Do you like PE Paladin class concept?

[Merlkir]

Let's see, a warlord is a lord (title) who presumably commands groups of men in war. How does one choose this class on lvl 1? Sword master? Oh yeah, I'm a lvl 1 sword master! Check out my mastery. I can't use an axe though, I am a SWORD master. Oh hai, I'm the Chosen One, lvl 1. My skills are... wait, almost got it...

 

Each player is the Chosen One, ding ding. Not a class.

 

Pretorian? Oh sure, let's have a lvl1 pretorian. Yes, I am the bodyguard of the Roman emperor! In this fantasy land, without and emperor. Or Romans. And my skills are...wearing helmets with feather crests?

 

A warrior/fighter is a very basic, yet almost perfect class. It describes a wide enough range of possibilities while still keeping it real in one aspect of play - fighting. I can choose a weapon style which I prefer, but whatever I choose, I'm going to be doing the close up fighting, that's what I do.

 

The paladin as you describe is the poorly designed class, not the fighter. Paladin is the douchebag who comes to the party late, is pretty much a fighter already, but ALSO has some magical powers. Like, wow, dude fighter, why can't you heal yourself? I guess you haven't been crusading nearly enough, eh? Like, whatever, man, you suck.

 

If anything, this kind of paladin should be a subclass of Fighter, or a fighter/priest multiclass, whatever.

 

Nooo, you feel the need to complain about the basic functional class being too similar to parts of your nonsensical made up class. Classy.

 

"Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat." is nowadays considered an accurate description of a class

 

That's because it IS an accurate description of a class. Of course everyone can fight, but that's not their specialization. And if they fight a lot, but have other powers and traits, they usually aren't as good in fighting alone as the pure fighters, or their class is a subclass/multiclass of the fighter.

 

It's an abstraction of what characters do and how they develop their skills. Your suggestions are empty words with real world meaning which you think sound cool, but which don't really work as game classes if you think about it for a moment.

[ArkhanTheBlack]

Let's see, a warlord is a lord (title) who presumably commands groups of men in war. How does one choose this class on lvl 1? Sword master? Oh yeah, I'm a lvl 1 sword master! Check out my mastery. I can't use an axe though, I am a SWORD master. Oh hai, I'm the Chosen One, lvl 1. My skills are... wait, almost got it...

 

Each player is the Chosen One, ding ding. Not a class.

 

Pretorian? Oh sure, let's have a lvl1 pretorian. Yes, I am the bodyguard of the Roman emperor! In this fantasy land, without and emperor. Or Romans. And my skills are...wearing helmets with feather crests?

And what about it? Persian 'Immortals', roman 'Pretorians' or medieval 'Knights' were mostly just the rich class of warriors. No special skills, just higher social standing and special education and equipment. And pretty much all mage/priest classes are restricted classes and far from normal. Even in classic high fantasy worls spell casting powers are NOT normal. Even a pretorian, sword master, whatever would be Joe Normal² in comparison to a mage class. Therefore the whole concept of making normal classes like fighter equal to special classes like mage is complete nonsense.

 

warrior/fighter is a very basic, yet almost perfect class. It describes a wide enough range of possibilities while still keeping it real in one aspect of play - fighting. I can choose a weapon style which I prefer, but whatever I choose, I'm going to be doing the close up fighting, that's what I do.

Well okay, then the consequences should be that you're just 'normal'. Therefore no super human powers, no killing of big monsters and dragons. You meet more than two opponents means you're most likely dead. You're hit by a fire ball you're dead. You're going against a mage, you're most likely dead except you try to shoot him with a bow before he casts a spell.

 

If anything, this kind of paladin should be a subclass of Fighter, or a fighter/priest multiclass, whatever.

Yes, that's something I can agree with. A Paladin is pretty much a 'chosen' warrior.

 

Nooo, you feel the need to complain about the basic functional class being too similar to parts of your nonsensical made up class. Classy.

Yes, since I'm one of the rare people who thinks there should be some common sense in a fantasy world.

 

That's because it IS an accurate description of a class. Of course everyone can fight, but that's not their specialization.

Your second sentence has the opposite meaning of your first sentence. You're aware of that?!

 

Your suggestions are empty words with real world meaning which you think sound cool, but which don't really work as game classes if you think about it for a moment.

Since you obviously think fighters are just as 'normal' as mages I think it's you who didn't think things through.

It would also be nice if you could discuss things without insulting others like a kid. It's okay to have a different opinion, but I'd like to keep the discussion 'civilized' if you understand the meaning of that.

Edited January 13, 2013 by ArkhanTheBlack

[Merlkir]

You dislike the fact there is a fighter class. But it is and has to be, if there is to be any design in our hypothetical game at all.

 

What is a class? Usually, a class is a package of skills and spells grouped under an archetype. That archetype is based on both common sense (and design convenience) and fluff specific to the setting.

 

what do characters usually do? They fight. They cast spells. This is why the "fighter" and "caster" are the two most basic archetypes ever. You can add "thief" for sneaking, traps and all that as well.

 

In a game I've been on the design team of, we approached it like this:

 

- classes are packages of skills. Most of the actions grouped as typical under each class can be attempted and performed by anyone. But characters with levels in the class do generally better than everyone else, they don't have to be so lucky to succeed. Plus they get certain special skills that nobody else has.

- fighter is one of those classes/packages, naturally. And this does exactly what you're saying - everyone can fight. In this system, everyone can fight as well as any other without levels in Fighter. If they take levels in Fighter, they're better at it, it's what they do.

- It's what they do, among other things. We don't have a paladin class. If you want, you can create a paladin character, but he won't be defined by having a paladin class. He'd be a dude with some levels in Fighter, some levels in Medicus and some levels in Conjurer. Thus he has fighting, healing and magic, voila - a Paladin.

 

Now PE and the IE games don't have this flexibility. They have multiclass, but it's slightly different and doesn't allow for this type of roleplaying.

 

If you did what you're proposing - "everyone can fight, so why a fighter class? Let's make ALL unique classes which have some fighting and other stuff!", you're limiting my options. What if I want to play a fighting dude, but don't want any magic? What if I don't want to be a high born warlord? These are more suited for backgrounds, personality traits and so on, that's roleplaying closely tied with every individual character and fluff of the setting.

 

I can do this on my own, I don't need a class to do it for me. If you create unique classes with this little difference, you have to make many to satisfy the wide variety of players.

 

Some prefer a more general class like "fighter" or "mage". And there's nothing that makes "mage" an abnormal class which is more validated to be in game than a "normal" fighter. A mage is just as broad a concept as a fighter, yet you see it somehow as more specialized, just because you come across fighters more often in the world.

 

Well, why have specialized magical classes then?

 

As far as I understand you, you'd like everyone to be a wonderfully unique butterfly and remove the boring basic warrior class just...because it seems pointless to you. Gee, how nice of you to limit my options by inventing nonsensical replacement classes such as "pretorian".

 

The basic classes have been a constant in RPGs for a reason. You're not starting the game with a demigod, you have to start somewhere you can progress from.

That's why in many games paladins and other magical warriors are an evolution class of the fighter. However, in a rigid system like the IE games and what PE will presumably have, it's a challenge to the designers to create a fighter class with reasonable and real progression from lvl 1 to the top.

 

Yes, some games give fighters abilities which end up seeming pretty magical. Well, that's why it's a challenge.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Merlkir

[ArkhanTheBlack]

Some prefer a more general class like "fighter" or "mage". And there's nothing that makes "mage" an abnormal class which is more validated to be in game than a "normal" fighter. A mage is just as broad a concept as a fighter, yet you see it somehow as more specialized, just because you come across fighters more often in the world.

I think that's they key difference in our opinions. The typical mage archetype goes pretty much back to Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. However, a wizard in Lord of the Rings is a super human being far beyond human powers. While certainly not every mage in fantasy RPG's have the powers of a Gandalf or Saruman, they are still exceptional. I think most people would agree that in a typical fantasy world an army of 1000 soldiers backed by 20 mages sounds kind of plausible. Even in D&D a mage is special. Even a simple farmer, bandit, etc. can use weapons, but I've rarly seen simple farmers and bandits casting spells. So, in principal not the fighter class is broken, the mage class is.

I'm not the biggest fan of Dragon Age, but they were at least aware of exactly this problem. Their whole templar class needs lyrium to be able to keep up with the mages. Basic fighters are clearly not equal to mages in Dragon Age. Mages are considered extremely dangerous beings. Bioware really showed some brain power here. Though the excecution was sometimes pretty poor with human fighter 'bosses' having more hit points than an Imperial Super Star Destroyer. Sometimes I could only shake my had because the combat situations got simply too rediculous.

 

The basic classes have been a constant in RPGs for a reason. You're not starting the game with a demigod, you have to start somewhere you can progress from.

That's why in many games paladins and other magical warriors are an evolution class of the fighter.

Yes, I think that's the way it should be. I never played Everquest 2, but I think they have a very logical class concept. You start with simple base classes like fighter, rogue, mage and priest which can then evolve to more specialized and powerful classes like Paladin, Assassin etc. which also require certain prerequisites that have to be fullfilled. Though mage class is still too high in my opinion, they should start with adept, alchemist or something like that. D&D also tried something like that with the prestige classes, but since you don't have to choose them to get more powerful I still consider it flawed. A level 20+ fighter is still almost a demi god without any explanation why. But the same logic flaw applies to all non magic classes, so it's not a fighter specific problem.

 

I think my current conclusion to the PE class system ist that the classes are too uneven. Paladin should be a figher class specialisation and the mage classes should evolve from priest/alchemist/adept base classes.

Edited January 13, 2013 by ArkhanTheBlack

[Gavinfoxx]

Actually, Gandlalf is more of a Paladin. Seriously. He has a magic horse, he fights with a sword, he inspires those around him, he very rarely does extremely minor magic...

[Merlkir]

Well, we agree there then. I'm curious to see how it ends up in PE, because I have some faith in OBS's experience and design skill. I hope they surprise us with something very playable.

 

I do prefer other class systems though, yes.

 

Actually, Gandlalf is more of a Paladin. Seriously. He has a magic horse, he fights with a sword, he inspires those around him, he very rarely does extremely minor magic...

 

Hmmm, kind of. Gandalf is definitely a paladin-like character, a representative of a divine power wielding a shiny sword. Funny how that works, eh?

 

It'd be quite fun to stat him up in our system. Something like Conjurer (not of cheap tricks!) - 4, Fighter - 2, Medicus - 3...

 

And yet he represents the visual image of a wizard archetype. Heh.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Merlkir

[Tamerlane]

I'm cool with the new paladins. If I want to play a D&D-style paladin, I'll roll up a priest. Simple as that.

[Tauron]

Well, we agree there then. I'm curious to see how it ends up in PE, because I have some faith in OBS's experience and design skill. I hope they surprise us with something very playable.

 

I do prefer other class systems though, yes.

 

Actually, Gandlalf is more of a Paladin. Seriously. He has a magic horse, he fights with a sword, he inspires those around him, he very rarely does extremely minor magic...

 

Hmmm, kind of. Gandalf is definitely a paladin-like character, a representative of a divine power wielding a shiny sword. Funny how that works, eh?

 

It'd be quite fun to stat him up in our system. Something like Conjurer (not of cheap tricks!) - 4, Fighter - 2, Medicus - 3...

 

And yet he represents the visual image of a wizard archetype. Heh.

 

He is not human at all, he and other istari just took appearances of elderly men. But that was remarkable observation. Gandalf and other istari are from "beyond" sendt out as representativs and guardians. They are lesser Vala or lesser Maia, like Sauron, wich make their powers divine in nature. Never thought it that way, just magics is magics. Gandalf, whn he was resurrected by Eru and became Gandalf the White, is more of a leader, Paladin figure, than he was a wizard. Funny indeed.

[Gavinfoxx]

So he's, in D&D terms, a Solar who chooses to limit his capabilities to that of a Level 6 Aasimar Paladin. Or something like that.

[NerdBoner]

Meh...Fallout did it best.

 

No classes, just skills and abilities you learn and develop along the way as you adventure plus the ones you choose upon chaeacter creation. It really is the best approach...for those that want titles, let them earn those titles through accomplishments in-game or through some hereditary backstory.

[Merlkir]

That is exactly the dreaded "class system vs. skill system" dispute which has been going on for ever and ever on every RPG forum. Ever. Rather unlikely to be cracked here, I reckon.

[ArkhanTheBlack]

No classes, just skills and abilities you learn and develop along the way as you adventure plus the ones you choose upon chaeacter creation.

The skill system is usually the fundament of a class system just like in D&D where every class can spend some skill points at level up.

The skill system in Fallout was fun, but it's flawed in comparison to class systems that are based on skill systems like in D&D.

A fighter class in D&D allows to spend less skill points at a level up than a rogue for example.

That represents the fact that the fighter has to spend a lot of (usually not visible) time training so he doesn't loose his physical fitness and combat skills.

The pure skill system completely ignores the fact that existing skills have to be trained to keep them up to their current level. A fighter who suddenly starts studying for months and ignores his daily fighter training in this time will be in for a huge surprise if he starts training again or gets in a fight after that time. I think everyone who goes jogging regularly and starts training again after a long winter break knows exatly what I mean.

But I have to admid, the pure skill system would be a dream for reality: I'd never forget what I learned in school and university, keep the best fitness level I ever had forever. It's just great. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

D&D system surely isn't perfect, but it at least considers such fundamental things like that.

[IndiraLightfoot]

As long as there are anti-paladins or blackguards or something in that vein too, I'm happy to accept whatever they throw at us!

[Gavinfoxx]

One thing I hated about the 3.5e Fighter was that it was so... incapable of anything but fighting. They weren't good guards, leaders, athletes, tacticians, or soldiers. They just fought, and not all that well, and did nothing else. None of their capabilities were useful outside of combat, either. Compare a 3.5e Fighter and Warblade. Same basic flavor, but one has actual competency and versatility and is useful in varied situations.

[Heresiarch]

The existing description of paladins doesn't actually tell much about how they play. If they turn out to be another dps/buffer I would be disappointed. Mainly because I consider buffing classes to be abundant as they are. As for their lack of divine special abilities, I'm more than fine with that. Seriously, if anything paladins should be nothing like the D&D stereotype.

[Takamori]

I'm ok with the current concept, you just need to accept that people will eventually expand the concept of something.

In the case paladins, instead of being tied to a religion in order to do good, he will do good because of his logic and will to do so.

Its a Benefactor , there is no superior being ordering to do what is right, he know what society calls for and will do so to help.

 

Instead of discussing what the hell Paladin means in real life, other fantasy world or w/e.

Just embrace the new concept

[AGX-17]

The Paladins were a Holy Roman/Germanic analogue to King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table.

 

English this, english that... You're not the center of the world, you know.

 

The word "Paladin" has been applied long before the Arthurian legend. As I mentioned previously, David of Israel was considered the Paladin of the Weak. And it somehow makes more sense than the Round Table nonsense, because he clearly establishes a direct relationship with a God, granting him the necessary powers to hold such title.

 

I see you do not understand the concept of an analogy. The modern RPG concept of a paladin originated in myths about Charlemagne's Paladins, which bear a striking resemblance to the Arthurian mythos which is Welsh Celtic in origin (and existed before the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain,) and spread far beyond the British isles in the middle ages. The tales of Arthur are not English this, or English that. Would that you'd study some history outside of your Bible.

 

Paladin is not Greek or Hebrew. Who was it that called David "Paladin of the Weak"? Was this in the original Hebrew scriptures? The first Greek Christian scriptures? Paladin comes from middle French by way of the Italian "paladino" which itself descended from the Latin word "palatinus," meaning "Palace Official."

Edited January 15, 2013 by AGX-17

[Merlkir]

Would you please read the rest of the thread? We dealt with this nonsense rather thoroughly.

[Greydragon]

The problem is that the paladin class is not identical to the class of the same name in DnD. This is somewhat jarring for people who got used to it as a presence or an opponent. Having paladin as a subclass with the religious overtones intact would be preferable. Cutting the religion off of paladin doesn't work as overall a paladin is defined as a holy warrior in popular culture and RPGs in general. An atheist paladin is like an atheist priest, something that is at odds with itself. I can understand and encourage different alignments other than the DnD versions; a zealot or an inquisitor who kill or torture for slights or sins would equally fit the profile as a benevolent chivalrous knight. A paladin is a religious warrior with a cause. Anything else is not a paladin, just a pretender. Codes of conduct are the norm for this class. I would like to see it maintained if only as a role-play option; breaking your own rules offers no punishment but instead allows options to absolve the guilt.

[Calmar]

I'm ok with the current concept, you just need to accept that people will eventually expand the concept of something.

In the case paladins, instead of being tied to a religion in order to do good, he will do good because of his logic and will to do so.

Its a Benefactor , there is no superior being ordering to do what is right, he know what society calls for and will do so to help.

 

Instead of discussing what the hell Paladin means in real life, other fantasy world or w/e.

Just embrace the new concept

 

I was originally hoping for the paladin to be modelled after it's historical roots, but since there's official word on the matter, I agree with you.

[Umberlin]

I was originally hoping for the paladin to be modelled after it's historical roots, but since there's official word on the matter, I agree with you.

 

I'm really not sure hoping for a Paladin modelled after historical roots, in any manner, is really going to pan out in the context of a fantasy RPG, especially a high fantasy RPG. It's something you'd be more likely to find in a historical game of some sort, and there are games out there, even RPGs, that set aside things like magic and such for exploring 'fictional takes on history' embracing the more mundane instead of the flash of magic and sorcery. Such a genre has its place, and I feel a paladin model like you were hoping for best fits into such things for than any fantasy RPG.

 

I'm not saying a historical model can't be used as a basis in fantasy or high fantasy, mind you. I just feel it's better used in something already exploring a more down to earth and historical setting, even if it's a 'fictional' take on history. In books and movies there's been quite a lot of that, and, while it has been done, it's far too rarely explored in games. I like that they went the way they did for P:E because P:E is that high fantasy setting, and, at some point, you do want to expand on an idea - especially if it fits better in your setting. Obsidian have gone this way, so I just have to assume, at a base, that their vision of P:E's Paladin fits in their setting.

 

Heck, at least you have a Paladin. I've always been a fan of truly ancient history, so whenever I hope to see settings pulling inspiration for some of the oldest civilizations on earth . . . in the 5000-6000+ year range and older? It doesn't happen a lot. I'd love an RPG where fantasy was pulled from ancient Sumeria and Egypt, as well as some of the other older Middle-Eastern and South American cultures . . . but it doesn't tend to happen. It's not impossible, and there have been attempts here and there, but it's pretty rare. On the other hand you can throw a rock at a pile of RPGs and likely have it hit one with a Paladin in it.

 

I'd just love to see older mythology and history exploited for content more often, especially if it meant we started seeing some very different abilities, weapons, armor, architectures and magics on a visual level and different ideas and dialogues on a moral level. Something new is great, I love it, but sometimes something old is just as good as something new too. I'm happy either way . . . it's a round about way of saying be it an 'old historical' base for a Paladin or a 'new' base for a Paladin . . . I'm happy either way.

[TrashMan]

The PE Paladin class lacks hte "soul". The feel.

 

I liked the D&D Paladin precisely BECAUSE it was different. It came with some restrictions. Even DAO templars are closer to the paladin feel than the PE paladin is - who is basicly a warlord/general class.

 

To me, a paladin without an Order and a set of conduct is not a paladin.

[TrashMan]

I'm ok with the current concept, you just need to accept that people will eventually expand the concept of something.

In the case paladins, instead of being tied to a religion in order to do good, he will do good because of his logic and will to do so.

Its a Benefactor , there is no superior being ordering to do what is right, he know what society calls for and will do so to help.

 

Instead of discussing what the hell Paladin means in real life, other fantasy world or w/e.

Just embrace the new concept

 

Never.

[Luridis]

I've never liked their inflexibility in role-play... To do one you pretty much have to sound like a broken record and naysay any alternate routes suggested.

 

I think in 3.5e, they totally missed an opportunity to finally introduce a pure chaotic divine that is not of elf ilk with the Favored Soul. Then, they put it together so hurried and ill conceived that it completely missed that mark, and the mark of mechanical usefulness as well. The class probably doesn't do too badly where using your imagination is possible. But, from pure mechanics it tries to do two things and ends up not being very good at either.

[TrashMan]

Blackguard? Peh, a pox on it.

 

 

And no, it's not inflexible.

Having a specific code, being a part of a order (and thus having to follow the rules) is not "inflexible" when it comes to character.

 

There are multiple orders and there are many, many ways one can RP even a D&D paladin...let alone some other version.