Paladins and Bards

[Tale]

But the name priest or fighter can kill that a bit, plus other people in the world would react differently to a paladin than a priest.

They should react to what you do, not what your class label is. The common person shouldn't even know what that means. They shouldn't have some instinctive knowledge of the difference between a preacher, a warrior priest, and a Paladin. They should know "he's going on and on about his god while being a jerk to me and waving a bloody sword in my face."

 

If you think that way: Then why should Obsidian include ciphers and barbarians? We already have fighters and mages/clerics.

Ciphers are quite distinct from Wizards. They're more control based and mental. They're magical sure, but they seem to be mostly about controlling enemies, which is a mechanical distinction. It's not an attitude distinction.

 

Barbarians is a fair point, however. They do seem like a pretty narrow warrior archetype. However, there's been good work in making them mechanically distinct elsewhere with the implementation of barbarian rage. A class defining feature in D&D.

 

Paladins get Lay On Hands as major feature distinguishing them from Clerics. Which I struggle to see as class defining.

 

Wait, hold on a second, I seem to have caught myself here. Paladin auras! YES. Those are pretty interesting and unique mechanics for Paladins.

[Sarog]

But the name priest or fighter can kill that a bit, plus other people in the world would react differently to a paladin than a priest.

They should react to what you do, not what your class label is. The common person shouldn't even know what that means. They shouldn't have some instinctive knowledge of the difference between a preacher, a warrior priest, and a Paladin. They should know "he's going on and on about his god while being a jerk to me and waving a bloody sword in my face."

 

This is true, but I think there's a case to be made that the inclusion of a class brings validity (and more importantly, scripting!) to a certain role that might otherwise be absent.

 

In a game without paladins, you can certainly roleplay your standard warrior as devout, upright, morally inflexible, but your options for doing so might be limited and there's no guarantee that you'll be able to explore this role to the extent which you would like to. Whereas the inclusion of the class guarantees that the franchise recognizes this particular roleplaying niche and may provide for it with quests, subplots, factions, and the like that appeal to it. No matter how you roleplay a dragon age warrior, you are never going to feel quite as much like a paladin as you did when you joined the Most Sacred Order of the Radiant Heart and played content that was uniquely tailored to the paladin.

 

The paladin class is certainly not necessary, but I think it is natural that people voice support for it in order to safeguard a specific roleplaying niche preference that doesn't always get included in other RPGs. Especially since the game is already doing so for the barbarian, monk, and ranger, which are really just a paladin's D&D niche roleplaying preference cousins.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[nikolokolus]

I'll assert it again: I think Paladins should be included, but it really should be a titular role gained by proving yourself worthy through the course of the game. Going all the way back to 1st ed. AD&D, the whole notion of the class seemed to be defined around their deeds and philosophical rigidity.

 

Wouldn't some of you guys that love paladins rather earn it than having it handed to you?

Edited October 4, 2012 by nikolokolus

[Sarog]

I'll assert it again: I think Paladins should be included, but it really should be a titular role gained by proving yourself worthy through the course of the game. Going all the way back to 1st ed. AD&D, the whole notion of the class seemed to be defined around their deeds and actions.

 

Wouldn't some of you guys that love paladins rather earn it than having it handed to you?

 

Being able to join a faction that is a monastic knightly order and have the appropriate quests, dialogue and other content would, I think, definitely cover the most important part of the paladin niche concept. I'm sure no one is too attached to needing abilities like Lay on Hands, and the soul mechanic might provide such for fighters anyway. That the roleplaying archetype is properly provided for is the important thing, I think.

[Darth Trethon]

I'll assert it again: I think Paladins should be included, but it really should be a titular role gained by proving yourself worthy through the course of the game. Going all the way back to 1st ed. AD&D, the whole notion of the class seemed to be defined around their deeds and actions.

 

Wouldn't some of you guys that love paladins rather earn it than having it handed to you?

 

If you're inclined that way sure I am all for Obsidian doing it that way as opposed to wasting yet another class on the preachy types. I would even praise the accomplishment with some kind of achievement with the description: "Congratulations, every NPC in the game wishes you you'd just stop preaching for 10 consecutive seconds....just call yourself a Templar instead, it'd be more original you know."

[Vargr Raekr]

 

Priests are intended serve the spiritual needs of their community. Sometimes this involves grabbing a weapon and defending them a la Archbishop Turpin in The Song of Roland, but often times not.

 

Paladins, in the D&D sense of the term, are a handful of warriors sworn to uphold the good virtues of the world by facing the most dangerous supernatural forces of evil and corruption that threaten that world. It's not so much about the violence, but about the destruction that will take place if they stay idle.

 

If we are going to have barbarians as separate from fighters, monks separate from priests, and psions separate from mages in a setting where both psionics and magic come from the same source, then there is plenty of room for a "subclass" as genuinely distinct as paladins.

 

I wholeheartedly recommend this book, which I liked to before, for any design decisions or discussions around paladins:

 

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/1560768452

 

It needn't be followed to the letter, of course, but it does provide character concepts for paladins beyond the "closed minded murderous zealot" stereotype D&D inspired paladins have (unfairly) inherited.

 

Bards too. Because this:

 

 

Everything is better with Haruko.

 

How can you say not to that face? She even has a lore - friendly weapon!

Edited October 4, 2012 by Vargr Raekr

[NOK222]

That anime lol.

[bonarbill]

The Paladin dicussion reminds me of a blog post from WOTC from 3 months ago.

 

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/04/19/paladin_versus_cleric:_fight!

 

I don't mind the inclusion of the Paladin class, but they will to make them fundamentally different than priest in gameplay and story, otherwise they might as well stick to Priests.

[Arkeus]

If you actually read the "Priest" description in the latest update, as well as other times they were talked about by the Devs in forums, you'll notice that "Priests" seem to be, at least in parts, Paladins.

 

Not in a "mechanic" way, but in a ROLEPLAY way, they are Paladin.

[Bill Gates' Son]

 

Priests are intended serve the spiritual needs of their community. Sometimes this involves grabbing a weapon and defending them a la Archbishop Turpin in The Song of Roland, but often times not.

 

Paladins, in the D&D sense of the term, are a handful of warriors sworn to uphold the good virtues of the world by facing the most dangerous supernatural forces of evil and corruption that threaten that world. It's not so much about the violence, but about the destruction that will take place if they stay idle.

 

If we are going to have barbarians as separate from fighters, monks separate from priests, and psions separate from mages in a setting where both psionics and magic come from the same source, then there is plenty of room for a "subclass" as genuinely distinct as paladins.

 

I wholeheartedly recommend this book, which I liked to before, for any design decisions or discussions around paladins:

 

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/1560768452

 

It needn't be followed to the letter, of course, but it does provide character concepts for paladins beyond the "closed minded murderous zealot" stereotype D&D inspired paladins have (unfairly) inherited.

 

Bards too. Because this:

 

 

Everything is better with Haruko.

 

How can you say not to that face? She even has a lore - friendly weapon!

 

フリクリ! I would want bards in a heart beat if they were like Haruko.

 

But then I would remember this game is set in the middleages.

 

/worthless post

Edited October 4, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[Merin]

If we don't need paladins, then we don't need ciphers or druids or barbarians or rangers.

 

And the truth is, with the "core four", you don't need those others.

 

But we want them.

 

For role-playing and specialization rules.

 

It's not "we want to swing a sword and worship a god" nonsense.

[Sarog]

If you actually read the "Priest" description in the latest update, as well as other times they were talked about by the Devs in forums, you'll notice that "Priests" seem to be, at least in parts, Paladins.

 

Not in a "mechanic" way, but in a ROLEPLAY way, they are Paladin.

 

That really depends on the deities available, though. Being a warrior-priest means very different things according to whose priest you are. Whereas the paladin is very specific ideal that some of us would like to be catered to. Though I would be happy having it catered to in another class so long as that other class explicitly got the option to go the monastic knight route, having an acknowledged paladin class would do much to guarantee this archetype.

 

Barbarians and monks could just as easily have been folded into other classes as well.

[Arkeus]

If you actually read the "Priest" description in the latest update, as well as other times they were talked about by the Devs in forums, you'll notice that "Priests" seem to be, at least in parts, Paladins.

 

Not in a "mechanic" way, but in a ROLEPLAY way, they are Paladin.

 

That really depends on the deities available, though. Being a warrior-priest means very different things according to whose priest you are. Whereas the paladin is very specific ideal that some of us would like to be catered to. Though I would be happy having it catered to in another class so long as that other class explicitly got the option to go the monastic knight route, having an acknowledged paladin class would do much to guarantee this archetype.

With multiple gods, Paladins obviously have different morals depending on whose Paladin you are.

 

 

Barbarians and monks could just as easily have been folded into other classes as well.

 

Not really, at least given the 'Fighter' description. The Fighter description showed that he is a master-of-all-arms damage-soaker with a few different tricks. 'Barbarians' and 'Monks' are not damage "slow and steady" as such. In some ways, a Barbarian is more like a "Hero" who, the more he is hurt, the stronger he is. OTOH, a monk seems to be some kind of cleric/thief hybrid.

 

Not sure about Monks though, as there is no real intel there.

[Halberd]

If it fits then sure...if not then please no body complain. We don't need the game to conform to the old Rpgs 100% although we don't want casualization/simplification either. Variety in Rpgs is good and I hope we get a lot of customization options.

[Savvy30039]

I usually play paladins less for roleplaying but because they fit my gameplay style. Tank + Charisma.

 

I always try to talk my way out of a fight, but if fighting is inevitable then I wanna soak up that damage and keep my party members safe.

 

Since non combat skills are separate from combat skills and there's nothing stopping me from playing a fighter with a silver tongue, I'm fine with the paladin omission.

[Sarog]

With multiple gods, Paladins obviously have different morals depending on whose Paladin you are.

 

Which is the new D&D interpretation of the paladin, certainly, but this sort of Divine Champion mold caters to a different roleplaying niche than the traditional paladin.

 

Not really, at least given the 'Fighter' description. The Fighter description showed that he is a master-of-all-arms damage-soaker with a few different tricks. 'Barbarians' and 'Monks' are not damage "slow and steady" as such. In some ways, a Barbarian is more like a "Hero" who, the more he is hurt, the stronger he is. OTOH, a monk seems to be some kind of cleric/thief hybrid.

 

Not sure about Monks though, as there is no real intel there.

 

The archetypical barbarian is as close to the warrior or the rogue as the archetypical paladin is to the priest. In terms of roleplaying archetypes, it is easy enough to fold the barbarian into the fighter, the ranger into the rogue, the psion into the mage, and the monk into the priest because the concepts only differ in a few key ways that can be internalized as specializations. Tradition has built them into classes of their own, alongside the paladin, and identified them with specific roleplaying niches. It is just weird to see some of those archetypes resurrected, like the monk and the even more obscure psion, while the paladin is engulfed by the priest. Personally I'd be content with being able to join a knightly order, but I'm a bit baffled by which classes were kept and which were thrown out.

[Pidesco]

My two most hated classes in D&D, so I can't say I care. The bard in particular is ridiculous.

[rjshae]

To me the secret of balancing multi-class characters is that spell power increases geometrically while other abilities increase linearly. That means a multi-class spell-casting character needs extra bonuses, such as is provided by a prestige class in D&D v3.5. But I think the game could accomplish the same thing by providing multi-classing benefits that are unique for each combo. In the case of a Paladin, they could simulate that class with a fighter-priest multiclass plus extra abilities that simulate a Paladin (or whatever they call it).

[Uomoz]

Paladins are warriors with some powers (and it was already stated that all classes will have soul powers). The thing about being lawful can be obtained in game as some kind of trait\faction.

 

Every class have some sort of specialized source of power:

 

Fighter - Melee Control

Mage - Soul Powers

Rogue - Stealth

Priest - Soul Heal\Buff

Monk - TBA (I guess Unarmed)

Ranger - Track\Pet\Archery

Druid - Nature Connection

Barbarian - Melee Ferocity

Cipher - Soul Control

 

Where would a paladin fit? What is his source of power? I cannot understand Bards as well (they might be considered ciphers, so...)

[TrashMan]

don't really need barbarian also, but usually they come with rage mechanics and that makes them somewhat unique (for some hulk fans )

Cipher -yeah, could just be a mage spec, but I guess they made a whole new mental skill system which is not the same as the tome dependent wizards.

If they can make paladins unique - so that there won't be same old smite, heal stuff that can also be made by a priest, then sure lets add paladins.

Bards- those guys.. the whole idea of them is so.. eew.. I'm too against them, so no, please no bards.

 

Have oyu even looked at Pathfinder or similar rulebooks?

 

Paladins do have unique powers and abilities that a priest does not.

There's a bigger difference between a paladin and a priest than there is between a barbarian and a fighter.

[Ink Blot]

The bard in particular is ridiculous.

 

Fie! A pox on you and your scions, you addlepated ninnyhammer!

[LordCrash]

There are three options which would work for me:

 

1) A full paladin/knight class

2) Paladins/knight as subclass of the fighter class with their title and skills/abilities

3) A fighter who can become a paladin/knight during a quest or something like that (with new skills/abilities and reputation)

 

All I want is a confirmation from Obsidian that it will be possible in some way to play a paladin/knight character in PE!

 

 

(And as Jalister already said in the kickstarter comments: I will not discuss with people who nay classes only because they're not interested in them.)

[ImNotCreative]

With multiple gods, Paladins obviously have different morals depending on whose Paladin you are.

 

Which is the new D&D interpretation of the paladin, certainly, but this sort of Divine Champion mold caters to a different roleplaying niche than the traditional paladin.

 

Not really, at least given the 'Fighter' description. The Fighter description showed that he is a master-of-all-arms damage-soaker with a few different tricks. 'Barbarians' and 'Monks' are not damage "slow and steady" as such. In some ways, a Barbarian is more like a "Hero" who, the more he is hurt, the stronger he is. OTOH, a monk seems to be some kind of cleric/thief hybrid.

 

Not sure about Monks though, as there is no real intel there.

 

The archetypical barbarian is as close to the warrior or the rogue as the archetypical paladin is to the priest. In terms of roleplaying archetypes, it is easy enough to fold the barbarian into the fighter, the ranger into the rogue, the psion into the mage, and the monk into the priest because the concepts only differ in a few key ways that can be internalized as specializations. Tradition has built them into classes of their own, alongside the paladin, and identified them with specific roleplaying niches. It is just weird to see some of those archetypes resurrected, like the monk and the even more obscure psion, while the paladin is engulfed by the priest. Personally I'd be content with being able to join a knightly order, but I'm a bit baffled by which classes were kept and which were thrown out.

 

You are missing the point, those "specialized" classes are chosen because they have different mechanics (at least I hope so). Nothing is forcing you to a specific role when you chose a class and because of that there shouldn't be a paladin class. They got rid of the alignment precisely because of that, your role (personality and motivations of your character) should be determined by the way you interact with the world not by a choice of class.

 

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

[TrashMan]

Paladins get Lay On Hands as major feature distinguishing them from Clerics. Which I struggle to see as class defining.

 

And aureas. AND mercies. AND divine bond. And so on.

 

Take a look:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/paladin.html

[Pidesco]

The bard in particular is ridiculous.

 

Fie! A pox on you and your scions, you addlepated ninnyhammer!

 

Beware! I'm listening to music right now, and my mp3 player is giving me +1 to annoyance at silliness and -2 to my ability to listen 30 years from now.