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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8286256" data-attributes="member: 18">I see a lot of Oath of the Ancients and it's mechanically strong too. I strongly suspect it's vastly more popular than Vengeance, even, let alone the other Paladins except Devotion - anyone adding Crown and Glory isn't looking at what archetypes are missing, what's popular with players, or anything of the sort, because they're basically just mechanically rubbish, less-flexible versions of Devotion, thematically. It's basically what you add if you only want 1E-style Paladins to be available, which would be a confusing starting point to say the least.However Assassin is just straight-up badly-designed, and plays badly. It's terrible at its own job and essentially a "trap" for players who think it's the most dangerous Rogue (it's actually one of the less-dangerous kinds). Hence it getting the boot.So the answer is to have three nearly-thematically-identical archetypes instead? Don't you feel that's going too far in the other direction? Crown and Glory are very close to Devotion in theme, associated imagery, and so on (all "shining" Paladins), and both have weaker mechanical designs than Devotion (Glory just bad). If anything they should be deleted and folded into Devotion or the Paladin base class as options. At least your suggestion of Conquest is one doing something different - it's a terrible design but conceptually it's cool.And if we follow the same logic for other classes, EK and AT would have to go, but you have AT in, and Psychic Warrior and Rune Knight which are a good deal further from the Fighter archetype than OotA is from Paladin.</blockquote>

Verification