Paladins and Bards

[Umberlin]

A Priest is usually a passive role, one that spends time pursuing more scholarly pursuits unless healing is needed.

 

You know if I were ever to make my own fantasy setting, I'd just make up random words for the classes just so avoid some of the prior conceptions, or realistic conceptions, of what they should be based off of X or Y or Z and all that. These class discussions have all brought me to that conclussion.

 

The Priest in this setting isn't . . . a real Priest, or a Priest from another fictional setting (game/book/movie whatever). It's a Priest as dictated by this setting and its internal logic. Not the logic of reality, or the logic of another setting, and thus need not conform to them in part or at all.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Umberlin

[Archmage Silver]

Paladins are wimps, but I'd still like to see them added. You can thank Feargus for the first statement.

[Merin]

There are two identifiable camps in this discussion, clearly -

 

A - Those focused on mechanics (who should then admit that there need only be two camps - physical vs. spells - since the mechanics for barbarians, rangers, rogues, fighters and monks will be the same, whereas the mechanics for clerics, wizards and ciphers will be the same... with any odd cases (stealth, rage, animal companion) crossing the two (stealth is an invisibility spell ability for rogues, animal companions is a familiar or summon animal ability for rangers, etc.)

B - Those focused on lore, purpose and role-playing (who think that each class and sub-class bring something vitally different to the table.)

 

Camp A is logically correct that paladins can be created using priests or fighters. But they need to admit the same for all the other non core 4 (or, more mechanics wise,core 2 IMO.)

 

Camp B is esthetically correct that paladins are vastly different than priests or fighters. And they have on their side that we already have a slew of sub-classes to prove the devs seemingly agree with the B view.

[ogrezilla]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I expect special abilities for each class that make the specialty classes significantly different than the base classes. I think Paladins could be every bit as unique as a Barbarian or whatever other classes they include. Not that I'm really fighting for them to be in.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Merin]

A Priest is usually a passive role, one that spends time pursuing more scholarly pursuits unless healing is needed.

You know if I were ever to make my own fantasy setting, I'd just make up random words for the classes just so avoid some of the prior conceptions, or realistic conceptions, of what they should be based off of X or Y or Z and all that. These class discussions have all brought me to that conclussion.

 

I'll let you know when my current high fantasy novel is finished, then.

[dlux]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I expect special abilities for each class that make the specialty classes significantly different than the base classes. I think Paladins could be every bit as unique as a Barbarian or whatever other classes they include.

I agree.

Edited October 7, 2012 by dlux

[Luckmann]

Please dear god let me pull the Eldoth, Garrick and Me Bard troupe again. :D

[Bos_hybrid]

I have never actually played a Paladin or Bard in any game.

 

So my vote is no.

[Rozkurwiciel]

Paladins should rather make a faction of battlepriests from mechanics' prospect. So No for Paladins as a class.

 

On the other hand I don't think we shall be given anything like Bard as a Rogue so I opt for making this class. I'd love to see 2.8mln stretch goal for Bards and 1 more companion. Justification: Bard class made in a way different from rogue-fighter-buffer would make an awesome class. If they only could be mechnicaly interesting being not very versatile with their skills making any rogue redundant addon to the team I'd love to see them. Bard as a peace maker is also an option since we know now we will be able to choose to avoid fights. It would be great to have interesting character aiding us with that task. Unwilling to fight Bard called John would be someone very distinctive and new from my prospect ^^. So Yes for Bards.

[Oerwinde]

I would like to be able to choose abilities to customize either the Priest or Rogue class to do the same thing rather than having specialised classes for them.

[Rozkurwiciel]

Ok but I don't see how Rogue can become a Bard, it doesn't make sense

Edited October 8, 2012 by Rozkurwiciel

[Hypevosa]

Ok but I don't see how Rogue can become a Bard, it doesn't make sense

 

Imagine if your character simply could choose specializations - it sounds like characters will be allowed to diversify alot if they wish. For example, the rogue could have these options and maybe get to choose 2:

 

Sneakery - generally just become more sneaky.

Thievery - deft hands for picking locks and pockets.

Charm - learn to talk your way out of anything.

Deadly combat - specialize in dealing precise and incapacitating blows in combat (assassin)

Distracting combat - learn to distract and harass your enemies and to increase effectiveness of allies.

 

A pure "bard" would essentially choose charm and distracting combat. They already can sneak, pick pockets and locks by virtue of their class, bards just specialize in dealing with people in a less direct fashion. A bard and a rogue are not so terribly different.

[Revan91]

Frankly, I hope that if Obsidian chosees to add other classes they'll come out with something more unique and original than bards and paladins. For example, the cypher seemed interisting enough, from the little they said about it, so I'd rather have them follow that way instead.

And by the way, Obsidian is finally able to create its own game without publisher to interfere and they just recreate the Forgotten Realms? WTF, no. Let's have something different for once.

[Rabain]

Frankly, I hope that if Obsidian chosees to add other classes they'll come out with something more unique and original than bards and paladins. For example, the cypher seemed interisting enough, from the little they said about it, so I'd rather have them follow that way instead.

And by the way, Obsidian is finally able to create its own game without publisher to interfere and they just recreate the Forgotten Realms? WTF, no. Let's have something different for once.

 

There are only so many variations on abilities, no matter what you make up it will probably be similar to something someone has done before. Regardless of what a Cipher actually does in game I'd imagine it is going to be pretty much the same as a mage except the "spells" will all be mind related etc.

 

I doubt it will be truly something new and never seen before like a class that uses clouds to focus rain or sunlight on an opponent, it might sound mad and be impossible but that is the stage we are at if we want something never seen before.

 

You can make a class of warrior priests that go out into the world and use their godgiven abilities to purge evil...call them Tempestians, they will basically be paladins, just like Ciphers will be mages/sorcerors.

 

I'm not trying to say that making up new classes and trying is a bad thing, I'm saying that players asking for paladins or bards are really asking for a class that reflects the idea behind the meaning of those classes. Call the paladin a Templar, call the bard a Troubadour, who cares, it is the holy warrior or singing rogue that people want. It is up to the dev team to add PE uniqueness to them, paladins that can read your soul or make you submit to a truth test, bards that can sing to your soul and imbue you with power or crush your hopes etc. That kind of thing.

[rjshae]

Frankly, I hope that if Obsidian chosees to add other classes they'll come out with something more unique and original than bards and paladins. For example, the cypher seemed interisting enough, from the little they said about it, so I'd rather have them follow that way instead.

And by the way, Obsidian is finally able to create its own game without publisher to interfere and they just recreate the Forgotten Realms? WTF, no. Let's have something different for once.

 

Yep, I agree. The Bard and Paladin are culturally oriented classes, much like the Ninja and Samurai. Unique classes that are particular to this world could roughly incorporate the premise of the Bard and Paladin, but with their own unique interpretation and capabilities.

[AlphaShard]

Frankly, I hope that if Obsidian chosees to add other classes they'll come out with something more unique and original than bards and paladins. For example, the cypher seemed interisting enough, from the little they said about it, so I'd rather have them follow that way instead.

And by the way, Obsidian is finally able to create its own game without publisher to interfere and they just recreate the Forgotten Realms? WTF, no. Let's have something different for once.

 

I doubt it will be truly something new and never seen before like a class that uses clouds to focus rain or sunlight on an opponent, it might sound mad and be impossible but that is the stage we are at if we want something never seen before.

 

Isn't that what a Druid can do? or an Elemental Wizard?

 

I'm not trying to say that making up new classes and trying is a bad thing, I'm saying that players asking for paladins or bards are really asking for a class that reflects the idea behind the meaning of those classes. Call the paladin a Templar, call the bard a Troubadour, who cares, it is the holy warrior or singing rogue that people want. It is up to the dev team to add PE uniqueness to them, paladins that can read your soul or make you submit to a truth test, bards that can sing to your soul and imbue you with power or crush your hopes etc. That kind of thing.

 

Agreed +1

 

I find it silly to complain about the premise of this game, if you don't want to back it, don't. Personally I want the world to be like Forgotten Realms. That's why I'm backing it.

[Merin]

Frankly, I hope that if Obsidian chosees to add other classes they'll come out with something more unique and original than bards and paladins. For example, the cypher seemed interisting enough, from the little they said about it, so I'd rather have them follow that way instead.

And by the way, Obsidian is finally able to create its own game without publisher to interfere and they just recreate the Forgotten Realms? WTF, no. Let's have something different for once.

 

Yep, I agree. The Bard and Paladin are culturally oriented classes, much like the Ninja and Samurai. Unique classes that are particular to this world could roughly incorporate the premise of the Bard and Paladin, but with their own unique interpretation and capabilities.

 

They already have rangers, barbarians and monks, clerics even - these are all "culturally oriented" - clerics are medieval Europe, for example.... and monks are Asian (these are not occidental monks in fantasy.)

 

Silly argument is silly.

[rjshae]

Frankly, I hope that if Obsidian chosees to add other classes they'll come out with something more unique and original than bards and paladins. For example, the cypher seemed interisting enough, from the little they said about it, so I'd rather have them follow that way instead.

And by the way, Obsidian is finally able to create its own game without publisher to interfere and they just recreate the Forgotten Realms? WTF, no. Let's have something different for once.

 

Yep, I agree. The Bard and Paladin are culturally oriented classes, much like the Ninja and Samurai. Unique classes that are particular to this world could roughly incorporate the premise of the Bard and Paladin, but with their own unique interpretation and capabilities.

 

They already have rangers, barbarians and monks, clerics even - these are all "culturally oriented" - clerics are medieval Europe, for example.... and monks are Asian (these are not occidental monks in fantasy.)

 

Silly argument is silly.

 

Presumably they can change the names of those classes as well, yes?

[morhilane]

They already have rangers, barbarians and monks, clerics even - these are all "culturally oriented" - clerics are medieval Europe, for example.... and monks are Asian (these are not occidental monks in fantasy.)

 

Silly argument is silly.

 

There are no clerics in PE, it have priests. Also, rangers aren't cultural at all, it's a real job turned into a fantasy class, pretty much every country on the planet have rangers in their park/protected forest. Finally, I know games where the monk class is of the medieval Europe type and it's called a monk.

 

Not everything needs to be based on D&D interpretation you know.

[Merin]

They already have rangers, barbarians and monks, clerics even - these are all "culturally oriented" - clerics are medieval Europe, for example.... and monks are Asian (these are not occidental monks in fantasy.)

 

Silly argument is silly.

 

There are no clerics in PE, it have priests. Also, rangers aren't cultural at all, it's a real job turned into a fantasy class, pretty much every country on the planet have rangers in their park/protected forest. Finally, I know games where the monk class is of the medieval Europe type and it's called a monk.

 

Not everything needs to be based on D&D interpretation you know.

 

Right, so the idea that paladins can just be subclasses of priests is even more silly if you say that priests aren't clerics....

 

Monks of medieval Europe were ascetics, gardeners, scribes and scholars. Not martial artists. Any game that includes them with unarmed combat is NOT using European monks.

 

Finally... there are also models of vehicles called "rangers"... but the "ranger" of fantasy is not the Walker, Texas Ranger nor the Airborne Ranger variety ... they are the Strider / Aragorn variety from Tolkien.

 

Weak argument is weak.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Merin

[morhilane]

Right, so the idea that paladins can just be subclasses of priests is even more silly if you say that priests aren't clerics....

 

Monks of medieval Europe were ascetics, gardeners, scribes and scholars. Not martial artists. Any game that includes them with unarmed combat is NOT using European monks.

 

Finally... there are also models of vehicles called "rangers"... but the "ranger" of fantasy is not the Walker, Texas Ranger nor the Airborne Ranger variety ... they are the Strider / Aragorn variety from Tolkien.

 

Weak argument is weak.

 

You didn't know that PE had a Priest class. You clearly have not freaking idea how the class is described either (which mean you haven't read update #15) and you call my argument weak.

 

I guess you aren't worth spending time responding to.

[Amentep]

Finally... there are also models of vehicles called "rangers"... but the "ranger" of fantasy is not the Walker, Texas Ranger nor the Airborne Ranger variety ... they are the Strider / Aragorn variety from Tolkien.

 

Following the etymology of the word in my dictionary, "rangers" were gamekeepers (cir 1300s), later meaning protectors who traveled (usually on horse) over a large section of land enforcing rule / law (by the mid 1600s). Most likely the second definition was an outgrowth of the expectation that the gamekeeper would travel the employers (usually titled) lands to make sure people weren't poaching the game and enforcing penalties on the guilty when caught.

 

Most likely its this second definition that philoligist Tolkien was attracted to when referring to Aragorn as a Ranger (and his alternate name - Strider - also echoes the idea of someone who travels great distances to back up his title as Ranger).

Edited October 8, 2012 by Amentep

[Merin]

*sigh* Here we go again with the ad hominem attacks....

 

You didn't know that PE had a Priest class.

 

I did. Cleric and priest are used fairly interchangeably in fantasy RPGs. I said cleric - the official title, so far, is priest. You say tomato...

 

You clearly have not freaking idea how the class is described either (which mean you haven't read update #15) and you call my argument weak.

 

I have read every update as they were released. Just correcting that there for you... youre powers of observation and deduction leave quite a bit to be desired since you came to quite an erroneous conclusion.

 

Of course, ad hominem attacks aren't often based on truths, but there it is.

 

And your knowledge sure shows gaping holes when your reasoning reads as thus -

 

There are no clerics in PE, it have priests. Also, rangers aren't cultural at all, it's a real job turned into a fantasy class, pretty much every country on the planet have rangers in their park/protected forest. Finally, I know games where the monk class is of the medieval Europe type and it's called a monk.

 

I guess you aren't worth spending time responding to.

 

The irony of your statement. Remarkable.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Merin

[AlphaShard]

I think that if I could get a Priest faction or any faction that isn't completely out of wack I will be happy. I would just like to feel like a hero is that so much to ask? Skyrim really didn't give that kind of vibe.

[Merin]

I think that if I could get a Priest faction or any faction that isn't completely out of wack I will be happy. I would just like to feel like a hero is that so much to ask? Skyrim really didn't give that kind of vibe.

 

Yeah, and on this note - if I could actually meet some honest-to-goodness good guys and dyed-in-the-wool bad guys. Shades of grey, I know, is the new black or some such...

but there's a point where going anti-cliche becomes cliche.