|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 12:34AM
#31
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with the Druid accessing some of the Cleric sub-system, they did in editions prior to 4E: e.g. cure x wounds, bless, neutralise poison, resist fire, etc...
The Druid would have access to its own subsystem however.
The Ranger in turn could have limited access to the Druid subsystem, along with the fighters, thiefs and of course full access to their own.
The Barbarian may then get limited access to the Ranger sub-system in addition to...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 12:55AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2009
|
Shintasi have some good ideas but I'll change some to be personal based.
1. Protection from evil should be himself only. A holy shield. That gives -2 to hit if yr evil. +2 saves vrs evil
2. Detect evil 60ft non targeted area, at will Target individual save to block once per encounter.
3. Immune to fear.
4. Holy quest lvl 10 for holy weapon
5. Holy quest lvl 15 special mount. Pegasus or something to match your race/size
6. No turn undead. But grant lvl damage bonus vrs undead etc. he already has Prot. Evil. So dint give him everything a cleric gets.
7. Immune to disease
8. Lower lvl cleric spells
9. Lay on hands.
Lawful good only. Has to be or anyone would play the paladin.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 12:58AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Lawful good only. Has to be or anyone would play the paladin.
Which wouldn't happen if Pally was "fighter variant" instead of "fighter plus".
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:33AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2001
|
I don't see a problem with the Druid accessing some of the Cleric sub-system, they did in editions prior to 4E: e.g. cure x wounds, bless, neutralise poison, resist fire, etc...
The Druid would have access to its own subsystem however.
The Ranger in turn could have limited access to the Druid subsystem, along with the fighters, thiefs and of course full access to their own.
The Barbarian may then get limited access to the Ranger sub-system in addition to...
Indeed. This is important for two reasons:
- economy of the system: it is pointless to have hundreds of variants of the same power.
- immersion: if both Paladins and Fighters study similar fighting styles (heavy armor and weapons), they should access the same set of combat abilities, same for Swordmages and Wizards for spells, since they both learn from study, and for Clerics and Paladins for spells, since they both receive them from the gods (or setting equivalents).
This doesn't mean classes can't have their own quirks or specific subsystems -- e.g., a Swordmage/Battlesinger/Forester/Elf class might have an "armored spellcasting" set of abilities which is class specific, or the Paladin might have some class-specific abilities related to being the "chosen" of some higher power. I would definitely like the creation of subsystems in this manner --- Combat Abilities, Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, Thieving Abilities (i.e., the skills related to the four primary classes), Wilderness Abilities and Interaction Abilities (i.e., the two non-combat pillars), plus possibly one "Adventurer" or "General" abilities, and specialized sets for optional modules (e.g., Psionics, Rulership, etc.). Within each subsystem, abilities could be further organized in "talent trees" or some similar grouping.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:44AM
#35
|
|
|
The way that we have always played paladins was that they were the divine champion of a diety. More martial than a cleric. If you wanted a paladin of an evil diety, in our game you could go LE to follow your diety's code and change all the detect evil to detect good, lay on hand to inflict, etc. This let us open up the paladin to more people, especially since we play alot of evil parties. Alignment has always been a guide, not a straight jacket for us. Even using the 9. I know playing this way breaks alot of people's "right way to play" rules but it works for us. And just because somebody was LG doesnt mean that they had to play stupid. LG and LE in the sense of following the laws are playing by the same rules, just with different ends, but I never hear of anybody saying LE = Lawful stupid.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:48AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
what if for once, some of the Paladin's other abilities were more level based?
Like what if the Paladin's Protection from Evil had a Radius based on their Level, so at level 10 it became 10' radius, and at level 20 it became 20' radius? You could also set it up so it could alternatively grow more intense, such as +1/-1 bonuses at earlier levels, +2 at mid levels, and +3 at very high levels?
So perhaps a 30th level Paladin would have a 30' protection from evil with +3/-3 bonuses?
You could do similar things with Fear Immunity - begin as a bonus and become immunity at 9th level or whatever, Saves (+1 for every 6 levels), and so on.
This allows you to tone down some abilities at start, but then make them even better at higher levels.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:54AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I like that Paladins are Lawful Good. But I believe that they are, and always have been 1/9th of a class of alignment-restricted holy warriors.
I disagree, the distinction is finer than this. They should be religion and deity specific. It could even possible to have multiple orders of paladin for the one diety.
The classical paladin is just one example, and a good base. I hope they get around to providing others as well.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:58AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
I like that Paladins are Lawful Good. But I believe that they are, and always have been 1/9th of a class of alignment-restricted holy warriors.
I disagree, the distinction is finer than this. They should be religion and deity specific. It could even possible to have multiple orders of paladin for the one diety.
The classical paladin is just one example, and a good base. I hope they get around to providing others as well.
I don't think that my idea precludes yours.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 2:59AM
#39
|
|
|
I agree with what e-whit said: The best way to go would be to, firstly, build each class independently, but using only the most iconical and particular thematics for the class (it's "Specialty"); then, add the stuff that could be used for two or more classes (the subsystems).
For example: They should develop the fighter, considering the fighter's most particular specialty (which, in my opinion, is the Weapon Specialization thematic, although that may be up for debate); at the same time, develop the Ranger with its specialties in mind (for the purpose of this discussion, let's say... Favored Enemy) and the Paladin with its special schtick (Courage? Healing Hands? I've never been such a fan of the class), and so on with all other classes. After all that, they add the things that more than one class can have access to; using the examples above, they add in the Combat Styles (including the Mounted Combat Style, the Two-Weapon Style, the Sword-and-Board Style, and on and on...), which any of the three classes (and many others) could benefit from.
The idea of Class Specialty is somewhat used in the Fantasy Craft system, but not developed enough. I can see the "specialties" going something like this: Weapon Specialization for the Fighter, Favored Enemy for the Ranger, some sort of Nova strike for the Assassin, Wild Shape for the Druid, Rage for the Barbarian, Inspiring Performance for the Bard, Ki/Acrobatics/FoB for the Monk, Metamagic or something else for the Wizard, Bloodline for the Sorcerer, Turn Undead/Domains for the Cleric, Tricks for the Rogue (S.A. could also be shared by the Assassin), some sort of Pact benefits for the Warlock.
Of course, the classes would have to be balanced considering both what they get naturally AND what they can get from the "pools" of abilities shared by classes.
One thing that they could do that would make me very happy is to expand on the idea of class variants that existed on 3.X (or before? IDK, my initiation was in 3E) and "enhanced" in Pathfinder. With variant features for each class AND "groups" of features, or "subsystems", that lots of different classes can take, the number of combinations will be supreme. Add Race, Multiclass (that is, dipping into some other class' Specialty) and (the best thing to happen to D&D since the downfall of the THAC0) Themes, and the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 3:11AM
#40
|
|
|
Since when Druids being clerics+rogues, I mean I can see the priestly part of the druid quite clear and I think there would a great sense of kinship between a priest and cleric but IMHO druids have enough going for them that they shouldn't be folded back into clerics.
I think what they're going for is that druids know the way of the land have skills which help them with animals etc, and since obviously whenever somebody has skills of any sort that means he must be part rogue right sigh this si why I hate it when people try to force their ideea there's four core classes/building blocks you can strip everithing down to invariably it leads to taking concepts which have allready been proved to work as classes on their own stripping them of their individuality so you can make them seem like combinations of the core blocks.
|
|
|
