[GR] Holy/Unholy Warrior 3.5 Update Query

[Pramas]

One of the neat features of the original holy warrior class from Book of the Righteous was that it took its basic structure from the paladin class. That meant if you picked the right domains with the holy warrior, you could recreate the paladin and it became just one type of holy warrior.

WotC, of course, has screwed that all up with 3.5. We are looking at doing a 3.5 update of the holy warrior and its dark twin, the unholy warrior. What I'd like to know from you all is this:

Would you rather the holy/unholy warrior classes be left the way they are generally, or would you want any 3.5 update to reflect the structure of the new paladin class?

If we went the former route, we'd update abilities, skills, and so on to the 3.5 standard, but leave the basic structure of the class as is. If we went the latter route, we'd have to rebuild the class from scratch to mirror the new paladin. What would you prefer to see?

 

[Nightfall]

Chris,

While the Paladin has been revamped to a degree, I don't see the need to completely scrape Holy Warrior and/or Unholy Warrior. Sure 3.5 got more smites and a few changes that way, but I don't see it as being needful for the other two to be remade. I'd vote keep it the way it is now.

 

[CSB046]

I would also vote to keep things the way they are, not totally rebuild.

 

[Cergorach]

Oh... Now i don't have to do it myself ;-)

I'm for complete compatability with v3.5, the reason is simple, people who use v3.5 want a complete compatible version, not some 'hybrid'.

To be honest, it's not that much work...

 

[Heretic Apostate]

Would the updates be available as a free download, asks the guy who is about to place an order for Book of the Righteous?

Even posting it as an errata--saying, change this to this and this to that, instead of posting the whole revised class-- would be good.

 

[Michael Tree]

I would prefer it to be fully compatible with 3.5, so the 3.5 paladin could theoretically be created with it. It's probably not much more work, just a matter of delaying some of the abilities by a level or two.

 

[Cergorach]

Would the updates be available as a free download, asks the guy who is about to place an order for Book of the Righteous?

Even posting it as an errata--saying, change this to this and this to that, instead of posting the whole revised class-- would be good.

Thou willest not buy this Book for the crunch infidel, thou willest buy this Book for it's Fluffiness, the Fluffiness that's most holy of the holiest, exalted among the Flufonians, and generally pretty dope to read. ;-)

I think you can pretty much expect the same treatment as what's done for the Shaman and the Witch books.

take alook here:
http://www.greenronin.com/errata/index.php?id=1302

You'll still need the BotR for all the rules material.

I'm a bit curious, is BotR still in it's first print run? Will there ever be future print runs?

ps. Why haven't i seen any anouncements on Enworld on the Advanced Player's Handbook, Advanced Gamemaster's Guide, and Advanced Bestiary? Did i miss something?

 

[fba827]

I'd prefer to have it done with the latter option , changed so that the 3.5 paladin could be built via correct choices of the holy warrior. That was always my big liking for the concept - it took what is there, fully compatible, and added enough per-faith uniquness. Not that I don't like the class now, it did end up loosing something with the editions change. I have to really "push" to get the players to go with a holy warrior since by _casual comparison_ the 3.5 paladin gets more.

If you are going to give it updates, may as well make it compatible to the edition update.

Just my two cents.

 

[SnowDog]

Background: I run a game for 2 players. All 3 of us own BotR, and the party "tank" is a Holy Warrior. We love BotR .

I think it was a huge selling point that the Holy Warrior could wholly reproduce the Paladin class. Any DM looking to get a group to switch to BotR didn't have to worry about any players with their hearts set on playing by-the-book Paladins. Likewise, a player could do the same with his or her DM.

Unless you feel the 3.5E Paladin is broken, I think it's worth the effort to make the class able to reproduce the new Paladin. If you do feel the new Paladin is broken, I think a little document explaining that design decision might be worthwhile.

Given all that, however, it won't impact my game one way or the other. Our group is quite content with the rules as they stand, even though we're playing with 3.5E. While we would be happy to see any sort of 3.5E touch-up, there's nothing you could do that would get us to stop using the Holy Warrior.

 

[Psion]

One of the neat features of the original holy warrior class from Book of the Righteous was that it took its basic structure from the paladin class. That meant if you picked the right domains with the holy warrior, you could recreate the paladin and it became just one type of holy warrior.

WotC, of course, has screwed that all up with 3.5. We are looking at doing a 3.5 update of the holy warrior and its dark twin, the unholy warrior. What I'd like to know from you all is this:

Would you rather the holy/unholy warrior classes be left the way they are generally, or would you want any 3.5 update to reflect the structure of the new paladin class?

Let's put it this way: The 3.5 paladin solidified my resolve to completely replace the Paladin with the Holy Warrior. Moving the holy warrior in the direction of the paladin would be a step back IMO.

The 3.5 paladin was one of the few 3.5 classes I won't use. Making them summoners in flavor just so they could be "bettah in da dungeon" was a bad move IMO. Green Ronin already has a divine summoner: the avatar; if that is what the players want, that is what they should play.

So I would vote for NOT making it emulate the 3.5 paladin.

Some practical changes like de-front loading it a little wouldn't hurt. Maybe you could make the mount summoning thing a gift of god so those of us who hate it can ignore it and replace it with a different gift of god.