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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordArchaon" data-source="post: 5826738" data-attributes="member: 60929">The Paladin is one of the few classes that has me very concerned, when talking about D&D Next /5e and its objective of making every class look, feel and play differently.I already stated before that, at least for Martial classes, I see two "attributes" that could really distinguish classes beyond 4e's Tactical Role, and they're Strategical Role and Preferred Field. I'm gonna re-post here my views about them: Fighter:- Strategical Role: Stalwart (visible, up-front, no tricks, moves slowly)- Preferred Field: Any field in which many enemies can concentrate around him (he can also "create" this field by goading/challenging or good positioning. Rogue:- Strategical Role: Sneak (poorly visible, dirty tricks, moves to get advanatge and hit weak spots)- Preferred Field: Urban/cramped environment, concealment, objects to use as advantage, traps. At best when enemies are isolated or positioned in a way as to offer weak spots (flanked).Warlord:- Strategical Role: Commander (very visible, second line of battle, uses allies and psychology to control and lead the battle)- Preferred Field: Any field in whcih allies have room to maneuver and operate in concert. At best in war-like situations in which formations and advanced tactics can be used.Ranger:- Strategical Role: Skirmisher (always moving, using terrain for advantage/cover, advanced combat styles that match high speed and "shock" tactics)- Preferred Field: Open and wild fields in which enemies move fast and require the speed and *range* of the Ranger to be dealt with. At best in forests or similar environments in which guerrilla-like skirmish can be set up.Now, the Paladin has nearly the same Strategical Role and Preferred Field as the Fighter IMO. It would be different being Divine, but that would end up changing just the "looks" part of the class. The "feel" could also be different, including the Paladin's Challenge thing and the various Channel Divinity things, but the truth is that "how the class plays" would be really very similar to the Fighter. And to add to the problem, the "feel" would also seem very similar to that of a "Battle Cleric", and the looks to those of a "Chivalrous Fighter".What are your thoughts about this? What should really differentiate the Paladin class?In my opinion, the Paladin should take the Ranger's stuff in the "favored enemy" department. They could be stronger against bosses or anyway "bigger/scarier" enemies, while the Ranger could be the one that takes out other skirmishers, and the Fighter the one to deal with crowds of soldiers and such. But this of course isn't enough, although I think it's fitting (would be like an interpretation of their bonuses VS Fear).EDIT: Another thing that could distinguish them and be fitting of their legacy, would be their "unstoppable" flavor/mechanics. While a Fighter should position carefully, use the right weapons and tactics to get to his/her enemies, and would be in danger when confronted with spells and other "battle-changing" effects, the Paladin would be perhaps less versatile, but better at overcoming magic, eventual (optional) morale difficulties, and such. They'd be the class that can get to the Dragon first, while everyone is stunned in fear, or to the evil spellcaster, shrugging off slowing or immobilizing effects first (taking a bit of the 4e's Warden stuff in the process). Their "shielding their allies" thing could also be something they do well. While Fighters would prevent damage to allies by parrying blows and such, the Paladin would be one of the few that could really interpose themselves when allies are in danger. Also, I picture them able to create magical effects focused on their shields, shielding the whole party against a dragon's breath and things like that. If the Fighter is the sword or spear of the party, the Paladin would be its shield...Say yours!</blockquote>

Verification