D&D 5E June 27 Q&A: Modular Features, Paladin Alignment and Legendary Creatures

[Imaro]

No more than the rules permitting cowardly fighters, non-subtle rogues and illiterate magicians.

Ie I don't see the big deal. Who's actually going to be confused?

I guess the same hypothetical masses that were confused until combat roles were codified and enforced mechanically... In other words why is one type of transparency and enforcement good but doing the same for the paladins behavior isn't?

 

[mlund]

I'd almost go so far as to say that if alignment is going to be divorced from mechanics... then just leave the paladin out and let battle-focused clerics and fighter/clercis be the generic "holy warrior". Use the paladin later with the alignment module to demonstrate how alignment can be used to create specific thematic archetypes.

Clerics are clergy. Paladins are laity. Paladins do not have and can not hold ecclesiastical rank or authority. They can not perform religious rituals or sacraments. They are, instead instruments who receive patronage from divinity.

I think the best way to handle this, mechanically, is to remove the idea of "paladin spells" that are selected by players and memorized by prayer. Paladins have blessings in the form of abilities. Players can select these for the characters as they level, but the characters arern't picking them out each morning like gear.

In that regard, Paladins are a lot more like Warlocks (especially the Hex blade).

- Marty Lund

 

[Obryn]

Well, it didn't take very long for that to come true.

Big difference between "modular option" and "rule 0 it."

If alignment is going to be completely divorced from mechanics, they should drop it from the game entirely. (And, for that matter, the Paladin too.)

If alignment is going to be part of the game, then Paladins should be LG-only.

(And, obviously, I'd be absolutely fine with alignment, and Paladins, being removed from the Core game and then reintroduced as an optional module. That's probably the best solution all around.)

All IMO, of course.

Much like Warlords and martial healing then?

-O

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Here's the thing. There's nothing stopping a paladin from being pure, or following a code, or being required to behave a certain way. The issue is that alignment has historically been a clunky way to do that. Much better for the paladin players and their DMs to agree on what code the particular characters hold to, and with what conditions they may lose their special powers, if desired, than to just restrict it to a nebulous catch-all of moral and ethical worldviews.

Dude, if I have to sit down and re-write up the class before play, why am I going to pay a product that's of diminished use to me? The books aren't going to be discounted for us alignment using players. I mean I get that us alignment crowd are now a minority, but as it stands I feel we're being jettisoned close to completely. So much for a universal edition with a shared vocab if say the 1E Paladin & 5E Paladin are completely different beasts.

 

[gyor]

What to see what they have planned for the next packet before judging.

Also an aalignment module is highly likely, so fear not, it'll probably be an option just not a core option or default assumpation.

 

[Obryn]

Dude, if I have to sit down and re-write up the class before play, why am I going to pay a product that's of diminished use to me? The books aren't going to be discounted for us alignment using players. I mean I get that us alignment crowd are now a minority, but as it stands I feel we're being jettisoned close to completely. So much for a universal edition with a shared vocab if say the 1E Paladin & 5E Paladin are completely different beasts.

You know this is exactly the same boat everyone else is in, right?

I mean, I want warlords. I want martial healing. If you want to talk "jettisoned"...

-O

 

[Imaro]

You know this is exactly the same boat everyone else is in, right?I mean, I want warlords. I want martial healing. If you want to talk "jettisoned"... -O

Eh... I don't think the warlord and martial healing have anywhere near the number of editions the paladin and alignment do under there belts... Just sayin.

 

[Obryn]

Eh... I don't think the warlord and martial healing have anywhere near the number of editions the paladin and alignment do under there belts... Just sayin.

... And that's relevant to the post I replied to, how?

Very few people are going to get everything they want in the base game without modules. I'm saying let's not pretend alignment is somehow unique here.

-O

 

[Imaro]

... And that's relevant to the post I replied to, how?

I mean , if you're going to pull out comparisons try comparing like and like. The Paladin (along with some form of alignment restriction) has been in the game since BECMI/RC... the Warlord was part of a single edition. I just don't feel it's an apt comparison.

Very few people are going to get everything they want in the base game without modules. I'm saying let's not pretend alignment is somehow unique here.

-O

Never said it was unique but again let's not pretend there aren't any differences in the two either. It's the same as claiming removing playable goblins from core vs. removing the fighter class from core are the same thing... they aren't.

 

[Obryn]

I mean , if you're going to pull out comparisons try comparing like and like. The Paladin (along with some form of alignment restriction) has been in the game since BECMI/RC... the Warlord was part of a single edition. I just don't feel it's an apt comparison.

Never said it was unique but again let's not pretend there aren't any differences in the two either. It's the same as claiming removing playable goblins from core vs. removing the fighter class from core are the same thing... they aren't.

It was in BECMI well after it was in AD&D, introduced in the Companion set. But yes, it's been in the game for a while.

However, the point you're making is utterly tangential to the point I was making and the point I was arguing against. We all have parts of the game we want to see, and parts we don't want to see. We will all have to use modules to make it work for our individual games. Rightly or wrongly, this is by design.

Dude, if I have to sit down and re-write up the class before play, why am I going to pay a product that's of diminished use to me? The books aren't going to be discounted for us alignment using players. I mean I get that us alignment crowd are now a minority, but as it stands I feel we're being jettisoned close to completely. So much for a universal edition with a shared vocab if say the 1E Paladin & 5E Paladin are completely different beasts.

-O