Paladins and Squires

[FitzTheRuke]

I've just had a thought. I'm sure I'm not the first.

If we can have Beastmaster Rangers, why not Squire-master Paladins?

Oath of the Instructor

I find it a little odd that it seems we are happy with reckless animal-endangerment, but would feel bad about endangering a youth.

Or does it just pull away the curtain and make it too obvious that petmaster subclasses allow a player to play TWO characters, even if one is weak(-ish?). (I guess they are both, by themselves weak, but together should be balanced to other characters).

Would the "pet" being human (or other D&D race) cross a line?

I kind of like the idea. What do you think?


Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think it should be the subclass feature for the lazylord warlord. I kid, I kid.

The issue is what happens when you use the squire as a minesweeper and he/she gets blown up.* It is one thing to say a wolf is wandering in the middle of the Underdark or the 9 Hells for the ranger to get as a replacement pet, but wandering aristocratic kids (or the apprentice NPC from Volo's)?

* I am positive that if this was a Pathfinder feature, there would be at least 8 posters who would claim this is a totally Good act (and shows Respect for Nature...I mean humanity) on the Paizo forums.

 

[WarpedAcorn]

In previous editions this was covered by a Feat called Leadership. I had an Elven Spellsword in 3.5 that had an understudy via the Leadership Feat, and it was total cheese. She protected him with a Spike Chain and Improved Trip, knocking down anyone that got close to him while he freely cast Fireballs, Haste, and the like. Even though she was levels lower, that Feat added WAY more punch to my character. So I like the idea, but think its too tough to balance.

Alternatively, the DM can give you an NPC or Hireling to fulfill the role. In the game I run, the party basically has a Squire in the form of a kid they adopted. They are super protective of him though, because they believe I will kill him the first chance I get (and I love that they think that). In another game that I play in, I *might* be getting a Squire based on the results of the last game. If so the character will be run by the DM, not me, and I don't see him being in a combat situation.

 

[plisnithus8]

I might make squire a feature of the UA knight instead of paladin, but make it a one time feature - there's no automatic re-supply of snobby kiddos.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I feel like a squire would be more appropriate as a boon or player reward rather than a class feature. A class feature implies that the player could potentially have a constant supply of replacement squires because a class feature is inherent. It makes sense to have unlimited animals willing to serve a character. But sentient creatures will get wise and know that they have the life expectancy of a red shirt on the Enterprise and be reluctant to show up.

A boon or player reward can be lost, stolen, leave, die, ect. A class feature is inseparable from the player.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If you want a squire, you could take the Knight background.

Alternatively, get another player at the table to make their character your squire.

The beast companion for a Ranger is pretty meh. It doesn't add much to the character, which I think is the point. Your character might now be able to be in two places at once, but you still only have the power of one character. Allowing a squire might break that, since a sapient is always going to be more capable than a beast.

For this, and other reasons in this thread, I think squires as character features fall into the "too hard basket".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Would the "pet" being human cross a line?

Not so long as it's consensual power exchange...

Alternatively, get another player at the table to make their character your squire.

Not as crazy as it sounds, the challenge is making the character fully-contributing in spite of it's 2nd-fiddle role in the narrative. For instance, you could have a Charlatan Thief for whom the position of squire is a cover ID that gives him access to different strata of society...

 

[aco175]

I always had a problem with the action economy of the ranger and not wanting to use actions on the animal since it takes away from what he can do. I would think this is the same as the squire if it was a class ability. I would tend to keep it a game mechanic where the PC finds one if the DM and player agree on it, same as a henchman.

 

[transtemporal]

I find it a little odd that it seems we are happy with reckless animal-endangerment, but would feel bad about endangering a youth.

That's kind of a weird reason to create this subclass man!

A "henchman" might be a better description. Squires were usually the sons of nobles, there to learn, rather than placed on the frontlines. You don't want to endanger the life of a noble if his father can squash you like a bug.

 

[Caliban]

Taking young squires along on dungeon crawls fell out of favor after the scandal with Sir Gary Glitter back in the 80's.