|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:01PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Legends & Lore
Class Design ConceptsBy Mike MearlsYou’ve seen the monk now, hopefully, and you’ve played a bit with expertise dice. But how do weapons, spells, and abilities intersect in a class such as the paladin? Mike explores whacking things, blowing things up with magic, and getting things done in this week’s column.Talk about this column here.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:05PM
#2
|
|
|
Inb4 ranting.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:08PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
How many times do we have to tell you that a not-insignificant portion of the D&D population does not want alignment mechanics in any form?
You cannot make this mandatory, not if you believe the in the fundamental principles of inclusiveness that is the true core to Next.
No, just telling us to not play a Paladin isn't sufficient. We liked the 4e paladin, and its focus on serving the deity, not serving the alignment. You weren't a champion of Lawful Good, you were a champion of Bahamut. There's a difference. That difference should be allowed to exist.
Even some of us who like alignment and believe it can serve an important role in a campaign do not believe that any class should have ingrained, irreversible reliance on alignment mechanics.
Do. Not. Want.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:15PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
I'm with Mand here. I don't see any good reason to separate Paladin into "Lawful Good Paladin", "Chaotic Good Paladin", "Lawful Evil Paladin", "Chaotic Evil Paladin", and so on rather than into "Paladin of Honor [further text recommends Lawful Good]", "Paladin of Freedom [further text recommends Chaotic Good]", "Paladin of Tyranny [further text recommends Lawful Evil]", "Paladin of Slaughter [further text recommends Chaotic Evil]", and so on.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:16PM
#5
|
|
|
How many times do we have to tell you that a not-insignificant portion of the D&D population does not want alignment mechanics in any form?
You cannot make this mandatory, not if you believe the in the fundamental principles of inclusiveness that is the true core to Next.
No, just telling us to not play a Paladin isn't sufficient. We liked the 4e paladin, and its focus on serving the deity, not serving the alignment. You weren't a champion of Lawful Good, you were a champion of Bahamut. There's a difference. That difference should be allowed to exist.
Even some of us who like alignment and believe it can serve an important role in a campaign do not believe that any class should have ingrained, irreversible reliance on alignment mechanics.
Do. Not. Want.
I agree, but at the same time simply acknowledging that there are Paladins other than Lawful Stupid aligned ones is a huge start. I see glimmers of hope in this L&L.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:17PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
Pretty much nailed the paladin as I see it. 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:23PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
lol, I sort of wonder if they even bother glancing at their forums at all? Or at their previous editions in which alignment-based mechanics were a really bad design concept (both as a mitigation of power and their functionality over the course of an entire adventure). What a shame. Looks like I'll be going back to making Fighter/Clerics who just call themselves Paladins again. heh, that turned out fun....
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:27PM
#8
|
|
|
lol, I sort of wonder if they even bother glancing at their forums at all? Or at their previous editions in which alignment-based mechanics were a really bad design concept (both as a mitigation of power and their functionality over the course of an entire adventure). What a shame. Looks like I'll be going back to making Fighter/Clerics who just call themselves Paladins again. heh, that turned out fun....
Why bother with the Fighter multiclass. Clerics with heavy armor and martial weapons have always been able to pull off the Paladin role better than the Paladin. I see nothing to indicate this won't still be the case, given the developers think a 2e/3e hybrid is what all of the players want.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:30PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
lol, I sort of wonder if they even bother glancing at their forums at all? Or at their previous editions in which alignment-based mechanics were a really bad design concept (both as a mitigation of power and their functionality over the course of an entire adventure). What a shame. Looks like I'll be going back to making Fighter/Clerics who just call themselves Paladins again. heh, that turned out fun....
Why bother with the Fighter multiclass. Clerics with heavy armor and martial weapons have always been able to pull off the Paladin role better than the Paladin. I see nothing to indicate this won't still be the case, given the developers think a 2e/3e hybrid is what all of the players want.
I'd multiclass Fighter for the better weapon proficiencies and some Expertise Die for starters. The extra HP isn't bad either. But it will clearly depend on how they handle Multiclassing. It's either that or I just tell the DM this is how I'm going to do it, and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 9:31PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
I think if you want feedback on alignment the Paladin class should be the one you use not the monk. What I see happening is all the folks who dont want alignment are going to speal up. Then later when they make the paladin available all the people that want alignment will speak up. I think it is fair to say about 50% want alignment based Paladins and 50% dont. The question is how do you make two mutually exclusive groups happy.
If the paladin isnt a lawful good diety I think the way Meals proposed the class is a decent middle ground
|
|
|
