RangerWickett
Legend
Paladins and roleplaying their code is only a problem if the GM and the player have different ideas of morality.
Blog: Paladin vs. Cleric, fight!
- Thread starter gyor
- Start date
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
I found his ideas on what to give the paladin to be uninspiring. Falling back on the same old, same old isn't going to end these debates. They need to find something that pulls the paladin away from the cleric in an interesting way or fold it into the cleric as a build or theme.
These blog articles also continue to disappoint me in general, as it seems they are set on giving each class set abilities, instead of shared suites of class abilites to choose from. I hope they are only referring to a few unique abilities for each class and not the entire structre of the class, if that makes sense.
I voted 1 or 2 for most of their poll options except 'new and exciting' which I voted a 5. Not being a game designer though, I don't have the time to brainstorm new and exciting ideas for them.
These blog articles also continue to disappoint me in general, as it seems they are set on giving each class set abilities, instead of shared suites of class abilites to choose from. I hope they are only referring to a few unique abilities for each class and not the entire structre of the class, if that makes sense.
I voted 1 or 2 for most of their poll options except 'new and exciting' which I voted a 5. Not being a game designer though, I don't have the time to brainstorm new and exciting ideas for them.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Count me in the group as anti-mounted combat as a class feature. I love paladin's, but riding a horse is generally used as a mode of transportation, and absolutely no use in a dungeon crawl or in 99.9% of skirmishes that will take place in the average D&D campaign. Mounted combat is something cool that pretty much anyone who doesn't strike from the shadows should be able to build into if the campaign presents room for mounted combat to exist. Otherwise it's highly finicky and generally doesn't com in hand or come out as cool as it sounds.
"Knight in Shining Armor" is a direct reference to a feat that was available in 4.0(don't recall if it was in earlier editions). It was a pretty useless feat save for when you're all stuck in a 10x wide corridor. In the open field to avoid being AoE'd to death, the party spreads out, and thus, makes the "adjacent to the Paladin" bonus pointless.
You know what I'm really not liking as I read through this article? The emphasis on the Paladin being a defender. The Paladin has many roles, defender among them, and if 5e is supposed to be anything it's supposed to be an edition with options. Even the 4e basic paladin straight out of the PHB1 could be given a two-handed weapon and turned into a holy striker of pretty serious proportions.
And as people have already pointed out, while a lot more of what you're going to be fighting is probably evil, smite "alignment" powers were always very fiddly. Sure, they're great for hordes of undead or demons and so on, but in games were alignment is more of a perspective and less of a hardcoded "these guys are evil.", it really doesn't come in handy as much. I would love to see smite simply be "Smite: add extra X damage to your attack." I mean, I love playing the honorable, knightly, borderline lawful stupid Paladin, but I'd like to be able to use Smite more than once every month(in game). I mean, if they're going to make Smite's damage some serious hoodoo, sure, give it a restriction! But when all I'm getting is a +1d6 damage, guys, that ain't a bonus, that's standard fare.
Personally, Wizards is already copying Paizo to get a good idea of where the Rogue should go, they oughta keep up the good copyright infringement and look at how Paizo did up the Paladin.
Auras? Great feature. Static effect that can harm enemies or aid allies, few to no other classes have this feature.
Lay on Hands? Traditional. Paladin's have always had a few backup healing features as divine characters. They're no cleric, but they'll be able to lend a Hand in a pinch.
Smite? Great feature, though some other classes have this, I don't think it would be difficult to tailor it to the Paladin without giving it awful stupid restrictions like only allowing it to affect Chaotic Evil.
Mounted Combat? Cool feature, maybe the Paladin is better at it, but really it's not going to see use in most games. The battlefield simply isn't suited to it.
Defender? A good option, Paladin's should be great defendes, right up there with Fighters. But they should also be holy avengers, heavy-armored "smite your face in the name of my god!" type guys. It's the same duality of the Fighter. I don't know if there's room for a two-weapon Paladin, but there definately needs to be room for a two-handed juggernaut.
I don't like how niche they're looking. There's plenty of fat to trim from the Cleric to give the Paladin more space. If they're not willing to give the Paladin some room between Fighter and Cleric, then the Paladin might as well be a multiclass prestiege class option(which I don't want to see, I love paladins as a base class).
"Knight in Shining Armor" is a direct reference to a feat that was available in 4.0(don't recall if it was in earlier editions). It was a pretty useless feat save for when you're all stuck in a 10x wide corridor. In the open field to avoid being AoE'd to death, the party spreads out, and thus, makes the "adjacent to the Paladin" bonus pointless.
You know what I'm really not liking as I read through this article? The emphasis on the Paladin being a defender. The Paladin has many roles, defender among them, and if 5e is supposed to be anything it's supposed to be an edition with options. Even the 4e basic paladin straight out of the PHB1 could be given a two-handed weapon and turned into a holy striker of pretty serious proportions.
And as people have already pointed out, while a lot more of what you're going to be fighting is probably evil, smite "alignment" powers were always very fiddly. Sure, they're great for hordes of undead or demons and so on, but in games were alignment is more of a perspective and less of a hardcoded "these guys are evil.", it really doesn't come in handy as much. I would love to see smite simply be "Smite: add extra X damage to your attack." I mean, I love playing the honorable, knightly, borderline lawful stupid Paladin, but I'd like to be able to use Smite more than once every month(in game). I mean, if they're going to make Smite's damage some serious hoodoo, sure, give it a restriction! But when all I'm getting is a +1d6 damage, guys, that ain't a bonus, that's standard fare.
Personally, Wizards is already copying Paizo to get a good idea of where the Rogue should go, they oughta keep up the good copyright infringement and look at how Paizo did up the Paladin.
Auras? Great feature. Static effect that can harm enemies or aid allies, few to no other classes have this feature.
Lay on Hands? Traditional. Paladin's have always had a few backup healing features as divine characters. They're no cleric, but they'll be able to lend a Hand in a pinch.
Smite? Great feature, though some other classes have this, I don't think it would be difficult to tailor it to the Paladin without giving it awful stupid restrictions like only allowing it to affect Chaotic Evil.
Mounted Combat? Cool feature, maybe the Paladin is better at it, but really it's not going to see use in most games. The battlefield simply isn't suited to it.
Defender? A good option, Paladin's should be great defendes, right up there with Fighters. But they should also be holy avengers, heavy-armored "smite your face in the name of my god!" type guys. It's the same duality of the Fighter. I don't know if there's room for a two-weapon Paladin, but there definately needs to be room for a two-handed juggernaut.
I don't like how niche they're looking. There's plenty of fat to trim from the Cleric to give the Paladin more space. If they're not willing to give the Paladin some room between Fighter and Cleric, then the Paladin might as well be a multiclass prestiege class option(which I don't want to see, I love paladins as a base class).
pauljathome
First Post
I want paladins akin to those from the Book of Righteous Might.
These are all good aligned (NOT LG) Holy Warriors and are specific to every religion.
With the default LG Paladin being one specific version of these Holy Warriors.
Some get steeds. Some don't. Powers vary.
Pathfinder Domains would also be a reasonably good model for the kind of thing that I'm talking about.
These are all good aligned (NOT LG) Holy Warriors and are specific to every religion.
With the default LG Paladin being one specific version of these Holy Warriors.
Some get steeds. Some don't. Powers vary.
Pathfinder Domains would also be a reasonably good model for the kind of thing that I'm talking about.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
So... all the time?
Ahnehnois
First Post
I would say, then, that it only isn't a problem if the DM and the player have the same ideas of morality.
What are the odds of that?
am181d
Adventurer
I'm surprised they didn't run a poll on whether Paladins should cast spells. It's always been my opinion that Paladins and Rangers work better as melee characters with a few supernatural abilities rather than all-out spellcasters.
I'd love to see them reposition Paladins as warriors who swear allegiance to a cause, whether it's a god, a king, a political movement, etc. and then get bonuses when serving that purpose. That would significantly distinguish the theme and justify them opening the class up to other alignments, while still allowing players to play more-or-less the classic Paladin.
Also has the benefit of hewing pretty closely to the classic (non-D&D) definition of the word.
I'd love to see them reposition Paladins as warriors who swear allegiance to a cause, whether it's a god, a king, a political movement, etc. and then get bonuses when serving that purpose. That would significantly distinguish the theme and justify them opening the class up to other alignments, while still allowing players to play more-or-less the classic Paladin.
Also has the benefit of hewing pretty closely to the classic (non-D&D) definition of the word.
I just prefer the term "crusader". That way hes "A guy with a religion based focus" and what you do within that is so much more adaptable.
* You dont have to be good. Evil crusader is perfectly feasible (Im on a crusade to wipe out the God of fluffy bunnies!), allowing it to be adapatable to multiple campaigns.
* You are linked to your god, performing a sacred quest. Plenty of RP to sink your teeth into
* Potentially get rid of this "mounted" benefit. Its even more situational than evil smiting.
Then, do it as a kit! That way you can have the "fighter/crusader" (sorta paladinish, and who said fighters couldnt be religious?) or the "priest/crusader" (sorta clericish). Offer the extra benefits from the kit too to give it some teeth.
Just an idea. There is other ways to skin this cat.
* You dont have to be good. Evil crusader is perfectly feasible (Im on a crusade to wipe out the God of fluffy bunnies!), allowing it to be adapatable to multiple campaigns.
* You are linked to your god, performing a sacred quest. Plenty of RP to sink your teeth into
* Potentially get rid of this "mounted" benefit. Its even more situational than evil smiting.
Then, do it as a kit! That way you can have the "fighter/crusader" (sorta paladinish, and who said fighters couldnt be religious?) or the "priest/crusader" (sorta clericish). Offer the extra benefits from the kit too to give it some teeth.
Just an idea. There is other ways to skin this cat.
Incenjucar
Legend
Regarding mounted combat, I'd like to just see paladin abilities work well with mounted options, but not rely on them. Mounts are great for charging, for example, so what if paladins had some abilities related to charging that just happened to work well with a mount?
I'd really like to see paladins as protectors that get bonuses to their abilities whenever a person, object, or perhaps zone under their protection is violated. The idea that the only way to not turn the paladin into the Holy Hulk is to face them in one-on-one combat on neutral ground appeals to me.
I'd really like to see paladins as protectors that get bonuses to their abilities whenever a person, object, or perhaps zone under their protection is violated. The idea that the only way to not turn the paladin into the Holy Hulk is to face them in one-on-one combat on neutral ground appeals to me.
am181d
Adventurer
I think that makes sense. Maybe give 'em 3 or 4 abilities, none of which are specifically *horse* themed, but that all synergize well with mounted combat. (Maybe a coordinated strike or coordinated defense ability that could be used with a party member OR a horse, as another example. Or maybe a knockdown ability that could be paired with a trample.)
Similar Threads
