What are your thoughts on the Paladin design goals?

305 posts / 0 new
Last post
community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/...



I feel it's a better outline than the fighter, and a thing that made me pleased were:


"Paladins who champion non-good or even evil divine callings are possible, and in some cases their goals and related specific abilities are directly antithetical to champions of good."


I'm not pleased, however, with the emphasis on swords and the adherence to Lawful alignment.


Feedback?
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92 Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol. "If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
Not to rain on your parade, but there's a thread for this: community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...(with_Bruce_Cordell)

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Not to rain on your parade, but there's a thread for this: community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...(with_Bruce_Cordell)


True, but that one has degenerated into an alignment debate.

Speaking specifically about the mechanics: I don't think the mount should be a feature.  It's ok if they make it an optional feature, but they're really setting themselves up for one of two things.  Either 1) the paladin with mount feature will be set up to benefit from mounted combat, and will be hampered when they can't use their mount (like in dungeons), or 2) the mount will be just a movement method that isn't really deserving of taking up space as a class feature.

I do like that the article indicated that paladins could smite without needing an alignment tag to do so.  However, the detect evil bit still bothers me.  Unless magical physical disguises (like a succubus changing shape) can mask evil auras automatically, DMs will have to invent other means of concealing alignment to prevent plot short-circuits.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

OK, I'll bite. Maybe we'll just not talk about alignment in this thread. Hahaha we can try at least

The mount thing can be OK if the class isn't balanced around it. One cool thing in the article is the idea that the paladin tends to spread his powers to his allies. So perhaps the mounted paladin will benefit the party more as travelers and explorers than as combatants. Or his bonuses in mounted combat will be group-oriented, so that everyone will have an incentive to fight on horseback in non-dungeon settings. For example, defensive and mobility boosts for mounts might be enough reason for wizards and rangers to cast and shoot arrows from horseback. Overall, I'm open to some new ideas that ensure that (1) the paladin isn't diminished by the absense of his mount and (2) the paladin won't be the only one who wants to bring a mount when possible.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

looks better than the wizard....
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Speaking specifically about the mechanics: I don't think the mount should be a feature.  It's ok if they make it an optional feature, but they're really setting themselves up for one of two things.  Either 1) the paladin with mount feature will be set up to benefit from mounted combat, and will be hampered when they can't use their mount (like in dungeons), or 2) the mount will be just a movement method that isn't really deserving of taking up space as a class feature.


Would you find it acceptable if the mount was a part of the exploration pillar of the paladin's abilities and did not particularly interact with the combat pillar?
Response to things I like:

- Well, they're starting with a mount this time...

Response to things I don't like, in the most delicate manner possible:

- Boo!


Speaking specifically about the mechanics: I don't think the mount should be a feature.  It's ok if they make it an optional feature, but they're really setting themselves up for one of two things.  Either 1) the paladin with mount feature will be set up to benefit from mounted combat, and will be hampered when they can't use their mount (like in dungeons), or 2) the mount will be just a movement method that isn't really deserving of taking up space as a class feature.


Would you find it acceptable if the mount was a part of the exploration pillar of the paladin's abilities and did not particularly interact with the combat pillar?


Of course.  Personally, I think mounted combat in DDN should be a theme.  That way all classes can have at it, and no class is forced to be balanced around it while being suboptimal on foot.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

A paladin with no mount,detect evil,sword and shield or two handed weapon,lawful alignment,healing and smiting is no longer a paladin.Well at least by many who play rpgs and in this case DnD.This formula is what many have grown use to.Can you remove some or most of these and still be left with a class you would call a paladin?

Well people who are for classes that can be altered/flavored up in any way possible will have a problem with this kind of pally.Unless these themes they speak of can add things to the mix.The article did say a typical paladin had heavy armor and a sword.So I would think between themes/feats whatever you could make a non typical paladin in medium or light armor with a spear.That is just a guess however I have no facts to back up what if any restraints there will be on the various classes.


I like the pally having a mount to start with.We do not know if they will start off with mounted training/advantage over the other classes as of yet.A theme/ability etc that gives them this advantage or lets them lend it to allies could be rather cool.


I always liked the detect evil anility.Maybe not the version where you have the player saying "Is there evil in this room?How about this room?What about this hallway?Is this door evil?How about the treasure we just got?Is the innkeeper evil?The barmaid?The cloaked figure in the corner that is smoking the pipe and staring at the halflings?I like the idea of the pally if nothing else having a type of sixth sense and intuition on such matters.

The alignment thing is a sticky subject.I never cared for alignment and used it in a very loose way if at all in my games or when I ran my characters.At its best it was used as are you chaotic or lawful are you good or evil or somewhere slightly between,there is no true neutral.Uaually I just let the players play how they wanted to and when they acted out of normal character or beliefs I just asked them why and went from there.For the pally to be always lawful I have no problem with.It always seemed to me that this class was founded on structure,obedience and the adherance to law and order regardless of good or evil mentality.        
I missed that about the mount.....



the mount is one of the most of the overlooked, underated, hardly used, most often griped about, and a few other things paladin abilties.
some like a free mount, some don't. some like it as a horse and some dont.

I'm not one of those people who like the paladin's mount.  namely as I dont like mounted combat which is one of the things that is most assosicated with a mount and if I have to have a mount, that I'd prefer to have something other than a horse as my mount. A roc, a riding lizard, a large dire weasel, a unicorn, a griffen, a hyppogriff, a dire animal.


Really a horse makes no sense if your paladin is not an air breather and lives under the sea  and rests in an octopusses garden in the shade.    

the mount should be optional.       
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Yeah, I tend to prefer when familiars, companion beasts, and such are optional abilities that you trade other potential abilities for.

For example the druid could choose between having a beast companion or being a shape-changer himself.

The pally could choose to have a mount, extra smiting feats, a different follower (like a squire or some such), or maybe special shield based powers.
I missed that about the mount.....



the mount is one of the most of the overlooked, underated, hardly used, most often griped about, and a few other things paladin abilties.
some like a free mount, some don't. some like it as a horse and some dont.

I'm not one of those people who like the paladin's mount.  namely as I dont like mounted combat which is one of the things that is most assosicated with a mount and if I have to have a mount, that I'd prefer to have something other than a horse as my mount. A roc, a riding lizard, a large dire weasel, a unicorn, a griffen, a hyppogriff, a dire animal.


Really a horse makes no sense if your paladin is not an air breather and lives under the sea  and rests in an octopusses garden in the shade.    

the mount should be optional.       



Ah yes, because you cannot possibly change the types of mounts available to suite the games your actually playing in.

Or the prefered weapons/armour.

Or even simply refuse to use a feature....  

Yeah, I tend to prefer when familiars, companion beasts, and such are optional abilities that you trade other potential abilities for.

For example the druid could choose between having a beast companion or being a shape-changer himself.

The pally could choose to have a mount, extra smiting feats, a different follower (like a squire or some such), or maybe special shield based powers.




You're not a fan of the Coke Zero "AND?" commercials are you?

Why shouldn't the Pally have a mount, AND _____.  Why does the default have to be either/or??

 
No I just refuse to use the mount.

but everybody always assume warhorse when the description says usually a horse.

I prefer to fight with my characters feat on the ground.


its okay for those who like it, but really how many modules in both LFR and the long defunct LGH and how many of the official DDI modules have included a use for a paladin's mount??  

I dont see why it should be a class feature when it along with another type of paladin deal should be in as either one or the other feature.
like how Paizo did their paladin.

the mount is simply not my cup of tea. am I wrong?? NO

is someone else wrong for liking the mount?? no.


we are jsut wrong when we start to tell others how to play theior character..... but thats without saying.              
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Complexity, CCS, complexity

See if the paladin gets everything it SHOULD have as a default then it gets really out of hand really fast.

Smiting
Heavy armor
shield powers
lance/charge powerss
sword powers
squire
celestial mount
mount for squire
healing
leading
social skills
social standing
spell casting
disease immunity
divine protection


Here's a list of the various qualities of the Paladin, in order from how often they've been included in OE, 1E, UA, 2E, 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials. Something that's been in every Paladin will have an 8, in other words. I'd question how committed they are to actually designing a Paladin that's recognizable as a Paladin if they leave out more than a couple things with higher scores than 5.

8 Lay On Hands 
8 Fighter Type  
7 Spellcasting
6 Turn Undead        
6 Special Mount
6 Restricted Associations
6 Immunity to Disease
6 Enhanced Saving Throws
6 Enhanced Holy Swords
6 Detect Evil
6 Cure Disease
6 Alignment Restriction
5 Smite Evil
4 Treasure Restriction
4 Racial Restriction
4 No Automatic Followers when others get'em
4 Item Restriction
4 Immunity to Fear
4 Horsemanship Bonuses
4 Dispel Evil
4 Chivalrous Behavior Code Enforced by Rules
4 Ability Score Restriction
3 Vulnerability to Evil
2 Compulsion to Associate
1 Weapons of Choice
1 Weapon Restriction
1 Training Up Ability Scores
1 Social Class Restriction
1 Parrying
1 Function at Negative HP
1 Enhanced Healing
1 Armor Restriction

Edit: I'm boldfacing the things I think they've at least hinted at including. 

I was thinking about the mount and also about the Cavalier class in 4th edition (it's the only edition I know, after all).

I think the Cavalier was insnanely good fluff, but lacked in combat. It could have been a lot better and could in fact have been even worse.

Specifically the class feature Pace of the Virtuous Charger (you and allies mounts get +2 speed when you are mounted) and the optional feature you can replace it with, Summoned Steed.

Instead of this, give them both as class features at some level. Summoned Steed will allow the class to use something similar to the Phantom Steed ritual. At early levels it provides only a mount for himself, but later on can provide mounts for everyone. Those that would not feel comfortable mounted in combat can use some kind of action to both dismount and make the horse dissapear until after combat. I don't know if I'd want to give them magic steeds like that, but it's one way to do it. This would be an optional element that would probably take the place of something else. Without it, you still get the Pace of the Virtuous Charger benefit and maybe you get another element that lets you rent horses on loan to your order in some places.

EDIT: This concept can also be modified for Druids. In either case, the animal does not have to be a horse. I'd say at each level the value of the mounts they can summon will increase.
In one of the 3.x Forgotten Realms sourcebooks there was an alternate paladin ability that I really liked.

You could replace one use of Lay on Hands with something like Train Militia.  (Preq: must worship a particular ascended demigod who came to fame by helping local folks learn how to use weapons to protect themselves.)  With this, you could convert a bunch (two dozen?) of NPC minions into followers with useful weapons, for a month.

I hope that the basic paladin is set up so that Divine Power 5.0 can include some similar variations.

I also like that you can be non-LG and still be a paladin.  Simple metaplot example: the Ultimate Threat to the World is an invading horde of demons who slay everything they meet.  So meeting up with a paladin of Bane, the LE god of tyranny, who teaches that all must work together under the command of the most powerful, is a relatively better fate.  Peonage is a lesser evil than death.  And the paladin of Bane can still go down in history as a world-saving hero.  (Even if he does bring the Spanish Inquisition in his wake.)

Best complements I have yet received:

Show

Making it up as I go along:

{BRJN} If I was writing the Tome of Lore, I would let Auppenser sleep. But I also would have him dream. In his dreaming he re-activates the innate powers of (some) mortal minds. Or his dreaming changes the nature of reality - currently very malleable thanks to Spellplague &c. Or whatever really cool flavor text and pseudo-science explanation people react positively to.

{Lord_Karsus} You know, I like that better than the explanations for the Spellplague.

 

Prepped ahead of time:

I started the thread "1001 Failed Interrogation Results" (which seems to have faded into that great electronic goodnight, alas)

{ADHadh} These are all good and make sense! I just can't come up with something that's not covered here and is not completely ridiculous.

 

My 4e characters:

Show

Active:

LFR Half-elf StarLock8 Gondolin Nightstar

AoA Dwarf Guardian Druid8 Narvik from House Wavir

Character Ready-to-go:

Neverwinter Dwarven Invoker / Heir of Delzoun, worships Silvanus (!) "Truenamer" - speaks Words of Creation

Concepts I'm kicking around:

"Buggy" Wizard - insect flavor on everything.  His DMPC version is going to become a Lamia.  Becauae lichdom is so cliche.

Halfling Tempest Fighter - just because nobody else is doing it

Shifter Beast-o-phile Druid - for Nentir Vale campaign

I have to admit that I am disappointed that Mike wants to allow non-LG Paladins in DnD Next especially as one of their class design criterias was to focus on architypal stories.

However, that being said, it is a very easy house rule to fix that particular problem.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I have to admit that I am disappointed that Mike wants to allow non-LG Paladins in DnD Next especially as one of their class design criterias was to focus on architypal stories.

However, that being said, it is a very easy house rule to fix that particular problem.




I'm going to have a hard time responding to this appropriately, so I'll be brief in saying I strongly disagree.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92 Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol. "If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
I have to admit that I am disappointed that Mike wants to allow non-LG Paladins in DnD Next especially as one of their class design criterias was to focus on architypal stories.

However, that being said, it is a very easy house rule to fix that particular problem.



There is no reason not to support non-LG paladins. Isn't the crusader for an evil god (LE) a reasonable archetype? How about a kindhearted lovable guy who hates fighting but will put on his armor and draw his shield to defend the weak from those who would harm them (NG)?
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
The idea that only LG can be paladins is laughable.

In fact the singleminded obediance and blind faith in an alien force such as a deity would be easier and more in tune with any other alignment.

Why is it so important that the paladin be lawful good only? It inevitably leads to the clutter of excess classes and prcs to give all the evil and chaotic gods their own special champions. Just have one class that incroporates the entire spectrum because there's little more than a cosmetic difference between the extremes. 
@TomShambles: Out of curiosity, do you disagree that the LG Paladin is archetypal, or that houseruling a non-LG Paladin into LG-only is easy?
@rampant: It's why my Paladins aren't going to be connected to a deity. Connecting them to deities makes them not much more than a variant cleric, which I'm not into.
I have to admit that I am disappointed that Mike wants to allow non-LG Paladins in DnD Next especially as one of their class design criterias was to focus on architypal stories.

However, that being said, it is a very easy house rule to fix that particular problem.



There is no reason not to support non-LG paladins. Isn't the crusader for an evil god (LE) a reasonable archetype? How about a kindhearted lovable guy who hates fighting but will put on his armor and draw his shield to defend the weak from those who would harm them (NG)?



Sure there's a reason not to support them. If there weren't, there wouldn't be so many people not supporting them. The primary reason is that removing elements of a class tends to dilute the class, making it less distinctive. Do it enough, and the class becomes less and less distinguishable as a unique thing, turning into a couple vague class features that don't do much to differentiate it from, for example, the cleric.
I have to admit that I am disappointed that Mike wants to allow non-LG Paladins in DnD Next especially as one of their class design criterias was to focus on architypal stories.

However, that being said, it is a very easy house rule to fix that particular problem.


I think that antipaladins are somewhat archetypical, so LE paladins are OK to me.

But if they want to allow LN paladin, then they can just as well skip the alignment requirements and turn the paladin into a templar.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
...Out of curiosity, do you disagree that the LG Paladin is archetypal...

It's been a punchline, for well over thirty years.

@Qmark: Yeah... some people just hated D&D, what can you do?
What D&D's "traditional" Paladin is supposed to be:



What "Paladin" ends up actually being:
Perhaps they will introduce another class for chaotic religious warriors. 

IIRC cyclopedia required paladins to be lawful and avengers to be chaotic, but the system did not distinguish between good and evil. 
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
Perhaps they will introduce another class for chaotic religious warriors.

Why create a whole enitire class doing pretty much the same damn thing, when simply deleting "always lawful" from the class description is all that's needed?

Generally speaking people don't like unused or useless abilities, so I think the core rules should offer at least some kind of alternative to the mount. Perhaps some kind of holy familiar or divine aura granting a bonus to his companions saves, or something else. 

As for the alignment restriction, I think it can go. Although alignment, like classes themselves, can be used as a tool to add flavor it shouldn't be enforced. Some people like their character to be defined by their actions, and others base their actions around a concept. Neither is right or wrong it's just two different styles of play.
I have to admit that I am disappointed that Mike wants to allow non-LG Paladins in DnD Next especially as one of their class design criterias was to focus on architypal stories.

However, that being said, it is a very easy house rule to fix that particular problem.




I'm going to have a hard time responding to this appropriately, so I'll be brief in saying I strongly disagree.



Duely noted.

There is no reason not to support non-LG paladins. Isn't the crusader for an evil god (LE) a reasonable archetype? How about a kindhearted lovable guy who hates fighting but will put on his armor and draw his shield to defend the weak from those who would harm them (NG)?



I disagree, there are several reasons why Paladins should be LG.  The most grating one for me, is the argument that "every God needs/wants/deserves Paladins whether a Paladin is suitable for the God or not ."  It is similar to the complaints that I have seen regarding the role stealing of the wizard - you can not have sourcers, warlocks, witches etc because the wizard can do everything labeled as "arcane" magic.  There are many Gods whose Divine Champions are going to be from other classes: Magic God - Sword Mage, Shadow God - Rogue/Assasin, Nature God - Ranger and even the Gods that a heavily armoured champion fits probably want something else anyway: War/Tyranny - Anti-Paladin.

Although the Paladin and Anti-Paladin are both archetypes, the little flavour connection that exists between them is heavily armoured, sword wielding champion.  The Paladin might be self-sacrificing but the Anti-Paladin sure isnt.

I am sure that Mike can find a way to write the class where it can be easily adapted to any divine patron that you may wish to use, but having not seen the rules yet I can only hope that they do not try and do it the 4e way but maybe the Essential way might work.

The idea that any non-LG can be paladins is laughable.



Fixed that for you.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
A Paladin fights roughly as well as a Fighter, has less spells than a cleric, barely heals dudes, and may or may not get a cool horse. 
Nothing in those abilities has anything to do with alignment.  The ones that do (detect and smite) are just as functional when any alignment keyword is attached.
What D&D's "traditional" Paladin is supposed to be:



What "Paladin" ends up actually being:



Good point, I think the Tv show "Due South was a good example of a Paladin at work:



Maybe we could swap the "Summon Mount" ability for "Summon Companion Animal"?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
A Paladin fights roughly as well as a Fighter, has less spells than a cleric, barely heals dudes, and may or may not get a cool horse. 
Nothing in those abilities has anything to do with alignment.  The ones that do (detect and smite) are just as functional when any alignment keyword is attached.



You just described what mechanics a Paladin has, not what a Paladin is.

And is exactly what happens when you seperate fluff from mechanics.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
You just described what mechanics a Paladin has, not what a Paladin is.

And is exactly what happens when you seperate fluff from mechanics.

And that's exactly why fluff and mechanics need to be seperated.

What you do is in the books.  Who you are is in your head.

You just described what mechanics a Paladin has, not what a Paladin is.

And is exactly what happens when you seperate fluff from mechanics.

And that's exactly why fluff and mechanics need to be seperated.

What you do is in the books.  Who you are is in your head.




I expect more from an RPG then mechanics.

If I wanted only mechanics I could read a Maths text book.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Right.
The game insisting that anyone wanting to run a Paladin must play the character as a Mountie is like the game insisting that every Druid must go murder another Druid at every level past twelve, or like the game insisting all Wizards must be elderly bearded men who are obligated to wear pointy hats decorated with embroidered stars.
I liked that Druids and Monks had to defeat the higher level people to move up the ranks.  It smacked of a quaint Disk Worldish charm lost in the ever growing PC world of the centruy of the Fruit Bat.

Afterall, only the toughest mofo can go around being called the Grandmaster of Flowers.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
As a direct response to the OP: I still don't see why this has to be it's own class, and not a Fighter-specific Theme that mechanically consists of:


  • A DM-controlled 'sense wrongness' ability.

  • Immunity to disease and fear.

  • A daily power that lets you melee bash someone you really don't like better than normal.

  • A daily touch-range healing power.

  • A (daily? encounter? at-will?) power to call Epona.

4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.