Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6279122" data-attributes="member: 92511">[RE Thread Prefix: consider the prefix "Any D&D...and Pathfinder"RE Thread title: I mean the original/1e Unearthed Arcana]In the 1e Unearthed Arcana, among it's many other shake ups, Paladins were moved from a sub-class of Fighter to falling under the newly presented "Cavalier" class of that manual.In devising my own World of Orea game system, I find myself questioning whether Paladin belongs as a primarily presented class or, more intuitively, Cavalier [or "Knight", if you prefer] is the class that should be presented...with Paladin's then being a more specific type of the Cavalier.I mean, both are a sub-set/specific kind of Warrior. That's a given. The "subclass/what should shouldn't be a subclass" is not the point of this thread...please refrain from making it one.The question is, in your view, does it make more sense that Paladin and Cavalier should be their own individual classes?Or is Cavalier the more "general/broadly applying" archetype: the heavily armored fighter, bound and empowered by their oaths/orders, who excels in mounted combat and battlefield command stuff, and the Paladin is a specific type of that: their oath/orders are specifically religious/divinely-inspired in nature?Or is the line clear/defined enough for them to be separate but equally strong archetypes and it doesn't matter which a game offers first...or at all?Or, probably the least likely to my mind, is the Cavalier really a subset/variation of Paladin? Namely, they are inspired and empowered by their oaths vs. their faith. IOW, is a/could the Cavalier simply viewed as a non-magical/non-divine oriented Paladin?The paladin has more history, I know. A lot of D&D-style or retro-clone games include some form of Paladins...but the knightly, chivalrous, vows/oaths devoted [but not to a deity/religion] warriors are just supposed to be a fluffed/appropriately-supplied Fighter variant.But it seems, lately, I am feeling like the Cavalier never really got a full shake...since it was in UA and generally viewed as overpowered or superfluous, and/or frankly silly to be separated out from the Fighter [Warrior] classes instead of subsumed by it.Not saying I would be creating a UA style Cavalier...but the PF one seems to have a really nice base of stuff that could be fluffed into an interesting non-magic-using class.Maybe, even, the Paladin could be relegated out of full "Class" status altogether and, going back to a BECM-style "prestige-like" class, that Cavaliers (and Fighters...and even, Clerics) might "take on Paladinhood" at a certain level? "You've been such a great advocate/warrior/exemplar for X cause, a deity affiliated with that cause/alignment/concerns is now supplying you with some divine juice." Does something like that work or seem too immersion-breaky?Can a game get away with a Cavalier as a specific Warrior-type and a Paladin as a specific Cavalier-type? Or are Cavalier and Paladin both as separate/individual Warriors more palatable?Discuss.</blockquote>

Verification