[GR] Holy/Unholy Warrior 3.5 Update Query

[BryonD]

The 3.5 changes to the Paladin were great. So I'd love to see a tweaked version of the Holy Warrior to match.

I agree that it is pretty easy to do anyway. But I'd love to see some more from Aaron, so do it for us anyway.

 

[zorlag]

-

I own both books and like them very much. Update to 3.5e would be much appreciated and more examples of suitable gifts of darkness and light would be good additions as well. Cure Disease and Contagion are not appropriate for every sort of holy and unholy warriors. Keep up the good work!

Z.

 

[Clint]

I'm one of the players in SnowDog's game. As he said, we love the BotR and the Holy Warrior class.

On the rules side of Paladins/HWs/3.5e, I'm with Psion. I like the 3.5 Paladin even less than the 3.0 version, which is not much at all. Avatars for summoning, Holy Warriors for being... holy warriors.

-Clint

 

[Vrylakos]

I myself am torn. I REALLY don't like the pokemon war-horse, but the rest of the 3.5 paladin I don't necessarily have a problem with. Extra Smites are cool, and the later levels having a bit more than 'oooo! Extra Cure Disease!" was a good move, IMO.

I do like the suggestion of making the Summon Mount baloney a Gift of God, and perhaps adding a sidebar in describing the Gift of God that would allow a perfect 3.5 paladin. I myself wouldn't use it, but the people who want a perfect 3.5 paladin emulation would be happy.

So, Chris, if you want to make everyone happy, do that!

Vrylakos

 

[LightPhoenix]

I say make it as compatible with the 3.5 Paladin as you can. Those of us that don't like the mount summoning can always just say it works the old way. I mean, it's not that big of a house rule, and there aren't any WotC mercenaries coming to peoples' houses to enforce it.

 

[BryonD]

I say make it as compatible with the 3.5 Paladin as you can. Those of us that don't like the mount summoning can always just say it works the old way. I mean, it's not that big of a house rule, and there aren't any WotC mercenaries coming to peoples' houses to enforce it.

Ha!

You beat me to it. I was going to say the exact same thing.

The mechanics of the mount are the same, it is just a question of whether it is always there or if you call it. Letting the DM choose doesn't even require a sidebar.

 

[Silveras]

A wildly different perspective

Some of you are going to hate me for this ... but I don't care.

begin rant
I think the idea of "a Paladin-type class for every alignment" is flawed in and of itself.

People who ask for a Paladin-type class for another alignment, generally, are the people who see the Lawful Good alignment requirement as some kind of "leash" on their creativity. I think that is wrong. They are taking the approach that "I like the Paladin, but it forces me to be Lawful Good". Wrong. You need to reverse that cause-effect. "I am playing a Lawful Good character. Hey! That means I can be a Paladin if I want !"

In other words, if you are Lawful Good because you are playing a Paladin, you are looking at the class the wrong way. People do not become Lawful Good by first becoming Paladins; they become Paladins by first being Lawful Good.
end rant

So, to the matter of the Un/Holy Warrior. I certainly agree that each deity would be likely to arm and support a champion of his/her causes. The Un/Holy Warrior class(es) can do that nicely. I would argue that making them more different from the Paladin is a better approach. Paladins do not have to serve a deity; Un/Holy Warriors should be bound to one deity. You should NOT be able to duplicate a Paladin by starting with a Holy Warrior; if fact, IMHO, you should never even "come close".

 

[Cergorach]

@Silveras
This should be viewed from the perspective of the BotR pantheon, there the 'Paladin' is the 'Holy Warrior' of the church of all the gods. The other 'Holy Warriors' are just that, 'Holy Warriors' of specific gods, this makes them very different imho.

In this way the Paladin becomes a very specific kind of Holy Warrior. If you don't like it, don't use it, no one is holding a gun to your head.

For those who do like the concept it would be nice if Paladin v3.5 will be basically compatible with the rest of the Holy Warriors v3.5.

People seem to either hate or love the v3.5 poke.. erm... i mean summon Holy Mount ability of the Paladin. It should be very easy to just use the old mount rules, but i do think that it should be clearly spelled out to make the choice (so that all abilities will work the same way in the world), because not everyone is as comfortable with making rules changes as all the veterans around here are...

 

[Olive]

Here's a vote for making them 3.5 compatible entirely. Prefer the BotR Holy Warrior to the 3.5 Paladin? Then this update shouldn't make any difference to you. But I have no problem with the 3.5 paladin, I do like the holy warrior class concept, and I'd like to see the two remain compatible. Otherwise I'm not sure what the point would be. If the 3.5 update doesn't reflect the new paladin class, then by lazy default I'll probably use the other holy warrior classes from Dragon, and that would be a shame, because I think the domain style system from BotR is much nicer.

 

[coyote6]

Hmm. Is "both" an option?

I like the extra smites & such that the 3.5e paladin gets, but the anti-"front loading" is a big "eh". Remove disease is even less of an interesting ability, and the further delayed turning is even less useful itself, and more of a reason to get divine feats.