Paladins and Bards

[Ieo]

You know, I just reread the paladin description about the "immediate vicinity" bit---if a PE paladin's only casting skills (both offensive and defensive/heal) are based on centered AoE, I think that'd be...very awesome! I may have to play with that, if that's the case.

 

Battle cry: "I am my own fireball!"

Edited October 10, 2012 by Ieo

[Frenetic Pony]

I've never used a paladin in any game where they're available, and never liked them as characters when they were available either. Stuck up so and so's.

 

But Bards, or rather D&D 3.5's take on bards, are more interesting. I like how they've come from the nordic myths of bards as travelling, singing storytellers with mythical powers to expand to other areas. To basically anyone that uses charisma as a weapon. Jack Sparrow, or rather Captain Jack Sparrow would be a "Bard" under D&D 3.5.

 

Which makes me want to call them something else. Get rid of their reliance on "songs" and instruments, or rather their sole reliance on them as a class item and power. Instead I'd love to see them come with a much broader name and ideal. Someone that uses Charisma in general as a tool. Whether it's a rousing speech, or a clever misdirection, or etc. Something that would range from Gandalf (who's often more clever than using magic) to Jarlaxle to Tyrion Lannister.

 

I'd not be sure of what to call this class. But certainly the traditional Bardic mythos could fit within, and more than any other class it's what I'd like to see.

[happyelf]

It sounds very much like they're making them a melee caster + Warlord type class, which is a pretty cool take. It's also really good to see them doing new things with old concepts. It's telling that they found a place for the Warlord.

Edited October 10, 2012 by happyelf

[rjshae]

I don't get why its so important to a few people not to include certain classes, if you don't like them, don't play them.

 

It's not always about wanting to exclude certain classes; it's about trade-offs in resource allocation. Do you want Bards or do you want, say, an underwater adventure? If you don't particularly want to play Bards then you might prefer the underwater adventure.

 

No matter. We're all getting something we want or we wouldn't be here.

[Umberlin]

I don't get why its so important to a few people not to include certain classes, if you don't like them, don't play them.

 

They're in, so it's a moot point now . . . albeit the Bard, or Chanter, of the two (while both have their own twist) seems much changed from versions talked fondly of, by some, in this thread.

 

You know, I just reread the paladin description about the "immediate vicinity" bit---if a PE paladin's only casting skills (both offensive and defensive/heal) are based on centered AoE, I think that'd be...very awesome! I may have to play with that, if that's the case.

 

Battle cry: "I am my own fireball!"

 

Centered AoE reminds me 'somewhat' of DAoC's Reaver class that was built around several PBAoE mechanics, though they did have other options besides.

[Osvir]

I don't get why its so important to a few people not to include certain classes, if you don't like them, don't play them.

 

It's not always about wanting to exclude certain classes; it's about trade-offs in resource allocation. Do you want Bards or do you want, say, an underwater adventure? If you don't particularly want to play Bards then you might prefer the underwater adventure.

 

No matter. We're all getting something we want or we wouldn't be here.

 

I'm looking at it from the opposite side. Without the Bard Chanter, the Underwater adventure won't be there because the Chanter God hails from tales of a Siren that lured in good men and taught them how to sing for her pleasure.... *shrug* see where I'm getting at?

 

I believe that the more classes there are, the more adventures, culture, religions, in-game ideas, stories, lore there's going to be. Though, at some point you might need to balance it carefully (I'm thinking about the Disgaea games, they're the opposite, tons of endless classes, races, levels, little story in comparison to all you can do "out of story").

Edited October 10, 2012 by Osvir

[Wombat]

One of the important factors (well, at least, for me) is whether they fit the setting or not.

From Sawyer's post @ Something Awful

Eiba posted:

Wow, chanters actually sound like a really cool class, both in terms of gameplay mechanics and what it actually is. An adventurer who goes about telling tales and spreading knowledge in a really popular way (as opposed to the academic wizards) is really compelling.

 

Though come to think of it I guess that's kind of like what a bard is. Oh well, still a pretty neat concept. Reminds me of the kind of people who probably just memorized and recited the old epics before people wrote them down.

With paladins and chanters I sort of went back to the "original" conception of the paladin and bard terms. In the case of the paladin, it comes from Roland and the Twelve Peers. They were Christians fighting Saracens, but they were ultimately elite vassals of Charlemagne. In the Song of Roland they're larger than life figures who are fighting at the rear guard of an army, killing a few thousands dudes and their horses every other paragraph.

 

I didn't think it was necessary for them to be "Lawful Good" or Christianishy in Project Eternity, but I did think that they should have that same level of single-minded purpose and selflessness even if they weren't religious. Mechanically, they may end up feeling somewhat similar to Marshals from 3.5E.

 

"Bard" is a Gaelic/Brythonic term and it didn't seem to fit with the OE and Romance-inspired words we've used. Also, even though bards were originally less (if at all) about music and more about poetry, to many people, bard = music. So the chanter is a step back from that, back to the idea of the magical storyteller. But they still have a similar "jack-of-all trades" flexible role like the A/D&D bard classes have traditionally had. It was important to me to make their magic sound and feel different, both conceptually and mechanically.

As for bards, historically, there is a famous bard who accompanied with Sir Robin, of course. However, seriously, there must be someone there who witnessed events and recorded them either in factually or in a more epic way. I think they came up with a reasonable implementation. The comment also implies that the viewpoints of the religious class characters will not be too restrictive.

[Milten]

As for bards, historically, there is a famous bard who accompanied with Sir Robin, of course. However, seriously, there must be someone there who witnessed events and recorded them either in factually or in a more epic way. I think they came up with a reasonable implementation. The comment also implies that the viewpoints of the religious class characters will not be too restrictive.

Yes, indeed, bards traveling with parties of adventurers seem logical since they want to see what they are telling about, but their combat skills (these buff songs in particular) always seemed forced to me. I mean, can you imagine Sir Robin in battle and his bard singing in a middle of that? I can't.

[Wombat]

As you can see in

, it seems to be rare for Sir. Robin himself to fight. Er...sorry, I should have made it clear that I was kidding. It didn't come to me that some people may not know Monty Python classics.

 

I imagine chanter's role is more of "jack of all trades", according to Sawyer's words, and, in and outside combat, I think he should have his plaece. They most likely play a quite important role in gathering information (communication skills) and resources (barter skill), providing practical ways to communicate with people who have different cultural/social backgrounds. I wonder if the players have an option of making the class more like travelling merchants/spies/agents. As a combat unit, in D&D, depending on the build, they can be quite capable. Also, we are yet to know how they make use of soul powers. In any case, I am interested in systems to fit the setting and don't have a slightest interest in any anti-"cirtain class" type arguments from some poeple.

 

That said, my stance to class system itself is neutral since I have come across with good skill systems which made the players feel the characters actually live in the setting. I wonder how much Obsidian can do with D&D-ish class system.

 

Just my opinion.

[PsychoBlonde]

Well, now that they've basically announced these classes, I have to say one thing: I consider Paladin to be a mismanaged joke class. It's always either Super OP or Super Pointless. More on this below.

 

Bards, on the other hand, can be quite cool if they have their OWN set of abilities they bring to the table instead of being a lackluster little not-a-girl-not-yet-a-woman half-class. Dungeons and Dragons Online actually does this well because bards have one thing that NO other class has: the MONSTER cc of Fascinate and their unique bard buffs. (Bards in DDO can cc stuff nobody else can because they can get their Difficulty Class 20 or even 30 points above even the best casters.) All of their other class abilities which would be lackluster without real niche appeal just LINE UP behind that fascinate and make bards Really Cool instead of Really Superfluous. They'll never be AS good a caster as a wizard--but bard caster + fascinate/buffs is a great character. They'll never be AS good a DPS as a barbarian, but DPS + fascinate/buffs is a great character. Same for healing, traps (if you take a couple rogue levels), whatever you like.

 

As for paladin, I just hope they do the poor buggers well, is all. Even in DDO (which I consider an exemplar of this category of game, I have yet to find one that does it as well) paladins are screwy. They need too many high stats to take advantage of their class abilities (strength, dex, con, AND charisma where a fighter built along the same lines needs . . . strength and con), and if you DON'T go that route, you're better off playing a fighter and getting the dang extra feats. Too many of their abilities are charges-per-rest so you never really get the benefit from them that you really ought to--you either use them and run out, or you save them and don't use them at all. That, and since they're generally built toward specific types of foes (demons and undead, in DDO), whenever they're NOT fighting that type of foe they are seriously underpowered. At present, the only really valuable attribute paladins get is high saving throws, which is not something you build your character around. They make a decent tank. But so do fighters and monks and those classes can also maintain more flexibility while doing so.

 

Granted, it doesn't HAVE to be like that, but paladins have a huge tendency to either be all-out more powerful than other melee classes or get jammed into a niche that's too narrow for an entire class. Like bards, what they really need is one BIG (and if not universal than close-to-universal) defining ability that lines up their various sidelines and turns them all into a Nice Class to Have.

[IndiraLightfoot]

The words of Bobby Null on paladin class:

 

"Of course the balancing of classes is subject to change, but this is what Josh and I discussed last night. In a nutshell: Party Buffs/Centered AOE DPS/Self Healing/Good Martial Ability.

 

Party buffs will be the Paladin's commands. The centered AOE DPS will most likely take the form of a soul-based, short-range (or centered) AOE, and the ability to heal himself/herself. This is above and beyond the Paladin's martial skill, which will be good, but not as good as the Fighter or the Barbarian. Of course, the player will be able to tailor their Paladin to suit their playstyle should they wish to enhance/specialize certain aspects of the class."

 

It was just posted in another thread!

[TrashMan]

Paladins need auras. Not commands.

 

Think Diablo 2.

An aura that weakens the undead?

An aura that grants courage?

More stuff like that.

 

And of course, something like smite.

Edited October 10, 2012 by TrashMan

[Gecimen]

wow btw... both classes in this poll is added considering chanters are practically bards... either they are seriously following this forum or....

[JediMB]

Paladins need auras. Not commands.

 

Think Diablo 2.

An aura that weakens the undead?

An aura that grants courage?

More stuff like that.

 

From the description, it sounds like they're functionally basically the same thing, but with different lore.

[rjshae]

I don't get why its so important to a few people not to include certain classes, if you don't like them, don't play them.

 

It's not always about wanting to exclude certain classes; it's about trade-offs in resource allocation. Do you want Bards or do you want, say, an underwater adventure? If you don't particularly want to play Bards then you might prefer the underwater adventure.

 

No matter. We're all getting something we want or we wouldn't be here.

 

I'm looking at it from the opposite side. Without the Bard Chanter, the Underwater adventure won't be there because the Chanter God hails from tales of a Siren that lured in good men and taught them how to sing for her pleasure.... *shrug* see where I'm getting at?

 

You didn't disprove my point; you only noted that they will be a Chanter-related experience. The original poster was saying that we shouldn't play the Chanter if we don't like them. But that would therefore preclude the Chanter-related side quests for that player. I'm saying that the Underwater adventure (or whatever) would be available to all, regardless of whether you play the Chanter or not.

 

Anyway, it doesn't really matter at this point. It's a done deal. I actually kind of enjoy companion-related side quests and I'm hoping the developers will make Paladin and Chanter something that everybody will want to play.

Edited October 10, 2012 by rjshae

[AlphaShard]

I wonder if people consider Odo from DS9 to be Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral?

[rjshae]

I wonder if people consider Odo from DS9 to be Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral?

The D&D alignment system is a trivialized view of complex behavior patterns. Personally, I prefer the HERO/Champions approach where characters suffer from specific psychological limitations to varying degrees. In Odo's case he had a psychological limitation that caused him to carry out justice (common/strong).

[Merin]

I like Palladium's alignment system, personally.

[dlux]

wow btw... both classes in this poll is added considering chanters are practically bards... either they are seriously following this forum or....

They listen to their fans.

[AlphaShard]

With less then 3k left to go I'll just call it and say yay we got the pally and chanters.

[morhilane]

Paladins and Chanters in (with Kickstarter only).

[Ieo]

I'm curious about both classes now, given the description. Potential secular paladin with skills based on centered AoE and whatnot, and this chanter business.... Good job on interesting spins, Obsidian.

[elminster]

I really like the idea of having classes with limited mage/priest powers. Nevertheless my personal opinion is that a bard isn't very good at anything, I dont like it. If you implement it please give him some kind of powers which not only rely on buffing the group (same for paladin).

[Vox Draco]

I like both types of classes. Most of my Bioware/Blackisle chars were paladins, though I would prefer them a little less strict and usually saw them less as religious fanatics/fighters, but more like honorable knights bound to a code (not a god) I would like that for paladins in PE

 

Bards however...I like their "lighthearted" approach, I like the kind of characters you can imagine with such a class (scoundrels, womanizers, saga-poets), but for me they shouldn't be "rogue/mages". I see them more of a "side-class" to normal rogues, with a tendency for swashbuckling and persuasion, rather than sneaking around and lockpicking etc...magic abilities, if any, should be limited to songs, and hopefully they can still do something else while singing...