Paladins and Bards

[TrashMan]

But you have no idea how they are going to design a barbarian - could be alot of unique abilitys etc to them + little armor etc. The paladins abilitys are already in the priest/ cleric tree... you want a different class just for the name? seems silly to me, and i always play a dwarf paladin in bg2 and iwd2... always. seems they will be a sub tree build

 

The same holds true for a paladin.

You have no idea how it would be designed NOR exactly what hte priest will have.

Also, I think we already proven that the paladin and the priest are NOT mechanicly the same.

[draft1983]

But you have no idea how they are going to design a barbarian - could be alot of unique abilitys etc to them + little armor etc. The paladins abilitys are already in the priest/ cleric tree... you want a different class just for the name? seems silly to me, and i always play a dwarf paladin in bg2 and iwd2... always. seems they will be a sub tree build

 

The same holds true for a paladin.

You have no idea how it would be designed NOR exactly what hte priest will have.

Also, I think we already proven that the paladin and the priest are NOT mechanicly the same.

 

But they have of yet to decide upon a single paladin class have they not?? whiles they have for the barbarian so obviously they feel the need for it to have it's own specific class, whiles most agree that paladin is a cleric in heavy armor. so get over it!

[general_azure]

as an aside, in a world without a reductive alignment system, who determines what is "right, just and lawful?" Aren't those conventions largely fungible from society to society?

 

Easy, you just pick the conventions of your homeland and smack anyone who dares disagree. Someone has to start all those religious wars after all.

[nikolokolus]

But you have no idea how they are going to design a barbarian - could be alot of unique abilitys etc to them + little armor etc. The paladins abilitys are already in the priest/ cleric tree... you want a different class just for the name? seems silly to me, and i always play a dwarf paladin in bg2 and iwd2... always. seems they will be a sub tree build

 

The same holds true for a paladin.

You have no idea how it would be designed NOR exactly what hte priest will have.

Also, I think we already proven that the paladin and the priest are NOT mechanicly the same.

 

But they have of yet to decide upon a single paladin class have they not?? whiles they have for the barbarian so obviously they feel the need for it to have it's own specific class, whiles most agree that paladin is a cleric in heavy armor. so get over it!

 

They don't need to "get over it" some people are raising very legitimate points. At first I was not really for their inclusion in the game world at all, but after reading some well reasoned (and passionate) pleas, I changed my mind and I think they should be included ... as a "path to paladinhood" quest-line.

[Tamerlane]

I love the hell out of paladins, but while I'd love to see them in-game, I'd rather they be something you become, not start off as.

 

Bards, though? Damn, I want bards. Specifically, the Kung Fu Hustle kind of bard: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiDo1YA0zck

Edited October 4, 2012 by Tamerlane

[pseudonymous]

But they have of yet to decide upon a single paladin class have they not?? whiles they have for the barbarian so obviously they feel the need for it to have it's own specific class, whiles most agree that paladin is a cleric in heavy armor. so get over it!

 

Um... no. Paladins are fighters that can heal once a day, not clerics with heavy armor. Clerics cannot use edged weapons and have no restrictions against heavy armor.

[AlphaShard]

I remember being Cecil in ff4 and having to climb a mountain and defeat the darkness within to become a Paladin and you know how he does it? By NOT attacking and letting the Dark Knight destroy himself. It seems to me that the Paladin does have unique game mechanic and role-playing aspects to give to this world. After all Paladins are a real world thing and didn't need magic to exist. So I really don't see why they can't be included and managed with the Reputation mechanic.

[Malkaven]

imo the more the merrier when it comes to classes. Bards are always fun to play. They can be a real asset in end game party builds. I usually love grouping up with Paladins and ticking them off by doing evil things. Minsc (and boo) is a paladin after all.

[JediMB]

I'd be all for having Paladin as a Cleric specialization/build, and Bard as an equivalent for the Rogue class.

 

(Yes, I know Dragon Age already did the Bard-Rogue thing, but it's the class it makes the most sense for.)

 

I think having a limited number of flexible classes like this would make a lot more sense than a bleep-load of similar classes.

[Sarog]

Bards really just tend to be rogues with auras (songs) and low level magical abilities. If auras are folded into another class I don't see much need for them, as their other mechanical and roleplaying roles are squarely in rogue territory. I'd agree that they make the most sense as a rogue specialization, if anything.

[Merin]

I'd be all for having Paladin as a Cleric specialization/build, and Bard as an equivalent for the Rogue class.

 

(Yes, I know Dragon Age already did the Bard-Rogue thing, but it's the class it makes the most sense for.)

 

I think having a limited number of flexible classes like this would make a lot more sense than a bleep-load of similar classes.

 

And that's fine. As it is fine if they had made barbarians a sub-class of fighter, ciphers a sub-class of mages, rangers a subclass of rogues and druids a sub-class of clerics. It can be done.

 

But there are stretch goals for all the sub-classes - why not one more for bards and paladins?

 

I don't understand the resistance, except for those who "hate bards and paladins." I don't get it. If bards and paladins don't fit Obsidian's vision, that's one thing.

 

That hasn't been said by Obsidian, though.

 

If they would have stuck to 4 core and just had "builds" under them, that'd be great. But Obsidian has very blatantly opened the the door to more specialized classes - druids, monks, ciphers, barbarians, rangers...

 

... the door is open to specialized sub-classes. There's no real sense to wanting to close it now.

[Arkeus]

Bards really just tend to be rogues with auras (songs) and low level magical abilities. If auras are folded into another class I don't see much need for them, as their other mechanical and roleplaying roles are squarely in rogue territory. I'd agree that they make the most sense as a rogue specialization, if anything.

 

I could actually see them as some kind of Cipher speciality too, if the Cipher specializes on Buffs/debuffs.

 

 

... the door is open to specialized sub-classes. There's no real sense to wanting to close it now.

 

Unless, of course, Paladin don't make sense Lore-wise in this setting.

 

People have been talking about how the classes are "DnD" but when i actually read the descriptions of the classes, i really don't feel that they are truly D&D... Or if they are, they are to "DnD" as 4ed is to 1stEd

Edited October 4, 2012 by Arkeus

[Keyrock]

I'm all for Bards or some other kind of Rogue specialization/offshoot/hybrid as the stealth/utility area is somewhat lacking with Rogue being the only stealth/utility class in the game. The game has plenty of warrior types already (Fighter, Ranger, Monk, Barbarian) so I say "nay" to Paladins.

[Tale]

Poll added at OP request.

[Intendant S]

I'm not going to bother reading through 7 pages of this, but I just have to put my two cents worth in. I'm rather indifferent about bards, but still wouldn't mind them in the game.

 

Paladins, on the other hand, I have a deep connection to. I just love the holy warrior class. Something about their honorable ways...their willingness to stand up for and defend the weak and innocent...those who's cause is to slay evil and undo the injustices imposed upon the land. If given the choice, I would always make a paladin as my primary character.

[JediMB]

I'd be all for having Paladin as a Cleric specialization/build, and Bard as an equivalent for the Rogue class.

 

(Yes, I know Dragon Age already did the Bard-Rogue thing, but it's the class it makes the most sense for.)

 

I think having a limited number of flexible classes like this would make a lot more sense than a bleep-load of similar classes.

 

And that's fine. As it is fine if they had made barbarians a sub-class of fighter, ciphers a sub-class of mages, rangers a subclass of rogues and druids a sub-class of clerics. It can be done.

 

But there are stretch goals for all the sub-classes - why not one more for bards and paladins?

 

I don't understand the resistance, except for those who "hate bards and paladins." I don't get it. If bards and paladins don't fit Obsidian's vision, that's one thing.

 

That hasn't been said by Obsidian, though.

 

If they would have stuck to 4 core and just had "builds" under them, that'd be great. But Obsidian has very blatantly opened the the door to more specialized classes - druids, monks, ciphers, barbarians, rangers...

 

... the door is open to specialized sub-classes. There's no real sense to wanting to close it now.

 

Were it up to me, Barbarians would definitely go under Fighters unless there was a really good lore reason (and different mechanics) to justify a separate class. Ciphers, however, already seem to be more of a "psychic" class than a traditional magical class.

 

I'm not against the inclusion of Bard and Paladin classes, as I'd probably like playing them, but actually asking for them seems wrong when there are so many other specialized classes that likely have as many fans among us, and I think that too many classes could make the game really messy. And it seems to me that the class lore detailed in the latest update makes Paladin a good fit within the Cleric class.

[Monte Carlo]

Paladins are somewhat superseded by combat-capable priests, and anyhow there's no alignment in this game. So I can live without them (although I'm OK with them as a class).

 

Bards.. hmmm. Maybe it's the way I play but the Ultimate Support Guy isn't how I like to play heroic fantasy personally. If they made the bard more of a combat capable character then perhaps. But not "stand about at the back singing" dude.

[LordCrash]

A paladin is NOT a cleric. NOT AT ALL!

[rjshae]

Bard's would be cool, but they need that something to make them more useful. Or at least give the feeling of being useful.

In Baldur's Gate II I always felt that bards were a little useless or had too little to add to the experience.

 

It wasn't just the Baldur's Gate series. In every party-based fantasy RPG I've played, I added the bard character for novelty but soon wanted to remove them. Bards just feel like a leaden weight. In Oblivion on the other hand, I really enjoyed playing a Bard because their versatility gave a lot of options for game play. To be worth picking up as a companion in PE, I think the designers need to do something to give them a little edge.

[dlux]

A paladin is NOT a cleric. NOT AT ALL!

Yup. A paladin is basically a warrior or knight that can cast a few divine spells and also has auras, etc. They are quite different.

 

A Paladin is a very good fighter too. Clerics/priests are not.

Edited October 4, 2012 by dlux

[Gurkog]

I could see barbarians having some sort of tribal rituals to enhance battle prowess and whatnot.

 

I bet they add a holy warrior subclass as a future stretch goal that is not pigeonholed into just 'lawful good' paladins. It won't be restricted to 'lawful good' gods. The game is not going to be restricted to black and white morality so being a paladin might have a lot of negative impacts on the world because of their inflexible beliefs. I highly doubt it will be the D&D experience many people imagine.

[Monte Carlo]

A paladin is NOT a cleric. NOT AT ALL!

Yup. A paladin is basically a warrior or knight that can cast a few divine spells and also has auras, etc. They are quite different.

 

A Paladin is a very good fighter too. Clerics/priests are not.

 

Hey! A yo momma D&D class / combat powa comparison. A 3E Fighter / Cleric trumps a paladin of an equivalent level every time.

[Tale]

But there are stretch goals for all the sub-classes - why not one more for bards and paladins?

 

I don't understand the resistance, except for those who "hate bards and paladins." I don't get it.

I'm going to be a broken record here. When the question is asked, I always push for new. Bards and Paladins aren't new. The classes we already have announced aren't new either, but that's a lost battle for me. I've only played one computer fantasy roleplaying game that had psionics in it, so as far as I'm concerned that's pretty exciting.

 

I'm not against using classics, don't get me wrong. But if we only have two possible classes left, I want to see something I haven't seen as much before. I'll still be excited and hopeful for the game if all the classes and races are things I've seen before. So until that's set in stone, I'm going to push for new things. Because if I can carve out just a tiny little hole where there's a four-armed insectoid race or playable blob and a class where the theme is throwing furniture or long-distance spitting, I'll be ecstatic.

 

Not to say that I should derail this thread with nay-saying. But you asked why not.

[Gurkog]

The only thing DnD paladins have over other classes in the IE games is higher saving throws, thats it. They aren't as good of fighters and can not function well as a support caster... so ya, thats it.

[Monte Carlo]

I know we won't get it, but I always wanted a bandit / outlaw class that was like a combat heavy thief with some outdoor survival skillz.