Subclasses, Barbarians, Paladins and backgrounds

[Vargr]

I'd rather there were fewer classes and more feats so that you could just choose to give your fighter barbarian-type abilities.

 

That's a preference I'd have as well. As long as the world reacts to you as a Barbarian or whatever.

 

What's the point in having different classes/titles if no NPC's recognize it? I hope we get that in PE.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crom the Barbarinator approaches the City Gates, and the guard eyes his furs and rugged appearance with a smirk.

 

"Ho, what have we got here? Looks like one of them savages from the mountains. What brings you to the civilized world? Looking for a woman?

Heh-heh, tired of shagging goa-..."

 

*Crom the Barbarinator splits the guard's skull with his axe and has to escape from a large group of Guardsmen who witnessed the deed*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Adhin]

Psions don't use 'spells' and if you need a destinction I'd imagine that would be it. Mages need books and cast times and all that - Psions do 'not'. It's all mental, its all instant more or less. As long as they can focus there mind they can make **** happen. So if your looking for a 'difference' that would be it. I mean if you wanna go that route, even fighters are 'mages' to you in this since they use there soul to fuel there powers too. Which would kinda make everyone a mage, except no... its about how they do it, not that they can.

 

Mages have books, cast times and whatnot. Priest will probably also have casts times but that'll be based around 'rites' and passages and all that ritual religous stuff. Ciphers probably wont have any cast times and it'll be entirely mental like a Psion. That's 3 very destinct ways to handling it. This is like people saying barbs are identical to fighters, buncha bull****. Unimaginative bull****.

 

As for paladin or whatever that should be part of an organization you join as far as im concerned. Like ya said, tie it to something lore wise. I think that'd make it more interesting at least. Have the ability to join something early game, earn that type of title, maybe have it come with some special abilities seperate from your class. Paladins one of those things I like having in the world but I personally never play and, ultimately feel it needs to be tied more to the world then other classes but never really is... so, something like that'd be nice to me at least.

[FlintlockJazz]

I agree with others who say that Paladins and barbarians are pretty much specialisations of fighter class, and also that sub-classes are not really needed. I'll repeat the example I gave in another thread in which they were asking for new classes like a Knight class: what is a knight but a fighter with social skills wearing plate? I'd say make paladin-like skill tree for fighters to specialise in instead.

 

What could be interesting however is perhaps something like the history feats in NWN2 which could be used to distinguish whether your fighter is a high class noble paladin or blackguard for those who meet him, and maybe have the skill trees require the feat in order to unlock them (perhaps even making some mutually exclusive, so if you take the paladin feat you can't take the Blackguard feat for example). Not sure whether it would be good to require you to take it at character creation or let you gain them in play though, if you're meant to define your character with them then it could get silly for people to go around 'collecting' them, but on the other hand entering an order that unlocks a set of skills could be fun. Perhaps a mixture, so if you want barbarian you have to take it at character creation (to reflect that it's something you are born to) but you can gain paladin later?

 

Another bad idea of mine is to make a change to the faction rep system used in games: instead of gaining rep with one single faction you have different reputation 'bars' for different kinds of actions, so if you are nice to people you gain 'nice guy' rep points and if you are just you gain 'chivalric' rep points, and the reactions of factions towards you are determined by what combination of different reputations they value instead of just one bar for them (so you could actually gain reputation for them without actually working for them if you behave in a way they approve). This could then determine whether you are a 'paladin' or a 'blackguard' by the way you act.

[FlintlockJazz]

Guess my ideas were so bad it killed the thread...

[Adhin]

Well... I don't agree with anything you posted if that helps? You can't just be a paladin or a barbarian with a single 'background feat'. That's like saying you changed your life because you put on a special button with a fansy logo on them. Each class is, in its self, a background of your past training (weather that's acedemic or not) and, ultimately, your characters way of life. It's how they live, its what they 'do'. Paladin is a good example of that, they're existence is based around there ideals and all that non-sense. You don't just tag that into a background thing about how you grew up as a kid and that somehow determines the next 20 levels of bonus skills you get cuase you where 'nice' as a kid.

 

I get where folks are coming from in relation to saying Paladin or Barbarian is just a 'specialized' fighter or warrior but that's kinda everything if you want to boil it down to basics. Everythings just another specialized or 'different' version of a Warrior, Rogue, or Mage. Priests are just another form of a mage. All comes down to what I just said though, it's there way of life, its how they go about living. Priest is religous in a super heavy way. They pray, hate rituals, rites, all that stuff. Mages generally don't, and if you play a religous mage the 2 things are going to be separate showing the difference with the class choice.

 

Ultimately why I don't like calling a Barbarian a specialization, and why I think a Paladin should be more of a PrC in DnD terms, though I could see how someone would grow up in an organization and be groomed to be a paladin that way thus making a lvl 1 paladin making some sense. Though, really, that's not how they describe em in 3E anymore, as they're not tied to 'any' organization or god.

 

Anyway point still stands, you can't define an entire persons life with how they lived up till they where 18. Definitely adds more flavor and gives insight to how they got to where they where or why they're how they are 'now' (at whatver age/lvl) but it doesn't define who they are like a class does. And throwing a 'rage kit' onto a Warrior does not a Barbarian make. Although you still get that play style to some extent.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Or vice versa, happy rabbit. I'm in awe! Your great ideas, coupled with others in this thread, are interesting and I'm sure Obsidian take some of them to heart. What constitute a class? OE said that they wanted classes back because they are more than just the sum of repetitive practice (like in Skyrim). But barbarian really needs a makeover to become a unique class in its own right. I'd say paladin would be a bit closer to a class, but still...

 

And yes, Ciphers' psionics are something else than spells from a grimoire. And in my mind I wish there was a necromancer class (my pet peeve) that is not a subclass of wizards. I want to go all out on the pale master vibe from D&D 3 ed. I want a necromancer with one foot in the grave, a necormancer who is partly in a state of decay or even outright undead later on. Running around with a skellie just don't cut it. It shall be someone who've read the wrong books and entered a twilight zone they never can escape from. A necromancer is never cold, but soon daylight wears heavily upon his or her very constitution. Well, and so forth.

Edited October 9, 2012 by IndiraLightfoot

[Adhin]

You and me both Indira, I LOVE necromancer stuff. And druids, and barbs... its my 3 main I guess heh. Was actually something that always semi bugged me about DnD was Clerics are the best necromancers and Mages kinda make half-assed ones but get the title for it. Was always mildly confused by that but i guess its a bit closer to are reals-life myth stuff with the occult and raising the dead and it all being ritualistic blah blah.

 

The whole palemaster thing with replacing there organs with mummified variants so they become immune to all manner of stuff. Replace a limb with an undead variant to gain supernatural powers over the undead? Ehh... yes please?

[IndiraLightfoot]

True, I don't know why but i couldn't get enough it. I've played quite a few pale masters, and they were certainly not the best class, but it was like an embryotic dream for something even greater. I think Obsidian has the chance of making our dream come true: A cool necromancer class that can match druids anyday (and those are already a smashing bunch, I agree).

[Adhin]

I also always tried to turn 3E Warlocks into what amounted to necromancers too. Granted it was just animate dead but being able to do that with out any reagent, an unlimited times per day, every round. I mean you could literally raise 2 skeletons every round given they where close enough to eachother. Granted you didn't get the snazzy palemaster 'becoming undead' with out going full lich (which didn't extent your life span at all, funnily enough) but that class had some nice stuff I liked using to turn em into a necromancer-like thing. Actually did that with any clerics I made too, course they where overly good at it being... clerics, meh.

 

I doubt we'll get its own class but regardless of it we do I pray they have a whole line of necromancer oriented spells. I'd love to fill up my grimoir with Necromantic spells, raise the dead, get some gropin' ghouls touch stuff going on. All that good stuff.

[FlintlockJazz]

Interesting stuff, I'm on my phone atm so will hold off on writing a full response until I get home when I'll be able to write a clearer response but I agree Adhin being a paladin should be important and my history feat idea is actually intended to make it so I'll try to write a better explanation later.

[Gyor]

Berserker not a subclass to fighter? It was a fighter kit in BG2, as far as I can recall.

A berserker, in my own very personal opinion, is a fighter with a twist. A fighter with some, I'd say, shamanistic powers.

 

As for the Paladin...

 

I'd rather not see Paladins in PE. At least not by that name. Call them something else, unique to the Eternity world, if they must be in.

I'd say priests, no matter what, are not primarily trained to fight with weapons. I'd say they take the role of a medium more, channeling the divine

powers through their body to heal, or banish demons or whatever, whereas Paladins are imbued with the Holy power to strengthen their martial abilities

against the evil powers. I dunno, something like that. Paladins being the soldiers of their faith. Or something...

 

 

Regardless, this thread isn't so much about what subclasses to include, but rather about the system I'm suggesting.

The system would work for some subclasses, but others might be a bit of a stretch, and would probably be better off with their own main class.

 

 

 

The whole point would be that you'd gain these extra abilities and restrictions, and NPC's and the world would recognize it and comment on it, where applicable.

 

Think of it as the kits from BG2, only woven through the world and narrative instead. Or a bit like the guilds from TES.

 

I agree the holy knight archtype should be called something different then Paladin and Alignment restrictions removed.

 

An idea to help make it different from priests instead of using faith to draw magic from the soul a Paladin has a second, none mortal soul, a celetrial or infernal soul that manifests as a sword or mount and most of his divine magic manifests via his second holy soul instead by spells.

[FlintlockJazz]

Right-o, off my phone and on my actual PC now. When I mentioned fighters requiring a feat to unlock the paladin stuff I was thinking it was something they either had to start with (and so it would be like starting as paladin anyway, a fallen paladin becomes a fighter after all, so it would be like a specialisation) or having to 'earn' it by behaving in a just and paladin-like way so that you could join a paladin order that would give you the feat, hence why I went on about different kinds of reputation later on. In my mind the paladin would have to continue acting in a paladin like way or else the order would strip his paladin status from him and refuse to train him any more. Does this sound good? Or rubbish? The need for more reputation meters would probably get confusing unfortunately and might be a bit much however, not too sure on it myself. I'm guessing it's the lack of alignment system that I reckon they might not be doing paladins, since you no longer have a meter there for the paladin to fail on.

 

As to whether priests could be paladins: while priests in a lot of games are portrayed as scholarly squishes who just heal, the clerics in DnD were actually more combat focused and I believe inspired as templars rather than vicars with spells that buffed themselves up for combat and the like, and so I have always seen the line between paladin and cleric as a bit blurry: the paladins kinda usurped the cleric's role as a battle-caster with a more martial bent. In fact, I always saw the paladin as a mash up between two different classes: the zealous crusader priest and the chivalrous knight. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing them split up, getting a knight class or specialisation and a 'crusader' type whose a martial priest.

[IndiraLightfoot]

It will be interesting to see if OE does release paladin as a stretch goal, coz then they would need to really make it a class on its own, free from the reigns of D&D and other RPGs. Perhaps a paladin has forged a bond with a certain god that guides his hand in smiting and even imbuing the paladin's soul in her/his holy weapon, and so forth. You know, a black guard would be like a knight selling her/his soul to the devil/evil god/whatnot and a palid has "sold" his soul to a good and lawful god. Something like that.

[Kai]

Aaaaand paladins are in at 2.7 million

[happyelf]

Dumping a bunch of weapon using clases into subclasses would just lead to interesting concepts being given less time than they deserve. It's not only spellcasters that should be given a lot of time and care in their design. One of the weaknesses of older versions of DnD is how little support warrior-type classes are given compared to primary spellcasters- PE shouldn't repeat that mistake.

[JediMB]

EDIT: Moving this post to the primary Paladin and Bard thread.

Edited October 10, 2012 by JediMB

[FlintlockJazz]

Aaaaand paladins are in at 2.7 million

 

And just like that they shatter all my theorycrafting. All for the best, I was pulling most of it out of my arse. :D

[Vargr]

Hehe!

 

Had a feeling they'd be added as a stretchgoal.

 

Oh well, at least they're sort of different. I approve of the heavier focus on leadership and commands.

 

 

Still wish they might have picked a different name, but oh well. Same with Barbarians whom I think should be called Berserkers.

It's all semantics and a minor issue.

[FlintlockJazz]

Hehe!

 

Had a feeling they'd be added as a stretchgoal.

 

Oh well, at least they're sort of different. I approve of the heavier focus on leadership and commands.

 

 

Still wish they might have picked a different name, but oh well. Same with Barbarians whom I think should be called Berserkers.

It's all semantics and a minor issue.

 

Totally agree, calling them something like knights might have been better, though I must admit I do like the name Paladin and knight might already be in use as a social status (but then barbarian is already in use by actual barbarians who might not have the class...).