Update #56: Paladins and Wild Orlans

[Fearabbit]

 

 

But aren't you simply playing a fighter then? If you don't use the abilities that make the paladin what he is, then you just want a fighter that is called "paladin".

 

 

Nope.

Because both are fighters essentially, but fight differently.

 

Would a offensive paladin build be similar to a fighter? Yes. Is that bad? No.

 

I detest the "One True Build" approach. If one build is so superior, then why give a choice to begin with?

 

 

In P:E, we will have several different classes. Forget their names and just think about their abilities.

Class 1 will have the ability to sprint across the battlefield.

Class 2 can lock on enemies and keep them from escaping.

Class 3 can inspire their party.

etc.

 

Whichever of these sets of special abilities is the one that best suits your playstyle is the one you should choose.

This isn't about builds. There will be different builds. But a mage will always use magic, a priest will always do something god-related... really what you're asking here is "I want to play a priest, but I want him to be a rogue".

 

Look, I'd actually find that interesting. Being able to play as a certain class while being regarded as a member of a different one. There could be an option in character creation for that, so that I can roleplay my character as a fighter, but actually play him as a rogue (i.e. a very dirty fighter) in combat. Things like that.

But you're complaining that one class can't do what another can. I have always hated that I can't play a shapeshifting mage in D&D games or that my rogue can't have a cool bird familiar with whom to trade quips and who can distract his enemies while my rogue kicks them in the balls. You either had the luck that your character concept fitted the rules perfectly, or that it was in fact inspired by the character archetypes presented in these games.

[Co0n]

Paladin sounds really great.

At the same time the first thing I thought was "might be overpowered"

Well, we can't say that until the game's out :D

 

Really looking forward to it!

[Suen]

Paladins do not work well as islands.  They work well with one or more allies around them.  They don't have to be holding hands, but they can't be on opposite sites of a battlefield.  Yes, a wizard, ranger, and rogue in the party could spread far out from the paladin (I don't really think most of them need to), but in many cases, a full party will likely have two more melee-oriented characters in the party (most IE parties have 2 or 3).  A paladin standing 10' in front of a ranger and wizard can provide the same Zealous Barrage benefits to shooters and casters that he or she would if he or she ran up alongside a monk and a barbarian.  Even if a ranger or wizard are on the other side of the battlefield, if they are the closest ally attacking the paladin's current target, they'll gain the benefit of Coordinated Attacks.

 

Paladin Talents will unlock more offensive capabilities for them, but the bog-standard paladins won't hit like wet noodles just because they don't have Abilities specifically dedicated to smashing in faces.  It makes sense that in a tabletop game like D&D, a "buff beacon" character should be avoided because the player experience can be boring.  That's why 4E buff abilities are often minor actions or they are side effects of attacks (e.g. Healing Strike).  In a party-based CRPG where the player is controlling up to six characters, every class doesn't need to be a self-contained murder machine with the same number of active use (or even offensive) abilities.

 

Now I'm afraid that a paladin could be replaced by a street lamp.

Or a scabbard of blessing. Or a familiar.

Or a low level D&D mage that after casting a spell stands around looking at the sky or pretending to hit things. 

I do not expect everyone in the party to be a killing machine, and I'm not against a buffer/squishy standing back.

But I hope that no one in my group will become completely forgettable and ineffectual after casting a single buff. 

 

 

[JFSOCC]

 

You've made the paladins exactly what I expected them to be, which I guess is good for all the Paladin fans. (Which excludes myself. I find their Fanatic Absolute mindset to be stupid and boring. Religious fanatics, can't argue with them, they lack nuance, etc)

I myself would have liked to see them more as a Knight. I somehow don't expect to see philosophical debate with a Paladin going anywhere.

 

But I never intended to play a paladin in the first place, so, I'm perfectly OK with how it turned out.

Just give me some scathing dialogue options when I turn one of those retards down from joining my party

Yes, despite how awesome they seem in combat.

Methinks you have some serious prejudices and preconceptions here.

 

My discussions with you and others on this forum who have paladins as their avatars make me believe differently. About as absolutist as you can get. True Good/Evil Dichotomy fans.

[Gumbercules]

 

Paladins do not work well as islands.  They work well with one or more allies around them.  They don't have to be holding hands, but they can't be on opposite sites of a battlefield.  Yes, a wizard, ranger, and rogue in the party could spread far out from the paladin (I don't really think most of them need to), but in many cases, a full party will likely have two more melee-oriented characters in the party (most IE parties have 2 or 3).  A paladin standing 10' in front of a ranger and wizard can provide the same Zealous Barrage benefits to shooters and casters that he or she would if he or she ran up alongside a monk and a barbarian.  Even if a ranger or wizard are on the other side of the battlefield, if they are the closest ally attacking the paladin's current target, they'll gain the benefit of Coordinated Attacks.

 

Paladin Talents will unlock more offensive capabilities for them, but the bog-standard paladins won't hit like wet noodles just because they don't have Abilities specifically dedicated to smashing in faces.  It makes sense that in a tabletop game like D&D, a "buff beacon" character should be avoided because the player experience can be boring.  That's why 4E buff abilities are often minor actions or they are side effects of attacks (e.g. Healing Strike).  In a party-based CRPG where the player is controlling up to six characters, every class doesn't need to be a self-contained murder machine with the same number of active use (or even offensive) abilities.

 

Now I'm afraid that a paladin could be replaced by a street lamp.

Or a scabbard of blessing. Or a familiar.

Or a low level D&D mage that after casting a spell stands around looking at the sky or pretending to hit things. 

I do not expect everyone in the party to be a killing machine, and I'm not against a buffer/squishy standing back.

But I hope that no one in my group will become completely forgettable and ineffectual after casting a single buff. 

 

 

Take a closer look at what you've quoted. He says that paladins won't hit like wet noodles, meaning they'll be perfectly capable in close combat. I expect they'll be significantly sturdier and better at fighting than any of the ranged or spellcasting classes, they just won't be quite as good at dealing damage as the other close combat classes.

[Labadal]

Will Zealous Barrage stack with the speed bonus monks get from Transcendent Suffering?

[rjshae]

Still wondering how much space a character will occupy. It matters in terms of how effective these area buffs are.

[Suen]

Take a closer look at what you've quoted. He says that paladins won't hit like wet noodles, meaning they'll be perfectly capable in close combat. I expect they'll be significantly sturdier and better at fighting than any of the ranged or spellcasting classes, they just won't be quite as good at dealing damage as the other close combat classes.

 

I did read it several times, still that "won't" managed to fly over my head.      

[rjshae]

Dry noodles; very nasty.

[Eiphel]

Yeah, well, I prefer my paladins to be capable of being more than buff-bots.

I like paladins being "essentialy fighters" because that's what they should be (IMHO)

But at the junction where one class is 'essentially <another class>', why would you not just make it actually that class?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Could you make a ranged paladin that stands back a bit, generating auras and buffs, while plinking away with a crossbow?

 

You could.  Their targeted commands have decent range, so it should be possible to "lead from behind" if you want to.

[Nonek]

Elasticated waistbands?

[rjshae]

Must be the anti-paladin class.

[Lephys]

Thank you very much for the elaboration, Josh. Consider my concerns assuaged.

 

I don't mind the Paladin having less 1-on-1 utility than other classes. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't going to be a "well, we balanced for the potential for you to be granting passive bonuses to 5 other people, so, one-on-one, you're literally 1/5th as capable as any other class of character" situation or anything. Even that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But, I wouldn't want my Paladin to be hitting for 7 damage just because he's the last one standing in a fight, when my Warrior would've been passively hitting for about 30 and holding his own 70 times better.

 

All-in-all, it sounds like a very good class design. I'm sorry I worried unnecessarily, ^_^

[Sensuki]

You have some wacked interpretations sometimes Lephys. 1/5th as capable. Hahah.

 

By the way this is the second time Defiance Bay has been mentioned by a developer. That plus it's location on the Worldmap (oddly enough it's above a river just like Baldur's Gate ) I think that Defiance Bay may be Big City #1.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Sensuki

[zimcub]

So will the paladin have only 1 aura active at a time?

So 2 paladins in group could each have a different aura?

 

I'm a bit worried about Zealous March and ranged weapon kiting.

Increased movement speed could mean the AI would never be able to catch him, so what if someone made a party of 5 ranged classes and 1 ranged paladin?

Will they be able to whipe out everyone without getting hit by melee?

[Sacred_Path]

Will they be able to whipe out everyone without getting hit by melee?

Answer #1: no.

 

Answer #2: yes.

[pseudonymous]

A paladin should have immunities to fear and disease

 

A paladin should have an aura that instills fear and be capable of spreading disease with a word.  Like a living Lord Soth without the baggage of Solamnic honor.

[Somna]

I could see auras that caused or resisted fear on a Project Eternity Paladin.

 

Disease is latching way too much on D&D defined Paladins.

[TrashMan]

 

 

I find their Fanatic Absolute mindset to be stupid and boring. Religious fanatics, can't argue with them, they lack nuance, etc)

 

Methinks you have some serious prejudices and preconceptions here.

 

My discussions with you and others on this forum who have paladins as their avatars make me believe differently. About as absolutist as you can get. True Good/Evil Dichotomy fans.

 

 

....

 

Seems I was right.

 

 

Also:

 

To me a paladin is a knight first and foremost. Not a buff-bot.

Edited June 21, 2013 by TrashMan

[topkerrigun]

I'm actually less then stoked for this version of support/buff paladin (i will probably not play this class, at least at first)

 

The version of paladin most appealing to me is the one channeling righteous punishment, the divine  judgment of their god...indefitigable and relentless, all evil doers that stand in their way shall fall to judgment.

[zimcub]

To me a paladin is a knight first and foremost. Not a buff-bot.

Knight or cniht is an old English word for servant. Which is exactly what a paladin does with buffs. He is there to protects and serve those in need. And what better way to do that than instant long range stat boosting auras.

I think your philosophy would fit a Lawful Good Fighter much better.

[Malekith]

To me a paladin is a knight first and foremost. Not a buff-bot.

Then it doesn't deserve a seperate class. He should be a subclass to fighter like BG2's subclasses.

If all you want is a fighter that has a pompous name, make it a subclass.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Malekith

[TrashMan]

The entimology of the word is irrelevant to me.

 

Armors, weapons and in the tick of melee with relntless zeal and fury - that's a paladin.

 

If a paladin is defined by his determination and willpower, why is it so focused on buffing others? Zeal and determinationed can be focused in many ways. Being driven and single-minded doesn't necessarily lends itself to leading people.

[Malekith]

The entimology of the word is irrelevant to me.

 

Armors, weapons and in the tick of melee with relntless zeal and fury - that's a paladin.

 

If a paladin is defined by his determination and willpower, why is it so focused on buffing others? Zeal and determinationed can be focused in many ways. Being driven and single-minded doesn't necessarily lends itself to leading people.

What you describe would still be better as a subclass than a separate class.

Armors, weapons and in the tick of melee with relntless zeal and fury - that's a paladin.

Armors, weapons and in the tick of melee with relntless bloodlust and fury - that's a berserker.

etc.

 

Also:

 

 

Being driven and single-minded doesn't necessarily lends itself to leading people.

Noone said anything about leading. It's more about inspiring people to fight harder. That way being driven makes sense to encourage your teammates

Edited June 21, 2013 by Malekith