Paladins and Bards

[Amentep]

Now I want to play a Bard who says something like "Beware evil doers, or I shall SHAKE MY MARACAS AT YOU!"...

[Tale]

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?

Torment didn't have Bards. And the one Paladin in it was evil. It specifically avoided or defied many tropes.

[Sarog]

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.).

 

If we knew that was in the game, it would certainly make the absence of a paladin class less of a disappointment.

 

I would still be let down if traditional paladin class mechanics of auras and immunities weren't present and available to a plate-wearing melee specialist. Being an armored, clerical spellcaster is not the same.

[NerdBoner]

always hated paladins and kill them on principle...with Bards it strictly depends on usefulness and personality.

 

would i want the team to waste resources implementing yet another warrior class when there are already 4? No way.

 

 

but i can see bards fiting nicely into the setting seeing as music, truly inspired music, can be said to come from the soul.

[Ink Blot]

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 really enjoyed the Bard in IWD, but I freaking loved them in the NWN series, where I could build them with a splash of Fighter levels and thus use them as a warrior. My absolute favorite class in the NWN games. I always pictured them as more of a skald with warrior training who would participate in the battles, then immortalize the fallen in verse and entertain the survivors with tales of blood, glory, and great deeds.

 

Badass. My instrument is my blade and it will inflict songs of pain and woe upon my foe! None of this 'stand in the background in my tights and whistle a jaunty tune' crap.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ink Blot

[AlphaShard]

Threads like this:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61051-luxury-for-evil/

 

Is why I am so passionate and insistent on being allowed to have a Paladin. If people are allowed to play as evil I would appreciate being allowed to continue playing as Good. Lately it feels like games (Ie: Skyrim) make it far to easy to play as a total evil sob. Part of the fun of those classic IE games was being allowed to be good and evil. I realize they dropped alignment for reputation but that's not going to change people wanting to play good or evil.

[dlux]

would i want the team to waste resources implementing yet another warrior class when there are already 4? No way.

 

Well, then maybe Obsidian should remove all of the classes except for the fighters, mages, clerics and rougues. Like you said, new classes are just a waste of resources. ^^

[Kawento]

I don't see the need for any of them. I think it would be more interesting if paladin was a title that fighters or clerics could earn doing quests for an order or temple. Maybe even reward that title with some especial powers. The bard could be implanted in a similar way, not selecting that class from the beginning, but earning it trough roleplaying.

[Ink Blot]

I don't see the need for any of them. I think it would be more interesting if paladin was a title that fighters or clerics could earn doing quests for an order or temple. Maybe even reward that title with some especial powers. The bard could be implanted in a similar way, not selecting that class from the beginning, but earning it trough roleplaying.

 

Yeah, as much as I'd love to see a separate Bard class, I'll be completely happy if I can play one of the other classes and have enough options to build it out as a Bardish type character.

[Luckmann]

I voted yes on both, but honestly, I'd prefer just something Paladin-like. Like the Knights I've suggested, as the main fighting class(es).

 

And bloody hell, yes, we need bards.

[anek]

Haven't Obsidian stated somewhere that classes won't be as restrictive when it comes to combat and non-combat abilities, as they were in D&D?

 

Meaning the class gives the general direction, but you still have a lot of freedom for how to develop the character.

 

With that in mind, what Paladin features exactly do the Paladin fans think cannot be accomplished by starting with a fighter, and simply specializing and role-playing him/her as something similar to a D&D Paladin? What is it that would require a separate class from the start?

Edited October 4, 2012 by anek

[Dawn_]

I'd rather see bards than paladins..I don't really like the thought behind the paladin which is more a fanatic warrior of its religion than another thing..

 

I'd like to see an engineer (the portrait of the girl with a rifle..made me hyped lol) class but i might be the only one loving Arcanum and its technologic side..

Edited October 4, 2012 by Dawn_

[general_azure]

Threads like this:

 

http://forums.obsidi...uxury-for-evil/

 

Is why I am so passionate and insistent on being allowed to have a Paladin. If people are allowed to play as evil I would appreciate being allowed to continue playing as Good. Lately it feels like games (Ie: Skyrim) make it far to easy to play as a total evil sob. Part of the fun of those classic IE games was being allowed to be good and evil. I realize they dropped alignment for reputation but that's not going to change people wanting to play good or evil.

 

You sound as if only paladins are allowed to be good guys... which is a very paladin-ish point of view, I guess. It's not as if the evil guys got some exclusive class either. There ain't no blackguards, deathknights or necromancers or whatever in this game so far.

[dlux]

Threads like this:

 

http://forums.obsidi...uxury-for-evil/

 

Is why I am so passionate and insistent on being allowed to have a Paladin. If people are allowed to play as evil I would appreciate being allowed to continue playing as Good. Lately it feels like games (Ie: Skyrim) make it far to easy to play as a total evil sob. Part of the fun of those classic IE games was being allowed to be good and evil. I realize they dropped alignment for reputation but that's not going to change people wanting to play good or evil.

 

You sound as if only paladins are allowed to be good guys... which is a very paladin-ish point of view, I guess. It's not as if the evil guys got some exclusive class either. There ain't no blackguards, deathknights or necromancers or whatever in this game so far.

Paladins do not have to be lawfully good characters - you can have evil paladins (fallen paladins for example) as well.

 

Check the D&D 4th edition for examples.

Edited October 4, 2012 by dlux

[Monte Carlo]

Paladins should be exemplars of their faith, be they 'good' or 'evil.' In my D&D campaign (3E) all lawful characters could become paladins.

 

Let us assume that the P:E campaign world might not suit the class.

 

Let me reiterate, I quite like the paladin as a class (although I'd go hardcore and implement the 1E AD&D style limits on material possessions a paladin is allowed to own).

[Milten]

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.

I don't buy this logic. It's like saying that if there are pigs with number 1, 2, 4 there should be pig with number 3.

Classic class roster will only highlight original classes.

[Plasma Jesus]

I really do love the paladin class, but it kinda sounds like you can play a fighter or such as one and should that be the case I would be completely fine with it. As for bards, they're pretty cool but if I had to choose, paladin all the way.

[AlphaShard]

That is true General azure, which is why I mentioned Skyrim the whole game seemed geared toward evil and neutral game paths that I want a game to feature an unquestionable good.

 

With out alignment will make this very different but I still think Paladin is a class that is worth it.

[general_azure]

Yeah, skyrim was quite hard on those shiney knight types. As a fighter, you were basically forced to become a common mercenary (and werewolf to boot), since the imperial legion didn't recruit like they did in morrowind. And neither did the temple.

 

But I think that's more an oversight in faction diversity and quest design, not something that can only be solved by adding a specific class.

 

@dlux: I know, but he specifically asked for a character to play as a good and heroic type and fallen paladins don't really help with that =P

[Tauron]

A paladin is NOT a priest or cleric, not at all. They might share a comparable gameplay but contentswise they are very different. Or would you say that a druid is the same as a cleric because they share common spells (in D&D at least)? I wouldn't say so. Playing RPGs is as much about imagination as it is about gameplay.

 

*wimp mode on* So I won't raise my pledge any more until there is confimation that you can play as paladin (at least as a serious sub-class of the fighter class)! */wimp mode off*

 

Acually a druid is a cleric of sorts. What is the difference, something D&D has chosen it makes more sense in their setting? That is ok, but PE doesnt have to follow those definitions. Paladin is a fighter...a fighter with a fancy Title. Given to him by some church authority that he/she serves. I dont think it should be a class on it's own. Paladin is fighter for his faith. Rather than make it's own class, if anything it should be specialisation sort of. RP wise, your fighter can be paladin if he chooses what diety to worship. That's it. Fighter/Warrior/Soldier geting Paladin title should be after being recruted by some religious order or just have that specialisation if you as player choose to follow rules of some order of some deity that you think would be interesting to RP and if you think skills, style is worth pursuing.

 

 

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.

 

I agree. No ridicule. I agree on Barabrian, it is more or less what you imply. It should be subcategory, call it specialisation or focus. Reflecting fighting style of those people, so called civilised society considers "barbarians".

 

Personally I think devs should concentrate on four archtypes and depending on character development, give us option to gain additional title. Let's say you want to be Paladin, sure...choose deity and order you want to follow, depending on those you gain additional skills, abilities asociated with that path you take.

[dlux]

Paladin is a fighter...a fighter with a fancy Title. Given to him by some church authority that he/she serves.

Paladins are also divine spell casters and use auras in addition to being very good fighters.

[Merin]

Paladin is a fighter...a fighter with a fancy Title. Given to him by some church authority that he/she serves.

Paladins are also divine spell casters and use auras in addition to being very good fighters.

 

Barbarians are fighters with clothing issues and anger management problems.

 

Druids are tree-hugging clerics.

 

Rogues are light-armored fighters who prefer flanking, stealing and ducking behind corners.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Merin

[Shevek]

I think its easier to reduce a Paladin with respect to this game because his main thing is largely tied to a roleplayed code which he can fall from. The code is entirely alignment based and there is no alignment in this game. Devs have stated they will avoid truly "good" or "evil" choices and instead present us with the soup of moral relativism. How the heck can you have a Paladin who falls when he does "bad" things with that design? It just doesn't work. The player's motivation could compelling be stated to "find" good in the sea of grey but I don't buy it. It would completely trivialize this game's direction with respect to alignment to have some Paladin sit on his high horse declaring this holy and that blasphemy.

 

Ultimately, the code must go in PE. If you take away the code (and therefore the chance to fall), all you have is a fighter cleric that has a glowy aura.

 

Honestly, even with the code, the viabilty of the Paladin class is, I think, debateable. Without it, there is just no point at all whatsoever for the class. It does not fit the setting one iota.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Shevek

[Tauron]

Paladin is a fighter...a fighter with a fancy Title. Given to him by some church authority that he/she serves.

Paladins are also divine spell casters and use auras in addition to being very good fighters.

 

Yes and it just makes more valid arguments for Priest = Battle/Fighter Priest = Paladin. You can even Fighter = Battle Priest = Paladin. It all depends how you choose to progress your class and what is your skill focus. I think that if devs take this path, makes it so much more rewarding playing your chosen class. I am not arguing against Paladin or Bard or Monk. Just how devs intend to implement them in the setting. Have 100 classes of their own for all I care if they can be built upon, both RP wise and just practically.

 

Having mage class, than next to him having elemetalist caster, than shadow magic caster, than pyromancer caster or whatever...it makes little sense. It is same thing, just specialisation is different. Have starting class mage or " magic caster" and than develop and mold that character how you desire. Either skill wise or simply as you lvl you get option you can choose from. If you are evil, obviously you cant be Paladin, so buhu for being thug and killing people. I hope you understand my rant..my english is limited.

[Rasmudd]

I voted no, not because I don't like the classes but more that I'd rather have them have the bare essential classes and focus more on fleshing them out and getting good specifics and stuff in game. The more classes you add the more you dilute the game. But I have no idea how they budget this so might not be such a big deal to get in the classes proper, but I'd much rather have one well made area than paladins.