Paladins and Bards

[Majek]

What's wrong with less choices? I'd be perfectly happy with 1 race and 4 classes.

[general_azure]

I've always thought of paladins as just being fighter/clerics with swords in hand and sticks up their... well, you get the idea. If you want to roleplay the shiney knight type with some divine smiting mixed in, I'm sure there'll be a type priest for that.

 

The idea of making it a title you can earn from a faction by good deeds (and self-righteous zeal and all that) sounds pretty good imho.

[TrashMan]

And paladins are unnecessary when you have almighty clerics.

 

And barbarians are useless when you have fighters

And ciphers are useless when you have mages.

[Darth Trethon]

And paladins are unnecessary when you have almighty clerics.

 

And barbarians are useless when you have fighters

And ciphers are useless when you have mages.

 

Barbarians I don't much care for really but Cyphers at least use quite different kind of magic from wizards and in a very different way plus they have a very separate and rich lore than wizards. Paladins are just fighters with a bad attitude.....nothing really that interesting.

[lychee26]

But that attitude is what makes the character of a paladin. Priests intepret what the gods say, Paladins follow what the gods say. There's a big difference there...

[Aedelric]

I like Paladin and I like Bards, thery both fit nicely into the setting.

 

We do not need a paladin class exactly, but it could be an evolution of the fighter, after all he just needs a god to fight for and access to the spiritual side of his soul for enchantments.

 

A Bard would have to be a class, it is quite specific and the others do not come close to it, using his soul to empower his songs granting courage to others or weaken the enemies morale. One could say it it could be an evolution of a rogue, but it does not fit well, I say a new class for it.

 

People love paladins and bards, if we do not get a stretch goal, perhaps they can be in an expansion pack. :D

[Amentep]

The more the merrier, I say, but at some point they have to make a cut off point.

 

That said I can see some way to carve a unique niche for Bards (but then I'd make them something other than kinda rogue-mages like D&D seems to).

 

I think Paladins have a harder time because there seems to be so much overlap with Fighters and priests and if the priests aren't going to be limited in fighting, its hard to find that niche role for them. That said if someone can find that distinctive flavor - why not?

[Sarog]

Paladins? No, just no. There are already the Priest and Monk classes confirmed.....adding another righteous/religious class like the Paladin is a complete waste of time and resources. The Cipher class on the other hand is an absolutely brilliant bit of original class design that is new and amazing so they need to come up with more like it.

 

Not really. They are just Psions reinterpreted through the Soul emphasis. There's nothing new and amazing in that description that isn't already present in the dusty Psionics Handbook and Magic of Incarnum sourcebooks I had in highschool. These classes are so far 100% pure Dungeons and Dragons, and as such Dungeons and Dragons expectations are legitimate. Or in other words, since they have so far followed dungeons and dragons class archetypes exactly, it is sensible that people will expect consistency on that front, in the form of the inclusion of the other core D&D class archetypes.

 

Considering that their class lineup so far is pure D&D tradition, it would be very odd if the paladin, something that is natural and complementary to this sort of high fantasy European setting, is excluded while the whimsical, eastern red-headed-stepchild of D&D (the monk) is kept in the starting lineup.

[ImRhoven]

 

However, if they do have Paladins, please don't restrict them to a single moral code...it just seems limited.

 

 

Paladins are defined by their strict moral code. It's what defines the class.

[TrashMan]

And paladins are unnecessary when you have almighty clerics.

 

And barbarians are useless when you have fighters

And ciphers are useless when you have mages.

 

Barbarians I don't much care for really but Cyphers at least use quite different kind of magic from wizards and in a very different way plus they have a very separate and rich lore than wizards. Paladins are just fighters with a bad attitude.....nothing really that interesting.

 

Sez you.

 

I say Cyphers are the most boring concpet in the history of forever....except maybe bards (seriously? The power of music? It's just so damn silly) .

Paladins have a very rich and interesting lore compared tofighters and and have special skills abilities of their own.

 

PALADINS >>>>>> CYPHERS >>>>>> BARDS >>>> you

[dlux]

The more the merrier, I say, but at some point they have to make a cut off point.

Of course. Paladins (VERY IMPORTANT) and bards are still missing though. I am sure that if they include these 2 classes, then everybody will be content - at least I have not seen anyone asking for classes other than these.

 

However, if they do have Paladins, please don't restrict them to a single moral code...it just seems limited.

 

 

Paladins are defined by their strict moral code. It's what defines the class.

Paladins can fall and become Fallen Paladins (evil).

Edited October 4, 2012 by dlux

[dlux]

double post. sry

Edited October 4, 2012 by dlux

[Aedelric]

When I think of a bard I think of the Silmarillion, people who sing words of power and battle each other through voice.

 

Would be good to have it revolve more around the power of words and voice (odd for a game with no voice acting I grant you) rather than being able to play specific songs on a harp.

[Tale]

I have not seen anyone asking for classes other than these.

Allow me, I'd like some less common classes included. Whether it be something like a Geomancer or Shadowdancer.

[dlux]

I have not seen anyone asking for classes other than these.

Allow me, I'd like some less common classes included. Whether it be something like a Geomancer or Shadowdancer.

I knew somebody was going to respond to that like you just did. lol ^^

[Zeer]

a poll would be better.

Don't really care if paladins or bards are in the game- both are not my choice of classes.

and bards, really? people actually like playing bards? that just.. unexpected..

I think we have already a good class selection: a weapon specialist (warrior), a bare hand specialist (monk), a ranged combat specialist(ranger), a magic user(wizard), thief/rogue/sneaky guy, shape shifting/nature guy (druid) and a faith guy (priest).

Do you really need a paladin (warrior/priest hybrid) and a bard (well, a buffing dude)? Maybe a rogue can go music route or warrior choosing a deity becomes palladinish?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Zeer

[dlux]

Do you really need a paladin (warrior/priest hybrid) and a bard (well, a buffing dude)? Maybe a rogue can go music route or warrior choosing a deity becomes palladinish?

Well, do we really need Barbarians (fighters with higher resitances) or ciphers (mage/priest Hybrid)?

 

I personally do not care about bards though, but I really want Paladins!

[LordCrash]

a poll would be better.

Don't really care if paladins or bards are in the game- both are not my choice of classes.

and bards, really? people actually like playing bards? that just.. unexpected..

I think we have already a good class selection: a weapon specialist (warrior), a bare hand specialist (monk), a ranged combat specialist(ranger), a magic user(wizard), thief/rogue/sneaky guy, shape shifting/nature guy (druid) and a faith guy (priest).

Do you really need a paladin (warrior/priest hybrid) and a bard (well, a buffing dude)? Maybe a rogue can go music route or warrior choosing a deity becomes palladinish?

Please read at least some of the posts already existing here before writing your own....

 

We don't want paladins solely for gameplay reasons, we want them for roleplaying reasons because of their moral conflicts, their perfect fit for mature topics, their attitude, their style, their way of talking with other people, their way of acting and so on. Why the hell are you people playing story-driven RPGs? There's a lot more than combat in it. In fact, in a perfect RPG you should be able to avoid most combats with other skills and the paladin is a perfect fit for that because of his leadership skills, his reputation in society (good or bad or somewhere between), probably his speaking skills as member of the nobility, his faith in his mission and things like that. The same is true for bards to a great extend. Perhaps they are not the best fighters out there but they are damn good in talking with NPCs and companions, in gathering information, in holding up morals in your group and so on....

 

So show some respect for these forgotten classes!

[Tale]

Paladin has always seemed, to me, to be just a sub-group of Priests/Clerics. They're like a corner archetype of this broader archetype. The distinction between the two is mostly attitude. Which seems like something the player should be responsible for to begin with.

 

D&D 4E tried to make them distinct by making them the tank class to the Cleric's healer class. But if they're keeping them broad enough that the Priest can tank or heal, I'm not sure a specialist is accomplishing anything.

 

We don't want paladins solely for gameplay reasons, we want them for roleplaying reasons because of their moral conflicts, their perfect fit for mature topics, their attitude, their style, their way of talking with other people, their way of acting and so on.

That doesn't sound like something you should need a specific class for. Otherwise I might need to start campaigning for Warlocks, because the default Wizard archetype isn't abrasive enough.

 

 

Bard has enough unique going for him that I can't dismiss him similarly. He would kind of round out the selection. Two martial experts, two magical specialists, two religious types. But only one underworld/town based archetype.

[dlux]

a poll would be better.

Don't really care if paladins or bards are in the game- both are not my choice of classes.

and bards, really? people actually like playing bards? that just.. unexpected..

I think we have already a good class selection: a weapon specialist (warrior), a bare hand specialist (monk), a ranged combat specialist(ranger), a magic user(wizard), thief/rogue/sneaky guy, shape shifting/nature guy (druid) and a faith guy (priest).

Do you really need a paladin (warrior/priest hybrid) and a bard (well, a buffing dude)? Maybe a rogue can go music route or warrior choosing a deity becomes palladinish?

Please read at least some of the posts already existing here before writing your own....

 

We don't want paladins solely for gameplay reasons, we want them for roleplaying reasons because of their moral conflicts, their perfect fit for mature topics, their attitude, their style, their way of talking with other people, their way of acting and so on. Why the hell are you people playing story-driven RPGs? There's a lot more than combat in it. In fact, in a perfect RPG you should be able to avoid most combats with other skills and the paladin is a perfect fit for that because of his leadership skills, his reputation in society (good or bad or somewhere between), probably his speaking skills as member of the nobility, his faith in his mission and things like that. The same is true for bards to a great extend. Perhaps they are not the best fighters out there but they are damn good in talking with NPCs and companions, in gathering information, in holding up morals in your group and so on....

 

So show some respect for these forgotten classes!

 

This deserves a +1!! Excellent post LordCrash.

[Farudan]

I think this world needs Paladins. When gods are so influential that they can manipualte events, they definitely have a religious warrior caste that fights for them, calls for crusade, crucifies the wrong believers... I think it would be consequent to offer a Paladin in some way and I think one can mix game reactions to them with reactions towards a cleric of the same god.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Farudan

[Umberlin]

Paladin has always seemed, to me, to be just a sub-group of Priests/Clerics. They're like a corner archetype of this broader archetype. The distinction between the two is mostly attitude. Which seems like something the player should be responsible for to begin with.

 

Interesting way to look at it.

 

I'm able to accept Bards or Paladins, even Monks, but I can't help but wonder about non-standard Class types from Obsidian or unique creations of their own as something I'd prefer.

[lychee26]

We don't want paladins solely for gameplay reasons, we want them for roleplaying reasons because of their moral conflicts, their perfect fit for mature topics, their attitude, their style, their way of talking with other people, their way of acting and so on.

That doesn't sound like something you should need a specific class for. Otherwise I might need to start campaigning for Warlocks, because the default Wizard archetype isn't abrasive enough.

 

 

Bard has enough unique going for him that I can't dismiss him similarly.

 

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. I'm sure LordCrash will play his paladin character even if the class doesn't exist, but I'm sure it would be greatly preferably if he didn't have to act like his priest of fighter was a paladin, but rather, was simply a paladin.

 

But yay for bards and being unique... (I actually don't play paladins, but I do usually play as bards)

Edited October 4, 2012 by lychee26

[Zeer]

 

Well, do we really need Barbarians (fighters with higher resitances) or ciphers (mage/priest Hybrid)?

 

I personally do not care about bards though, but I really want Paladins!

 

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.

 

Please read at least some of the posts already existing here before writing your own....

 

We don't want paladins solely for gameplay reasons, we want them for roleplaying reasons because of their moral conflicts, their perfect fit for mature topics, their attitude, their style, their way of talking with other people, their way of acting and so on. Why the hell are you people playing story-driven RPGs? There's a lot more than combat in it. In fact, in a perfect RPG you should be able to avoid most combats with other skills and the paladin is a perfect fit for that because of his leadership skills, his reputation in society (good or bad or somewhere between), probably his speaking skills as member of the nobility, his faith in his mission and things like that. The same is true for bards to a great extend. Perhaps they are not the best fighters out there but they are damn good in talking with NPCs and companions, in gathering information, in holding up morals in your group and so on....

 

So show some respect for these forgotten classes!

but there should be something to make the class really relevant, different.. that would mean that only bards should be able to use the social skills to max etc.. I really don't see those 2 as a whole class, sorry Subclasses maybe not more.

[dlux]

We don't want paladins solely for gameplay reasons, we want them for roleplaying reasons because of their moral conflicts, their perfect fit for mature topics, their attitude, their style, their way of talking with other people, their way of acting and so on.

That doesn't sound like something you should need a specific class for. Otherwise I might need to start campaigning for Warlocks, because the default Wizard archetype isn't abrasive enough.

 

 

Bard has enough unique going for him that I can't dismiss him similarly. He would kind of round out the selection. Two martial experts, two magical specialists, two religious types. But only one underworld/town based archetype.

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