Jump to content

Paladins and Bards


Paladins and Bards  

368 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like Paladins to be added?

    • Yes
      165
    • No
      100
    • Indifferent or undecided
      103
  2. 2. Would you like Bards to be added?

    • Yes
      163
    • No
      85
    • Indifferent or undecided
      120


Recommended Posts

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!

 

Who is this "most" you speak of?

"most peopel agree" is an irrlevant attmept to try ot get some valdity to your claim by adding unconfirmed and non-representative numbers to your side.

 

It doesn't interest me.

Even if it were true that most people think that a paladin is a cleric in heavy armor it still wouldn't.

Because I don't care what ignorants think.

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Let me clarify something, too, that wouldn't be knowable at all in this discussion -

 

I'd rather PE be as far from D&D as possible. Magic system, how "gods" fit in the world, as well as races and classes.

 

We don't have that, however. We have a very D&D-esque, homage-to-Tolkien game being designed. At least in the fantasy tropes.

 

I'd rather it hadn't been this way. But it IS this way.

 

So, since we have a pseudo-vancian system (spell books or queues or however it ends up working, that have to swapped out to have access to different packages of spells), and we have elves and dwarves, and we see the "druid, monk, psion, barbarian and ranger" tropey-trope classes...

...since we are already here...

... I'll advocate for the tropey-trope classes that are missing that I feel are core and I like. Paladin has been a class for D&D more consistently and longer than barbarian, monk or psion. It's no more "a subset of cleric/fighter" than druid is a subset of "ranger/cleric."

 

So I'm with you on wanting original and unique. But we aren't getting it. We're getting elves, dwarves, clerics, druids, etc., etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Eh, not entirely. I always appreciated immunities and auras. I often played BG2 with the paladin chevalier kit because of the passives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A paladin is NOT a cleric. NOT AT ALL! :banghead:

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.

 

Gah. Multi-classing, especially 3E multi-classing, shouldn't be used as reasoning for not including a class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) When the question is asked, I always push for new. Bards and Paladins aren't new. (...)

 

Exactly.

 

I very often play(ed) Bards in D&D games, not because they were an awesome class, but because they were more unconventional. If class choice is relevant, I like to have many classes, and if possible all of them very different. I'm currently most excited about/interested in the Cipher class.

 

I wouldn't really mind seeing Paladins, Bards, or other "pretty well known" class names, but for me personally, I prefer to have something ...different... (not going to go into details about possibilities here though, as this thread is about Paladins and Bards :) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Yeah, but the whole project is built around the topic to bring the flair, the gameplay and the emotions of the old infinity engine games back to life. So what's the matter with the classic classes? Damn, it is a classic RPG! Many people like exactly that kind of games with everything in it, classes included. That's what I am here for. If I want to play new classes I don't back an old-school approach on RPGs.... ;)

  • Like 2
35167v4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm with you on wanting original and unique. But we aren't getting it. We're getting elves, dwarves, clerics, druids, etc., etc.

But that doesn't mean we can't have some original and unique. I don't see it as all or nothing.

 

Yeah, but the whole project is built around the topic to bring the flair, the gameplay and the emotions of the old infinity engine games back to life. So what's the matter with the classic classes? Damn, it is a classic RPG! Many people like exactly that kind of games with everything in it, classes included. That's what I am here for. If I want to play new classes I don't back an old-school approach on RPGs.... ;)
I'm not sold. "Classic classes" aren't old school. They're every school. Even new RPGs still have mages, fighters, rogues, bards, and the like. They still have elves and dwarves. They're standard today, not just yesterday. You won't find new classes in new RPGs either.

 

But what we had yesterday that we lost today is Planescape and Dark Sun. Settings that were different.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people want Bards in I don't really care one way or another. Let them have it. I would personally never use it, because I simply find the entire class conceptually stupid.

 

While other guys fling spells and fight, he plays his lute during combat. The power of music comples you!

Heck, it's like one of those crappy Macross sequels where the power of J-POP brainwashes everyone.

 

I never could take bards seriously.

Edited by TrashMan
  • Like 1

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they presented the classes with different names I bet the reaction would be a lot different. Obsidian probably made a mistake by using recognizable titles for people to identify with even if the actual classes are structured differently. :p

Grandiose statements, cryptic warnings, blind fanboyisim and an opinion that leaves no room for argument and will never be dissuaded. Welcome to the forums, you'll go far in this place my boy, you'll go far!

 

The people who are a part of the "Fallout Community" have been refined and distilled over time into glittering gems of hatred.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm with you on wanting original and unique. But we aren't getting it. We're getting elves, dwarves, clerics, druids, etc., etc.

But that doesn't mean we can't have some original and unique. I don't see it as all or nothing.

True.

 

I do think, however, the "original and unique" we will get is in implementation of tropes. In the world lore. Not in the basic D&D established fantasy role-playing nodes.

 

And, honestly, they are quoting IE games and three in particular for inspiration. That's all D&D. It shouldn't be surprising.

 

Obsidian will have their own unique spin on it. But I think the hopes for Geomancers or Pirates or Alchemists or Musketeers is probably forlorn hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that people prefer new, innovative things to what we've seen before. I felt the same and hoped for non-traditional, non-Tolkien, non-D&D fantasy from P:E.

 

The game as it is shaping up is very traditional though, and the class roster fits exactly into the D&D mold with these two exceptions. Including monks, barbarians, and rangers and not including paladins feels... I'm not going to say arbitrary, because we don't know the mechanics well enough yet, but certainly whimsical.

 

Or in other words, novelty and innovation should be found in how these old traditional classes are represented, not in which are included and which are not.

Edited by Sarog
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A paladin is NOT a cleric. NOT AT ALL! :banghead:

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.

 

Gah. Multi-classing, especially 3E multi-classing, shouldn't be used as reasoning for not including a class.

Some people just don't get that paladins are NOT necessarily bond to a clerical institution. Chevalry is about doing the right things in life in mainly a secular way. Surely, there are some very religious paladins as the crusaders and they all share a common codex with a strong religious flavour but they are NOT part of the clergy.....

  • Like 2
35167v4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that people prefer new, innovative things to what we've seen before. I felt the same and hoped for non-traditional, non-Tolkien, non-D&D fantasy from P:E.

 

The game as it is shaping up is very traditional though, and the class roster fits exactly into the D&D mold with these two exceptions. Including monks, barbarians, and rangers and not including paladins feels... I'm not going to say arbitrary, because we don't know the mechanics well enough yet, but certainly whimsical.

 

Or in other words, novelty and innovation should be found in how these old traditional classes are represented, not in which are included and which are not.

 

There is a certain mindset amongst certain players that Paladins are a useless, pointless, stupid class. Usually amongst players of rogues or necromancers, or generally evil aligned players... or players who hate alignment.

 

"Lawful stupid" I'm sure you've heard before.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that people prefer new, innovative things to what we've seen before. I felt the same and hoped for non-traditional, non-Tolkien, non-D&D fantasy from P:E.

 

The game as it is shaping up is very traditional though, and the class roster fits exactly into the D&D mold with these two exceptions. Including monks, barbarians, and rangers and not including paladins feels... I'm not going to say arbitrary, because we don't know the mechanics well enough yet, but certainly whimsical.

 

Or in other words, novelty and innovation should be found in how these old traditional classes are represented, not in which are included and which are not.

 

There is a certain mindset amongst certain players that Paladins are a useless, pointless, stupid class. Usually amongst players of rogues or necromancers, or generally evil aligned players... or players who hate alignment.

 

"Lawful stupid" I'm sure you've heard before.

Lawful Stupid is a player, not a class. Paladins aren't Lawful Stupid. Spectacularly bad Paladin players can be.
  • Like 1
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculing someone for their opinion is just silly, paladin is a valid desire for any player to have. The argument that it is just a warrior priest doesn't really hold any weight considering we could just as easily say the Barbarian is a low armored warrior. No reason why the Warrior class couldn't just have a Barbarian subcategory with its own set of skills. As it stands it seems we can make warrior wizards if we want so why one class is allowed as a class and another isn't really is just a matter of opinion and what the devs want to do themselves.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not ask something original instead of completing D&D roster? No, really.

 

That boat has sailed. The D&D roster we have. Nothing is going to make this roster look original now. Novelty will have to be found elsewhere, therefore judging classes on whether or not they are new is futile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were asked if we wanted a classic IE like game in the spirit of BG, IWd and torment. Paladins and Bards were in those games why shouldn't we have that?

 

We are getting psionics and gunpowder both of which I feel are controversial additions and not part of typical classic fantasy game. So I don't think it's too much to ask to have these classes. Some people want new and that's fine but we were asked to back a CLASSIC game from day 1 no one should be this surprised that someone would want the classic classes in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever even said it has to be the classical paladin copy? Paladin-like? Yes.

 

DAO Templars were kinda like that.

You can technicly have an Order that trains you..and if you do things the Order deems as unworthy (and cannot adequatly defend your action) you are kicked out.

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever even said it has to be the classical paladin copy? Paladin-like? Yes.

 

DAO Templars were kinda like that.

You can technicly have an Order that trains you..and if you do things the Order deems as unworthy (and cannot adequatly defend your action) you are kicked out.

 

So...couldn't you technically have a "paladin" by having a fighter who (assuming backgrounds are in) was raised/trained/joined an Order of Paladins in the society? This would give you a "paladin" without being a new class and one that they could build some reactivity to the character (quests, faction ratings based on how the order is perceived, etc.).

 

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.

 

i've wanted to see Bards who were like wizards but their instrument was their focus and thus the instrument dictated the things they could and couldn't do with magical energy in combat. Then make them good talkers and information gatherers outside of combat.

Edited by Amentep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 Cents:

 

Bards:I am cool with BARDIC SKILLS anyone could learn.. If you wanna strum a lyre outside of combat, go for it. You wanna have a bunch of lore, cool. In combat, put away the maracas and pull out a sword.

 

Paladins: They are just fighter clerics. Sorry, its true. If they do not want to put in multiclasses, I am fine with them being put in. I would rather have multiclasses though. Honestly, any class can be a "Paladin." Look at Mazzy in BG2. She was just a fighter but, honestly, she was a paladin. Create an in game order of X god. Do quests for said order and you are in and the god likes you. Do stuff X god wouldn't like and you are out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...