and have no right to complain"... clearly something is lost, or these threads wouldn't keep on going.

Whether it's exclusionary or not, the LG-only side must still be losing something, or they wouldn't be in disagreement with you. If nothing else, it's certainly not the unimpeachable universal truth it's being presented as.

(I'm also interested to see the arguments that paladins should be a common part of all alignments, but that goblins should be exclusively evil and insane with only ultra-rare exceptions. There's a common thread there that I think might deserve further reflection... especially since each of those discussions has involved a lot of appeals to tradition, whether to PF1 or older games.)

You are correct, if paladins were opened up alignment-wise the LG only crowd loses something, their exclusivity club. (aka the unique flavor of having paladin only to themselves) People dislike sharing, it's how it works, and change is scary.

Personally I'm a part of the any-good Paladin side. Since none of the mechanics of paladin make sense for locking behind lawful, but definitely ring as good. This would also leave room in the future for hellknight (any lawful) and antipaladin (any evil) being made, i'd suggest one for any chaotic, but I can't think of any PF1 class that would fit the bill.


Igwilly wrote:

Trying to say the obvious here, but...

1. Not all traditions are equal.
2. The antipaladin is Not a paladin, as its lore and rules clearly dictates. How he somehow would prove pro LG-only paladin guys wrong is beyond me. Also, exceptions are exceptions, but they do not disprove the rule.

Regarding 2, it seems like a good compromise is to have a class that is mechanically identical to Paladin with no LG requirement that goes by a different name.

This would help those who want to preserve Paladins as being LG-only while satisfying people who want to try the mechanics on different character concepts.

Silver Crusade

I read in up thread that a number of people do not like divine grace. if Paizo gives Paladins +2 to their charisma because most of their class abilities use Charisma then their should be no problem with divine grace.
The reason For Divine Grace in the first place is the Gods protect their own and Paladins are supposed to be in the for front battling evil and the Gods of good do not want their warriors of evil to die..

Some people think all classes need to be balanced that is not the case some classes have things that are far better than others. Paladins have nothing to compare to the wizards Power words, disintegrate or teleport or the Arcanists dimension slide but the have an ability that protects them from hostile magic cast at them.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Logic:
My enjoyment of the class involves that all core Paladins continue the lawful good tradition.

I will no longer enjoy the class if there are non-Lawful good core Paladins in the game world.

If you open them up, I will no longer enjoy the class because my enjoyment of the class extends beyond what I can personally do with it.

This is because it alters the game lore. The lore is the reason I play. I do not play for total freedom.

If this game lore is altered in a way that makes me no longer enjoy it then I have no reason to play the game. I do not play games I do not enjoy.

Based on you multiple posts on the subject, what you are demanding is the right to dictate how people you have never met and will never meet play the game because you find the mere thought of those people playing the game in a different way to you physically distressing.

Flip that around. How does the person who has a great character idea feel when told 'you can't play that character because someone you have never and will never meet vetoed it in the playtest based on personal prejudice'?

151 to 200 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Another Paladin Suggestion All Messageboards