D&D 5e Release Dates and Pricing Confirmed

[obryn]

Arguments about Alignment, particularly and especially when Paladins are involved, are the worst RPG arguments.

[da_chicken]

Arguments about Alignment, particularly and especially when Paladins are involved, are the worst RPG arguments.

Oh I know this one! "What happens when the Paladin finds baby orcs?"

[Lokiare]

No, my argument is that we aren't arguing. ( I retract my statement in the previous post about requiring Lawful - Reason: traditionally living by a code implied lawful alignment. This is not always the case and invalidates my previous statement) Paladins live by codes. Feel free to determine that code. Even if it's as simple as "protect the followers of X faith". Changing Alignment requirements ceased to be a thing for paladins with the PHB2 in 3.5. Its when they break their code that they lose their abilities.



And yet, Paladins no long have smite evil. They have SMITE. Which works on undead and extraplanar. No longer tied to alignment. Did you read the packet at all?



This is not a 5e example and is irrelevant. It is true of other editions. But that has been changed. And if you think the paladin's ability to smite/detect alignment is half of his class options, you should give them another reading through.


Ok. This is actually a waste of both our time and efforts. You have your view of paladin, I have mine. Arguing about it will actually get us no where because its completely irrelevant. What consistently amazes me is the things you argue about. It's staggering.

I agree that the paladin could use some retooling to further distinguish it from Clerics. Lets focus on something important.

Your modular system seems reasonable. However, how much are you willing to pay for a book that's 4-5oo pages long? I'm not seeing the market possibilities for that. Sure, some people will buy a game that's got rules for everything, but I can't imagine the larger portion shelling out that kind of money. I for one wouldn't spend 100 dollars on a book that I'm only going to use 1/5th of. Isn't this the same as combining all the splat into one book? You don't think that's unreasonable? This is the vision you have for the game? Or are you simply clinging to the idea that because they said "game for everyone" that that is the rule of the universe because you can?

What actually differentiates a paladin from a Cleric? Is it that paladins get their spells later and they get fewer of them? Is it that they get slightly less spells as they level? Is it that they smite evil and clerics turn undead? Paladin really should be just a sub-class of Cleric. The only reason its not is 'tradition' which is what 5E is basing its sales on.

[1337 b4k4]

Oh I know this one! "What happens when the Paladin finds baby orcs?"

They kill them according to the laws of the land, ensuring that they will never have a chance to become evil. They suffer no alignment penalties for this. Alternatively, they may arrest them and transport them to the nearest authorities. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=75)


What actually differentiates a paladin from a Cleric? Is it that paladins get their spells later and they get fewer of them? Is it that they get slightly less spells as they level? Is it that they smite evil and clerics turn undead? Paladin really should be just a sub-class of Cleric. The only reason its not is 'tradition' which is what 5E is basing its sales on.

Well, originally Paladins were a fighter subclass, not a cleric subclass. But other than that, strongly agreed. The paladin (in whatever form) should be relegated back to a subclass, or it should be more strongly differentiated.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Well, originally Paladins were a fighter subclass, not a cleric subclass. But other than that, strongly agreed. The paladin (in whatever form) should be relegated back to a subclass, or it should be more strongly differentiated.

I'm starting to think that each class should be a subclass for every other class.

Paladin subclass options include...

Fighter (Crusader), Rogue (Avenger), Cleric (Templar), Wizard (Templar-Mage)

Hot damn the number of options alone is worth its own book.

[Millennium]

You also seem to be conveniently forgetting that "just as Archer is a concept" Paladins are a concept. A concept based on Holy Knights, who lived by extremely strict codes of behavior and were granted special privileges because of it. I use this as an example http://www.knightstemplar-uk.co.uk/originaltemplarrules.html . That being said, the very CONCEPT of a paladin, requires a lawful alignment. We can see you disagree. No need to reiterate it here.
Paladins (or whatever one wishes to call them) should have a lawful alignment. A life lived in strict, disciplined adherence to an external code of behavior is just plain going to pull your alignment toward Law. The particulars of the code barely even matter: the fact that you're adhering so strictly to something external to yourself, with zeal so fanatical that you actually derive class features from it, is what really does it. This makes the class impractical for characters of nonlawful alignments: either you'll violate your code in fairly short order, or you'll find yourself turning lawful before long.

At my table, any deity can sponsor paladins or antipaladins as it suits them. Most lawful deities do this readily, in accordance with their alignment (or, in the case of LN deities, the deity's choice). But neutral and chaotic deities have a philosophical choice to make, because it means divinely empowering some servants who must by nature be further away from the deity's philosophy than they might like. Some nonlawful deities consider this a worthwhile trade, and sponsor orders of these warriors even though the match is not perfect. Other deities don't: they either deliberately choose to forego this tool, or they find some other way to fill the niche. It is not as though they have any shortage of options.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Paladins (or whatever one wishes to call them) should have a lawful alignment. A life lived in strict, disciplined adherence to an external code of behavior is just plain going to pull your alignment toward Law. The particulars of the code barely even matter: the fact that you're adhering so strictly to something external to yourself, with zeal so fanatical that you actually derive class features from it, is what really does it. This makes the class impractical for characters of nonlawful alignments: either you'll violate your code in fairly short order, or you'll find yourself turning lawful before long.

At my table, any deity can sponsor paladins or antipaladins as it suits them. Most lawful deities do this readily, in accordance with their alignment (or, in the case of LN deities, the deity's choice). But neutral and chaotic deities have a philosophical choice to make, because it means divinely empowering some servants who must by nature be further away from the deity's philosophy than they might like. Some nonlawful deities consider this a worthwhile trade, and sponsor orders of these warriors even though the match is not perfect. Other deities don't: they either deliberately choose to forego this tool, or they find some other way to fill the niche. It is not as though they have any shortage of options.

Awe poor Paladins of Freedom :/

Being chaotic isn't just about not following a code, they just follow a more personal code.

[captpike]

Paladins (or whatever one wishes to call them) should have a lawful alignment. A life lived in strict, disciplined adherence to an external code of behavior is just plain going to pull your alignment toward Law. The particulars of the code barely even matter: the fact that you're adhering so strictly to something external to yourself, with zeal so fanatical that you actually derive class features from it, is what really does it. This makes the class impractical for characters of nonlawful alignments: either you'll violate your code in fairly short order, or you'll find yourself turning lawful before long.

At my table, any deity can sponsor paladins or antipaladins as it suits them. Most lawful deities do this readily, in accordance with their alignment (or, in the case of LN deities, the deity's choice). But neutral and chaotic deities have a philosophical choice to make, because it means divinely empowering some servants who must by nature be further away from the deity's philosophy than they might like. Some nonlawful deities consider this a worthwhile trade, and sponsor orders of these warriors even though the match is not perfect. Other deities don't: they either deliberately choose to forego this tool, or they find some other way to fill the niche. It is not as though they have any shortage of options.

that does not make sense.

every god wants their followers to follow their teachings, their code if you will. that hardly means every god must be lawful.

having ethics (which is distinct from morals) does not make you lawful. your code would probably be shorter and more vague, but there is no reason a chaotic paladin would be a contraction in terms.

[Fwiffo86]

that does not make sense.

every god wants their followers to follow their teachings, their code if you will. that hardly means every god must be lawful.

having ethics (which is distinct from morals) does not make you lawful. your code would probably be shorter and more vague, but there is no reason a chaotic paladin would be a contraction in terms.

wow.... just.... wow.

Your logic is good. Every god wants followers. Your logic that all followers seem to be paladins is flawed.

Example Teachings:
be kind to strangers
help the downtrodden
give to charity.

Paladin Code of the same:
assist strangers in any endeavor
Champion the rights of the downtrodden
Tithe 1/10 of your accumulated wealth to charity.

Do you see the difference?

[Millennium]

that does not make sense.

every god wants their followers to follow their teachings, their code if you will. that hardly means every god must be lawful.
Actually, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every god wants their teachers to follow a code. And even if they do, gods understand that people are not completely consistent (even if some of them are not particularly happy about this).

having ethics (which is distinct from morals) does not make you lawful. your code would probably be shorter and more vague, but there is no reason a chaotic paladin would be a contraction in terms.
Actually, it's often the reverse. Paladins' codes are often considerably simpler and more vague than the full set of teachings and moral codes of most deities: in fact, the (over?)simplified nature of the paladin's code, and the paladin's zealous adherence to it, are part of the point. Having ethics does not make you lawful, but the paladin's code is no mere code of ethics, and a paladin following it is not merely being ethical: they draw strength from the very chains that they bind themselves with.

[Stubbazubba]

You can basically go through all of the editions and put things into modules for 5E that would please each play style. Then at the end of it all you can print 3-4 sets of books. One set of books would be the 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' that would list all options. Then you would have your Fantasy Vietnam books that only list the things in the Fantasy Vietnam module. Next you would have your Difficult, Realistic books that only list the things in the Difficult, Realistic module. Last you would have your Tactical books that would only list the things in your Tactical module.

Then everyone gets what they want out of the game.

This would only work with a digital distribution model. Chopping up a print run into 3 or 4 runs means your production costs don't scale and your already thin margins just got 3x thinner. So D&D would have to eschew the FLGS distribution model entirely and rely on digital downloads, printing limited runs of physical books that would cost a lot of money for little actual profit. So I'm thinking the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" book would have to be the only book, and these tweaks would have to all be presented alongside each other in a way that is easy to discern. And really, that's not that hard; each monster entry could in fact just have 3 columns, one for "Classic Rules," one for "Adventure Rules," and one for "Tactical Rules."

Other than that, your ideas are perfectly fine. Yes, they're a potential stumbling block for anyone who wants to design something for the game (mostly how defenses work), but that's not too much to overcome. The problem is that the game would still play fundamentally the same, even with these tweaks, just with different difficulty levels. Which, between 2e and 3.5 isn't all that bad, but 4e's unique stuff (Powers, Skill Challenges, Healing Surges) would be very difficult to shoe-horn into that without requiring massive amounts of space that the other "playstyles" simply wouldn't use.

You could do all of that, but I don't know if that effort would have much of any return; 4e fans already have 4e, 3.5 fans already have 3.5, and 2e fans already have 2e. You and I both know that 5e can't be all things to all people, and expending lots of resources just to thinly cover all the bases is honestly less likely to succeed than creating a new flavor of D&D that appeals to different preferences than have come before. 5e, for better or worse, is trying to do that, although it's not nearly as bold a new flavor as 4e was.

Edit: Yes, yes, I know they're marketing it wrong if that's what they want to do, and I concede that if they wanted the game their marketing (or, at least, some of it) is promising, it would look like yours.

[obryn]

Edit: Yes, yes, I know they're marketing it wrong if that's what they want to do, and I concede that if they wanted the game their marketing (or, at least, some of it) is promising, it would look like yours.
I think it's key to note that they scaled way back on that over the recent months. There's still a promise of modularity (especially with the DMG being a "hacker's guide" of sorts) but they eventually became content to let 5e be its own game.

[Stubbazubba]

I think it's key to note that they scaled way back on that over the recent months. There's still a promise of modularity (especially with the DMG being a "hacker's guide" of sorts) but they eventually became content to let 5e be its own game.

And that's the right thing to do. I don't think captpike will let them have it that way, though.

[obryn]

And that's the right thing to do. I don't think captpike will let them have it that way, though.
Yeah. The original design goal was, to put it mildly, untenable. I'm very glad they modified it to "Let's just make the edition of D&D that we want to make." Like it or not, it's less milquetoast than an attempt to please everyone (and offend no one) would have been.

[captpike]

Actually, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every god wants their teachers to follow a code. And even if they do, gods understand that people are not completely consistent (even if some of them are not particularly happy about this).

Actually, it's often the reverse. Paladins' codes are often considerably simpler and more vague than the full set of teachings and moral codes of most deities: in fact, the (over?)simplified nature of the paladin's code, and the paladin's zealous adherence to it, are part of the point. Having ethics does not make you lawful, but the paladin's code is no mere code of ethics, and a paladin following it is not merely being ethical: they draw strength from the very chains that they bind themselves with.

my point is all gods have a list of things they want you to do, and some they don't. every god has a code of some sort basically.

that means every god can have paladins, and realistically should. unless the god does not want to protect its followers of course.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

my point is all gods have a list of things they want you to do, and some they don't. every god has a code of some sort basically.

that means every god can have paladins, and realistically should. unless the god does not want to protect its followers of course.

Clerics, Wizards, Fighters, Rogues, Warblade, Barbarians, and Totemist all don't worship gods and wouldn't defend people if a deity told them to...

Sure...

Because ONLY paladins can defend people in the name of their god, it says so in the paladin handbook.

[captpike]

Clerics, Wizards, Fighters, Rogues, Warblade, Barbarians, and Totemist all don't worship gods and wouldn't defend people if a deity told them to...

Sure...

Because ONLY paladins can defend people in the name of their god, it says so in the paladin handbook.

that is not what I said. please either read what I wrote better or don't waste people's time by responding.

paladins do protect people yes, that is their biggest job but others can do that as well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Perhaps I remember it differently than you? I'm pretty sure you wrote this. (bolded by me)



my point is all gods have a list of things they want you to do, and some they don't. every god has a code of some sort basically.

that means every god can have paladins, and realistically should. unless the god does not want to protect its followers of course.

You are saying that the only class that a god will use is a paladin to protect the worshipers. Because if there is no paladins then there is no protection.

But hey my memory is a bit shoddy.

Edit

Simply what you wrote means...

Paladins = deity wants to protect their people

No Paladins = deity doesn't want to protect their people

This is faulty logic because the Paladin isn't the only class that a deity could use to protect their people, hell clerics are more suited to protect their people than the paladin could ever dream of.

[da_chicken]

Methinks someone is conflating "paladin" with "avatar".

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Methinks someone is conflating "paladin" with "avatar".

Dances With Wolves was about a Paladin?

Oooh...


Oooooooh...

That makes more sense now :smallbiggrin:

But seriously yeah a paladin could be an avatar but an avatar doesn't have to be a paladin.

[captpike]

Perhaps I remember it differently than you? I'm pretty sure you wrote this. (bolded by me)




You are saying that the only class that a god will use is a paladin to protect the worshipers. Because if there is no paladins then there is no protection.

But hey my memory is a bit shoddy.

Edit

Simply what you wrote means...

Paladins = deity wants to protect their people

No Paladins = deity doesn't want to protect their people

This is faulty logic because the Paladin isn't the only class that a deity could use to protect their people, hell clerics are more suited to protect their people than the paladin could ever dream of.

I don't know if you need to learn to read better or to use logic better but in either case please fix it.
or you could only be like 10, if so then I apologies, and congratulate you on making people think your are an adult for so long.

all god who are interested in protecting their followers WILL have paladins, that does not mean everyone who protects is a paladin, or that only they can protect.

the paladin's whole reason to exist is to protect the followers of the god (maybe more depending on the god). sure other classes can do it but its not ideal, any more then using a hammer on a screw is. it can work, does not make it a good idea.

[Fwiffo86]

I don't know if you need to learn to read better or to use logic better but in either case please fix it.
or you could only be like 10, if so then I apologies, and congratulate you on making people think your are an adult for so long.

all god who are interested in protecting their followers WILL have paladins, that does not mean everyone who protects is a paladin, or that only they can protect.

the paladin's whole reason to exist is to protect the followers of the god (maybe more depending on the god). sure other classes can do it but its not ideal, any more then using a hammer on a screw is. it can work, does not make it a good idea.

Contention:

I think that the reason for a paladin to exist is to "champion the causes of their diety". If that is a god of protection, yes. If it is a god of Tyranny, then conquest would be the paladin's job. If it were a god of disease, spreading a plague across the continent would be the paladin's job. A god of magic would task their paladins with spreading spell knowledge or collecting of powerful magical devices.

Try as you might, I don't see an evil god using the protection scheme. I'm totally stealing this from Dragonlance but: Evil feed on itself. Meaning only those who can take power, get power in the ranks of evil. Protection ideals do not flow with this ideology. And that is just one example.

I agree, all gods could potentially have paladins. I do not agree that a paladin's job is to protect.

[theNater]

Contention:

I think that the reason for a paladin to exist is to "champion the causes of their diety". If that is a god of protection, yes. If it is a god of Tyranny, then conquest would be the paladin's job. If it were a god of disease, spreading a plague across the continent would be the paladin's job. A god of magic would task their paladins with spreading spell knowledge or collecting of powerful magical devices.

Try as you might, I don't see an evil god using the protection scheme. I'm totally stealing this from Dragonlance but: Evil feed on itself. Meaning only those who can take power, get power in the ranks of evil. Protection ideals do not flow with this ideology. And that is just one example.

I agree, all gods could potentially have paladins. I do not agree that a paladin's job is to protect.
A tyrant who conquers but does not protect is the ruler of a single building(at most). The ability to concoct and spread diseases is unrelated to the ability to defend against townsfolk up in arms over plague-spreading, and someone with the former would do well to be near a person with the latter when the angry mob shows up. And only the most foolish and shortsighted god of Power would fail to realize that the unification of a person skilled at exercising political power and a person skilled at exercising military power is a combination providing well more than double the power of either working alone; two such individuals would do well to protect each other.

Any god that doesn't expect to destroy the world within this generation has things to protect, if only so that it can have followers in the next generation.

If you want to argue that the title of paladin should go to the primary champions of the cause rather than to the protectors of the structures that make spreading the cause possible, that's fine. But only the most cartoonishly Evil deities are going to turn their noses up at the very idea of that protection.

[pwykersotz]

I don't know if you need to learn to read better or to use logic better but in either case please fix it.
or you could only be like 10, if so then I apologies, and congratulate you on making people think your are an adult for so long.

all god who are interested in protecting their followers WILL have paladins, that does not mean everyone who protects is a paladin, or that only they can protect.

the paladin's whole reason to exist is to protect the followers of the god (maybe more depending on the god). sure other classes can do it but its not ideal, any more then using a hammer on a screw is. it can work, does not make it a good idea.

Where does a Blackguard fit in your vision of the game?

[Felhammer]

I don't know if you need to learn to read better or to use logic better but in either case please fix it.
or you could only be like 10, if so then I apologies, and congratulate you on making people think your are an adult for so long.

all god who are interested in protecting their followers WILL have paladins, that does not mean everyone who protects is a paladin, or that only they can protect.

the paladin's whole reason to exist is to protect the followers of the god (maybe more depending on the god). sure other classes can do it but its not ideal, any more then using a hammer on a screw is. it can work, does not make it a good idea.

Clerics exist to spread the faith and protect their god's followers. Paladins are a very specific concept that amounts to a knight in shining armor who upholds truth, justice, knightly virtue and chivalry. They are the stereotypical White Knights. The evil opposite of a Paladin is a Blackguard, who stands for everything the Paladin is not - untrustworthy, tyrannical, selfish and depraved. They are the stereotypical Black Knights. Only a handful of gods will have Paladins or Blackguards. They are a concept of extremes that do not mesh well with the doctrines of most gods.

If you stray too far from this core concept, then you wind up muddying the water between Paladin and Cleric. In effect, Paladins become melee priests and Clerics become more spell-oriented priests. This is all well and good for some settings but definitely not all and most assuredly not core.

Do we really expect a goddess of beauty or a god of thievery to have Paladins? No. Their champions come from slightly different backgrounds (usually other classes, perhaps multi-classed with Cleric).

[Arzanyos]

I think an interesting division would be this, assuming no alignment restrictions for classes.

Clerics: They would be the civic hand of the gods, with ability to bear arms if necessary. They would be more concerned with shepherding the other followers and protecting them, as well as embodying the ideals of the gods. Clerics would receive their powers as rewards for devotion to their deities, and as such, said deities would have a more active role in dictating their lives that that of the other divine agents(Cleric, Paladin, Blackguard). Mechanically, they would get the utility spells, the healing, and also some cool protection abilities.

Paladins: Paladins would, first of all, choose the life of the paladin for themselves. They would be average joes who take on the oaths of the paladin to rise up and protect their fellows. Paladins would be more likely than clerics and blackguards to be leaders, rallying the people to join them in fighting for "the cause". Also, Paladins would serve as the knights of their deities, whenever the deity would need an army fueled purely by strength of conviction. Paladins would give inherent buffs to those around them, have direct damage spells, absolutely no stealth skills at all, fun Paladin stuff like that.

Blackguards: They would be the special forces of the gods, for when they need martial intervention more discreet than sending out the paladins. Deities bestow people with the powers of a blackguard in exchange for completing missions for them. They would be more lonerish than the others, less focused on "the people", or the other followers of their deity, and more on their current mission. Mechanically, I would sort of base them of the 3.5 version, and give them offensive special abilities and spells, some sneak attack-like thing, a focus on summoning/having animal/outsider/undead/whatever companions, and in generally, a more offensive, dps fell than the paladin or cleric.

So say, if Baron von Ruthless was leading his undead demon horde to attack a city favored by Generic Diety of Goodness, Gdog's clerics would be trying to build up the defences of the city, try to divert the horde, or maybe evacuate the civilians, and would then serve alongside the army in the actual battles. Meanwhile, Paladins of Gdog would start to pop up and rally the army to facing the oncoming horde, buffing it up and eventually leading from the army's front lines. As well, Gdog could send Blackguards to harry von Ruthless' advance, breaking up summoning circles, taking out key undead, turning mortals in the army to the side of good, and stuff like that.

But's that's just me rambling.

[Lokiare]

This would only work with a digital distribution model. Chopping up a print run into 3 or 4 runs means your production costs don't scale and your already thin margins just got 3x thinner. So D&D would have to eschew the FLGS distribution model entirely and rely on digital downloads, printing limited runs of physical books that would cost a lot of money for little actual profit. So I'm thinking the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" book would have to be the only book, and these tweaks would have to all be presented alongside each other in a way that is easy to discern. And really, that's not that hard; each monster entry could in fact just have 3 columns, one for "Classic Rules," one for "Adventure Rules," and one for "Tactical Rules."

Actually with pre-orders, kickstarter (and its clones), and the lower cost of print on demand combined with the power of surveys, they could easily get a good idea of how many books to print of each. They would do the most cost efficient print run which might be 1 full print run + print on demand for remaining orders or it might be 3 full print runs + print on demand for remaining orders. They could do kickstarters for each print run with their expected profit as the goal. So that they could meet the goal or exceed it and do extra print runs and/or print on demand on top of it to fill all orders, and if they don't get enough interest they at least have an idea of how many print on demand books they need to make to fill the demand. The world is changing and so is how business can be done. Its getting super efficient.

As to the monster entry part, only certain parts don't translate over like the defenses/saves thing, but that's like 3 extra letters "/+3" it wouldn't even inflate the book space. You wouldn't really need 3 columns.


Other than that, your ideas are perfectly fine. Yes, they're a potential stumbling block for anyone who wants to design something for the game (mostly how defenses work), but that's not too much to overcome. The problem is that the game would still play fundamentally the same, even with these tweaks, just with different difficulty levels. Which, between 2e and 3.5 isn't all that bad, but 4e's unique stuff (Powers, Skill Challenges, Healing Surges) would be very difficult to shoe-horn into that without requiring massive amounts of space that the other "playstyles" simply wouldn't use.

Not really, the defenses thing is literally just subtract 10 from the save DC and you have your attack vs. the defense. Powers in 4E work like spells in any edition. Not only that you could format them in the Tactical book in a way that is more pleasing to tactical players. Skill challenges should be remade from the ground up (which I've done in other posts on the WotC message boards) and DMs can choose to use them or not and they probably wouldn't even be included in anything but the "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" book and the "Tactics" book. Healing surges would just take 1/4 of the total value of each dice and have a line about 'anytime you receive healing, whether its from a spell, potion, or a short rest you must use a hit dice and gain the hit dice value as bonus healing'. Things like that are easy. Then you could go on to make sub-classes that only appear in the AD&D and Tactics books just for the tactical play style, as well as custom sub-classes for each of the styles. I could see a 1E/2E sub-class that doesn't get feats and mainly just gets bonuses to attack and damage and proficiencies in saves. Then I could see a full on AEDU Wizard class exclusive to the Tactics game. "You gain magic missile as an at-will power, it only shoots one missile though instead of the normal two." and similar things like this.


You could do all of that, but I don't know if that effort would have much of any return; 4e fans already have 4e, 3.5 fans already have 3.5, and 2e fans already have 2e. You and I both know that 5e can't be all things to all people, and expending lots of resources just to thinly cover all the bases is honestly less likely to succeed than creating a new flavor of D&D that appeals to different preferences than have come before. 5e, for better or worse, is trying to do that, although it's not nearly as bold a new flavor as 4e was.

Edit: Yes, yes, I know they're marketing it wrong if that's what they want to do, and I concede that if they wanted the game their marketing (or, at least, some of it) is promising, it would look like yours.

Yes, but they don't have a unifying supported game they can buy supplements and adventures for and go to game shops and conventions and play a 'living campaign' or 'encounters' game in.


Contention:

I think that the reason for a paladin to exist is to "champion the causes of their diety". If that is a god of protection, yes. If it is a god of Tyranny, then conquest would be the paladin's job. If it were a god of disease, spreading a plague across the continent would be the paladin's job. A god of magic would task their paladins with spreading spell knowledge or collecting of powerful magical devices.

Try as you might, I don't see an evil god using the protection scheme. I'm totally stealing this from Dragonlance but: Evil feed on itself. Meaning only those who can take power, get power in the ranks of evil. Protection ideals do not flow with this ideology. And that is just one example.

I agree, all gods could potentially have paladins. I do not agree that a paladin's job is to protect.

My definition of a Paladin is someone that is a zealot. They believe so fiercely in a specific goal or cause that they are willing to sacrifice all else to that cause.

If that cause includes protecting the weak, they will sacrifice a barons castle in order to defend several villages.

If that cause includes destroying undead, they might choose to quell a grave yard menace not really disturbing anyone instead of stopping some orcs from invading nearby towns.

If that cause includes spreading disease, then someone offering them bribe money to spread the disease elsewhere would not be accepted and be viewed as an affront.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I don't know if you need to learn to read better or to use logic better but in either case please fix it.
or you could only be like 10, if so then I apologies, and congratulate you on making people think your are an adult for so long.

all god who are interested in protecting their followers WILL have paladins, that does not mean everyone who protects is a paladin, or that only they can protect.

the paladin's whole reason to exist is to protect the followers of the god (maybe more depending on the god). sure other classes can do it but its not ideal, any more then using a hammer on a screw is. it can work, does not make it a good idea.

Nice, so I quoted you and you ignore what you wrote and say I have the brain capacity of a 10 year old? Smooth, real smooth. But I guess reading your post and expecting you not to act like a troll is pretty childish of me and for that I apologize to the playground (but not to you, no apology from me to you).

For what seems like like the 50th time I have once again quoted your exact phrasing and you turn around and and not only ignore my post but you ignore your own post. It is like if you said the sky is green and someone called you out on it, you would then call them a liar and say that you never said it was green, even after they quoted you saying it was green.

Your logic is flawed. You can say that some gods who want to protect their followers have paladins. You can say that gods may use paladins to protect their followers. You can even say that they should have paladins for protection. But there is no way you can say that they have to have paladins to protect their followers, and if they don't then they don't want to protect their followers. You are trying to make an opinion a fact.

You are saying that if a god has no paladins then they don't give a flying pickle about their followers safety. No matter how many clerics, fighters, barbarians, warblabes, crusaders, sorcerers, and wizards follow their teachings. Do you honestly expect people to buy what you are selling?


Also, random note... You are wrong about the Paladin being only there to protect. They are there to destroy. They are there to seek out evil and destroy it. Their first priority is offense offense offense, not defense. Their protection is more of a by product of a god's hatred toward a certain thing. Pelor hates vampires, so the paladin goes and kills vampires. Not because the undead are a threat to the people of Pelor, hell the Vampire may have no interest in messing with Pelor's people. But Pelor hates vampires so the paladin (in)kills the vampire.

It is like saying that a tank was made to protect people. No a tank was made to kill and destroy, it just so happens that by killing and destroying it is protecting people. A bomb shelter was made to protect people, its true function is to protect.

Paladins are more like tanks than bomb shelters. Most of the paladins abilities are about killing, the ones that protect do so to the Paladin herself with a little going toward others. The paladin is immune to fear but gives bonuses to others against fear. Lay on hands heals others with a standard action but heals the paladin as a swift action. Protection is really the secondary option for a paladin if killing isn't able to be performed.

Clerics on the other hand could cast spells all day that actually protect others. Though to be fair they are usually tier 1 and can do the killing part of this better than any paladin.

[captpike]

Contention:

I think that the reason for a paladin to exist is to "champion the causes of their diety". If that is a god of protection, yes. If it is a god of Tyranny, then conquest would be the paladin's job. If it were a god of disease, spreading a plague across the continent would be the paladin's job. A god of magic would task their paladins with spreading spell knowledge or collecting of powerful magical devices.

Try as you might, I don't see an evil god using the protection scheme. I'm totally stealing this from Dragonlance but: Evil feed on itself. Meaning only those who can take power, get power in the ranks of evil. Protection ideals do not flow with this ideology. And that is just one example.

I agree, all gods could potentially have paladins. I do not agree that a paladin's job is to protect.

I would contend that everyone who is empowered by a god's job is to "champion the causes of their diety".

some evil gods would not care about protection sure, but if the god cares about having worshipers it stands to reason they would care about keeping said worshipers alive.
I could see the god of undeath having paladins protect necromancers for example.



Where does a Blackguard fit in your vision of the game?

as an unofficial name for evil paladin's, at least in game. mechanically a class or subclass that is close to paladin but that is more aggressive.



Nice, so I quoted you and you ignore what you wrote and say I have the brain capacity of a 10 year old? Smooth, real smooth. But I guess reading your post and expecting you not to act like a troll is pretty childish of me and for that I apologize to the playground (but not to you, no apology from me to you).

For what seems like like the 50th time I have once again quoted your exact phrasing and you turn around and and not only ignore my post but you ignore your own post. It is like if you said the sky is green and someone called you out on it, you would then call them a liar and say that you never said it was green, even after they quoted you saying it was green.

Your logic is flawed. You can say that some gods who want to protect their followers have paladins. You can say that gods may use paladins to protect their followers. You can even say that they should have paladins for protection. But there is no way you can say that they have to have paladins to protect their followers, and if they don't then they don't want to protect their followers. You are trying to make an opinion a fact.

You are saying that if a god has no paladins then they don't give a flying pickle about their followers safety. No matter how many clerics, fighters, barbarians, warblabes, crusaders, sorcerers, and wizards follow their teachings. Do you honestly expect people to buy what you are selling?


Also, random note... You are wrong about the Paladin being only there to protect. They are there to destroy. They are there to seek out evil and destroy it. Their first priority is offense offense offense, not defense. Their protection is more of a by product of a god's hatred toward a certain thing. Pelor hates vampires, so the paladin goes and kills vampires. Not because the undead are a threat to the people of Pelor, hell the Vampire may have no interest in messing with Pelor's people. But Pelor hates vampires so the paladin (in)kills the vampire.

It is like saying that a tank was made to protect people. No a tank was made to kill and destroy, it just so happens that by killing and destroying it is protecting people. A bomb shelter was made to protect people, its true function is to protect.

Paladins are more like tanks than bomb shelters. Most of the paladins abilities are about killing, the ones that protect do so to the Paladin herself with a little going toward others. The paladin is immune to fear but gives bonuses to others against fear. Lay on hands heals others with a standard action but heals the paladin as a swift action. Protection is really the secondary option for a paladin if killing isn't able to be performed.

Clerics on the other hand could cast spells all day that actually protect others. Though to be fair they are usually tier 1 and can do the killing part of this better than any paladin.

they don't have to have paladins to protect their followers, but palidans are the best for the job, and the only ones those only job is to protect.

it would be like if you searched my house and found out I had no screwdriver. the most likely conclusion is that I had no need for screws. you CAN use other things, but there is no reason to do so.

[Envyus]

I would contend that everyone who is empowered by a god's job is to "champion the causes of their diety".

some evil gods would not care about protection sure, but if the god cares about having worshipers it stands to reason they would care about keeping said worshipers alive.
I could see the god of undeath having paladins protect necromancers for example.




as an unofficial name for evil paladin's, at least in game. mechanically a class or subclass that is close to paladin but that is more aggressive.




they don't have to have paladins to protect their followers, but palidans are the best for the job, and the only ones those only job is to protect.

it would be like if you searched my house and found out I had no screwdriver. the most likely conclusion is that I had no need for screws. you CAN use other things, but there is no reason to do so.

Paladins are not the best for the job. They are holy warriors who's job is to be on the offence. There Job seek out and destroy evil. If they see people that need to be protected they will but it's not their main role. You seem to be missing this point every time it is posted.

Also Blackguard is the official name for evil paladins not the unofficial.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Paladins are not the best for the job. They are holy warriors who's job is to be on the offence. There Job seek out and destroy evil. If they see people that need to be protected they will but it's not their main role. You seem to be missing this point every time it is posted.

Also Blackguard is the official name for evil paladins not the unofficial.

Yup, but don't expect him to acknowledge this.

There isn't one edition where the Paladin's main role is to defend, hell even in 4e the Paladin was usually built as a striker haha.

[captpike]

Yup, but don't expect him to acknowledge this.

There isn't one edition where the Paladin's main role is to defend, hell even in 4e the Paladin was usually built as a striker haha.

in 4e the purpose of the paladin is to defend and protect (with a side of heal)

there is no reason to restrict them to good only, if you want to add such a restriction then you can easily do so in your game, the system should support every class in every alignment.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

in 4e the purpose of the paladin is to defend and protect (with a side of heal)

there is no reason to restrict them to good only, if you want to add such a restriction then you can easily do so in your game, the system should support every class in every alignment.

Sigh. Again, Paladins in 4e were built mostly like strikers because their so called defender mechanism worked more like a striker mechanism. They actually didn't defend all that much. Just because their role was defender doesn't mean that is what they did.

Again the Tank versus Bomb Shelter analogy works well here.

Who said they were good only? Blackgaurds are Evil Paladins but they are still Paladins. Just like Paladins of Freedom and Paladins of Tyranny are still Paladins. The base Paladin is LG (except in 4e). In 5e it looks like Paladin will be the main name and then your alignment will give you an add on like LE is a Blackguard.

Blackgaurd has been official since at least 2e.

[Envyus]

in 4e the purpose of the paladin is to defend and protect (with a side of heal)


Give me the fluff that says that. If the 4e fluff says that then it`s only ever been true for 4e.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Give me the fluff that says that. If the 4e fluff says that then it`s only ever been true for 4e.

Even if the fluff says that, that doesn't make it true.

I can call a tank a bunny rabbit but it is still an implement of destruction.

Paladins "protect" by being a destroyer first and second and third...

[captpike]

"if you touch my friends I will hurt you" sound sounds like protecting to me.

not to mention encounter powers that function to help defend.

part of the default fluff in 4e: "...To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice...."

sure alot of editions got subclasses or something of paladin that let you be something other then LG, but other then 4e that's all it was.
you had to houserule, and sometimes make up new rules or accept you were going to be weaker then you should be (detect good is not as useful as detect evil for example). unless you were willing to wait for the splats to come out, and have a DM that lets them in the game

there is no reason the game should assume any default at all for class alignments, it should be no easier or harder to make a evil paladin then a good one, nor should one be more powerful then the other.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

"if you touch my friends I will hurt you" sound sounds like protecting to me.

not to mention encounter powers that function to help defend.

part of the default fluff in 4e: "...To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice...."


That default 4e fluff supports my claim though. They aren't actively defending but destroying enemies. Actively defending would be more like using a shield to deflect attacks of enemies or being able to keep enemies from moving closer to allies.

You still don't get the difference between offense and defense. Yes offense can be used to defend people but it is primarily offense.

[captpike]

That default 4e fluff supports my claim though. They aren't actively defending but destroying enemies. Actively defending would be more like using a shield to deflect attacks of enemies or being able to keep enemies from moving closer to allies.

You still don't get the difference between offense and defense. Yes offense can be used to defend people but it is primarily offense.

marks do that.

they make it harder for a marked target to hit anyone but the paladin, they also give a reason for the target to want to attack the paladin.

[SoC175]

A tyrant who conquers but does not protect is the ruler of a single building(at most). The ability to concoct and spread diseases is unrelated to the ability to defend against townsfolk up in arms over plague-spreading, and someone with the former would do well to be near a person with the latter when the angry mob shows up. And only the most foolish and shortsighted god of Power would fail to realize that the unification of a person skilled at exercising political power and a person skilled at exercising military power is a combination providing well more than double the power of either working alone; two such individuals would do well to protect each other.

Any god that doesn't expect to destroy the world within this generation has things to protect, if only so that it can have followers in the next generation.

If you want to argue that the title of paladin should go to the primary champions of the cause rather than to the protectors of the structures that make spreading the cause possible, that's fine. But only the most cartoonishly Evil deities are going to turn their noses up at the very idea of that protection.Again, why the need for paladins? Clerics are just as combat capable and heavily armored. Their slight disadvantage in direct martial combat is more than made up by their vastly superior arsenal of spells.

If I had to chose between a temple protected by 10 paladins and 10 clerics and one protected by 20 clerics, I would chose the later



The cleric-adventurer is not a meek priest; he is a warrior who has spells and magical powers to aid him as he destroys the enemies of his god. Like Archbishop Turpin, he can use his powers to bless and support his comrades, and he is an able fighter in his own right, second only to a professional warrior in skill.
[...]
Clericadventurers are trained warriors; they fight better than trained men-at-arms, are comfortable with armor, and are bold enough to enter places no cynical mercenary would dare come near. They are warrior-priests, and it should show in their outlook. This warlike outlook is evident in a properly motivated cleric player character. Why does a cleric-adventurer go on adventures? Certainly not just to play medic; he could do that where it’s safe — people get hurt everywhere.
[...]
His motives are basically aggressive: he wants to destroy his god’s enemies, wrest away their wealth, and accumulate personal experience in a rapid but risky manner; and all for his god’s benefit. This is a cleric worthy of Turpin’s approval. After all, how meek can you expect a person who fights terrible monsters to be? Just descending into a dungeon is an act of uncommon boldness. The cleric-adventurer isn’t, and really can’t be, a meek healer. His purpose demands that he be a bold killer, a champion of his god.


Note that the weapon restriction for clerics, however explained in fluss, was mechanicall born from the need to limit them to weapons with lower damage dice, so that they did not fight better than fighters.

Even in 2e clerics still had second best THAC0, the were better in melee than rogues. There was a reason why the realms splatbooks were grouped "Warriors&Priests" and "Wizards&Rogues"

[SpawnOfMorbo]

marks do that.

they make it harder for a marked target to hit anyone but the paladin, they also give a reason for the target to want to attack the paladin.

The Paladin mark is more of a striker mechanic. The mark actually doesn't stop anyone else from being hit, it actually only works if the target is actively attacking an ally.

So the Paladin relies on the target striking at an ally... Doesn't sound very defender-ish to me.

Hey dude, strike my friend so I can hurt you more!

Face it, even in 4e the Paladin is a striker masked as a defender.

This isn't a bad thing though. I like the Paladin being a "tank"/striker.

[captpike]

The Paladin mark is more of a striker mechanic. The mark actually doesn't stop anyone else from being hit, it actually only works if the target is actively attacking an ally.

So the Paladin relies on the target striking at an ally... Doesn't sound very defender-ish to me.

Hey dude, strike my friend so I can hurt you more!

Face it, even in 4e the Paladin is a striker masked as a defender.

This isn't a bad thing though. I like the Paladin being a "tank"/striker.

all marks make it harder to hit anyone but the person marked, that is what marks do.
the paladin can do good damage yes, but only if the marked targets all decide to attack targets other then the paladin, and accept the -2 to hit.

[Fwiffo86]

Hehehe

4e.

Isn't this the 5e board?

Not to be rude, but I'm sure this discussion belongs on a different board. Unless I miss clicked something

[obryn]

The Paladin mark is more of a striker mechanic. The mark actually doesn't stop anyone else from being hit, it actually only works if the target is actively attacking an ally.

So the Paladin relies on the target striking at an ally... Doesn't sound very defender-ish to me.

Hey dude, strike my friend so I can hurt you more!

Face it, even in 4e the Paladin is a striker masked as a defender.

This isn't a bad thing though. I like the Paladin being a "tank"/striker.
Err, no... "It does bad things to you if you violate its mark" is more or less the definition of a Defender. That doesn't make it a striker, because it's driving the enemy's decision-making by presenting a series of bad options. "I take striker-level damage and have a lower chance of hitting and other stuff might happen to me" vs. "I attack the heavily-armored dude with hit points to spare."

Now, there are some blurry lines - Pursuit Avengers, for example, are Strikers who benefit from mechanics somewhat similar to Defenders - but by and large, a Striker mechanic is controlled completely by the Striker and doesn't require the enemy's permission to function.

[Stubbazubba]

Actually with pre-orders, kickstarter (and its clones), and the lower cost of print on demand combined with the power of surveys, they could easily get a good idea of how many books to print of each. They would do the most cost efficient print run which might be 1 full print run + print on demand for remaining orders or it might be 3 full print runs + print on demand for remaining orders. They could do kickstarters for each print run with their expected profit as the goal. So that they could meet the goal or exceed it and do extra print runs and/or print on demand on top of it to fill all orders, and if they don't get enough interest they at least have an idea of how many print on demand books they need to make to fill the demand. The world is changing and so is how business can be done. Its getting super efficient.

OK, so we at least agree that it would take some new distribution model that WotC may or may not be prepared to figure out and go for, especially when they may have contracts with book distributors that prevent it.


As to the monster entry part, only certain parts don't translate over like the defenses/saves thing, but that's like 3 extra letters "/+3" it wouldn't even inflate the book space. You wouldn't really need 3 columns.

I would want the 3 columns just to be very clear, to reduce the clutter of alternate stats all listed together. With color-coded columns, you don't have to spend even half a second sifting through extra information.


Powers in 4E work like spells in any edition. Not only that you could format them in the Tactical book in a way that is more pleasing to tactical players.

Maybe, but not everything in pre-4e had spells/powers. So the tactical rules would require significantly more space in the entry or char sheet. May not be a deal-breaker, but presenting 3 rule-sets in one would certainly end up looking weird.


Skill challenges should be remade from the ground up again

FTFY


Yes, but they don't have a unifying supported game they can buy supplements and adventures for and go to game shops and conventions and play a 'living campaign' or 'encounters' game in.

3.5 hasn't had this in almost 10 years, it seems to be getting along fairly well. What game shop or convention have you gone to that doesn't have 3.5 or at least Pathfinder being played? Adventures and fan-made content are still being made for all of these things, and with the internet those will never go away. Organized play is a marketing tool, not anywhere near the core experience of the game. There are people who have been playing 3.X since 2000, their game decisions are not being determined by living campaign opportunities.

WotC could achieve pretty much all of what you're suggesting with far less risk by simply re-releasing past editions with new art and edits. Make an online marketplace where fans could put up their homebrew content for free or for sale. WotC takes a cut, and the brand goes evergreen (or more, the revenue from it does, since D&D has been evergreen since 1974). Everyone's happy.

And then...

"From director Michael Bay..."

[theNater]

Again, why the need for paladins?
Consider again the deity of plague. While a person might be skilled both at spreading plague and at combat, such persons are probably rare. More likely, our plague deity will need two followers; one with each skillset. The question then is what to call each of these two followers.

Call the first a priest and the other a cleric? Could work.

Call the first a cleric and the other a paladin? Could also work.

Call them both clerics? Sure, it renders the class system is pointless by making the class not actually tell you anything about the character's capabilities, but if that's what you like, go for it.

It's just a question of nomenclature.

[Felhammer]

I can honestly say I really dislike the idea that every god must have a Paladin. Paladins are very specific, not generic with a twist (i.e. Cleric).

Look up Paladin in the dictionary:

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

None of that even remotely alludes to the idea of a "Champion of a Plague God." Plague Gods would use Clerics, Wizards and evil Fighters. He would likely have one Blackguard at his beck and call, a man so villainous and dastardly that he forsook his vows as a Paladin and threw his lot in with the God of Plagues.

Once you muddy the waters by turning Paladins into Champions, you may as well eliminate the Cleric and just have the Priest. That way there is a sharper differentiation between the two concepts.

[theNater]

Look up Paladin in the dictionary:
Many D&D class names are divorced from their dictionary definitions. A Cleric need not belong to an organized church, a Fighter is more specific than "someone who fights", Wizards and Sorcerers are not identical despite being synonyms, Bards are usually musicians instead of poets, Druids don't have to be Celts, and so on. The dictionary is a starting point, not the arbiter of class requirements.

[Felhammer]

Many D&D class names are divorced from their dictionary definitions. A Cleric need not belong to an organized church, a Fighter is more specific than "someone who fights", Wizards and Sorcerers are not identical despite being synonyms, Bards are usually musicians instead of poets, Druids don't have to be Celts, and so on. The dictionary is a starting point, not the arbiter of class requirements.

I am not saying it should be, just using it illustrate how the class has been viewed in the past (Complete Paladin from 2E spends a lot of time backing up those same principles) and how, IMO, it should be viewed in the future. Personal opinion, obviously but, then again it is the same with the people who like the "Champion" concept more than the traditional Paladin concept.

[Knaight]

I can honestly say I really dislike the idea that every god must have a Paladin. Paladins are very specific, not generic with a twist (i.e. Cleric).

Look up Paladin in the dictionary:

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

None of that even remotely alludes to the idea of a "Champion of a Plague God." Plague Gods would use Clerics, Wizards and evil Fighters. He would likely have one Blackguard at his beck and call, a man so villainous and dastardly that he forsook his vows as a Paladin and threw his lot in with the God of Plagues.

Definition 2 would work. The heroic champion is already out, but a knightly champion could very much work. It's not like biological warfare was completely absent from the middle ages, even if it was rotting corpse based more than anything sophisticated.

[theNater]

I am not saying it should be, just using it illustrate how the class has been viewed in the past (Complete Paladin from 2E spends a lot of time backing up those same principles) and how, IMO, it should be viewed in the future. Personal opinion, obviously but, then again it is the same with the people who like the "Champion" concept more than the traditional Paladin concept.
From a game-design perspective, having narrow classes like the traditional Paladin and broad classes like the traditional Cleric was one of the big contributors to the 3e tiers. I think avoiding that is to be recommended.

There's lots of ways to do that. For example, I'm 100% on board with making a Champion class that has a little note in it somewhere indicating that Good Champions are called Paladins and Evil Champions are called Blackguards. At that point it's just nomenclature, as I say.

[SoC175]

Consider again the deity of plague. While a person might be skilled both at spreading plague and at combat, such persons are probably rare. No, such a person is the D&D cleric. High HD; heavy armor, good melee capability and spells.

Or if you have a lay worshipper who is not a cleric but good at spreading plague, your clerics can defend him just as well, if not better, than paladins could

[SpawnOfMorbo]

From a game-design perspective, having narrow classes like the traditional Paladin and broad classes like the traditional Cleric was one of the big contributors to the 3e tiers. I think avoiding that is to be recommended.

There's lots of ways to do that. For example, I'm 100% on board with making a Champion class that has a little note in it somewhere indicating that Good Champions are called Paladins and Evil Champions are called Blackguards. At that point it's just nomenclature, as I say.


Well the tiers aren't just about broad versus narrow classes. But board versus narrow Quality class features. Give a low tier character a chance for a higher tier class feature while keeping their other class features the same and you will boost that low tier up. The Wildshape Ranger is a good example of this. The Fighter has a very wide selection of feats as class featyres, however the Bard also gets a wide selection of class features (that aren't feats) and yet the Bard is a higher tier

So, quality over quantity. If you have a class focused on one thing it can be better or weaker than another based on how strong that one thing is.

Divine Champion would be nice, then have each alignment (optional) have their own names. Also depending on your deity you name can change. A LN Divine Champion of order could be called the Gray Gaurd but a LN Divine Champion of a nature deity could be called a Green Warden.

[da_chicken]

From a game-design perspective, having narrow classes like the traditional Paladin and broad classes like the traditional Cleric was one of the big contributors to the 3e tiers. I think avoiding that is to be recommended.

That's not true at all. Fighter is even more broad than Cleric or Wizard, and it's one of the worst classes in 3.X. Tiers come from spellcasters in 3.X being plainly ridiculous and Prestige classes have no entry costs while granting 99% of the base class abilities, not from the classes being narrow or broad.

[BritishBill]

Fifty bucks is a little steep, geez.

[Kurald Galain]

I fail to see why a champion of tyranny and despair would be expected to have the same powers as a champion of chivalry and purity, or even the same powers but with heal switched to harm and the damage type changed to something evil. It doesn't make sense to file both under the same paladin-like class. At least clerics get clearly different powers dependent on their domains.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I fail to see why a champion of tyranny and despair would be expected to have the same powers as a champion of chivalry and purity, or even the same powers but with heal switched to harm and the damage type changed to something evil. It doesn't make sense to file both under the same paladin-like class. At least clerics get clearly different powers dependent on their domains.

I would see Divine Champion as the class and have the subclass decide the abilities.

Divine Champion of Tyranny should have vastly different abilities that Divine Champion of Freedom. Divine Champion of Life and Divine Champion of Destruction.

Tyranny: Hold Person x/day
Freedom: Freedom of Movement x/day
Life: Heal x/day
Destruction: Harm x/day
Neutral (L/C): ?
Neutral (G/E): ?

Then you gain these abilities based on your alignment. I'm blanking on what to give neutral Divine Champions right now. They all get smite and immunities but everything else cthat is gained can be based on god/alignment.

But you can have the same chassis without having the same abilities. Though I think evil and neutral paladins should be able to heal themselves with lay on hands, why wouldn't a god want their followers healing themselves?

[Kurald Galain]

But you can have the same chassis without having the same abilities. Though I think evil and neutral paladins should be able to heal themselves with lay on hands, why wouldn't a god want their followers healing themselves?

Themselves, yes. Their party members, not necessarily (and if they worship a god of pain and suffering, e.g. Loviatar, then perhaps not themselves either).

In fact my homemade campaign world does have a few evil gods which restrict healing spells to affecting only worshippers of that god, which in most cases is only the cleric.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Themselves, yes. Their party members, not necessarily (and if they worship a god of pain and suffering, e.g. Loviatar, then perhaps not themselves either).

In fact my homemade campaign world does have a few evil gods which restrict healing spells to affecting only worshippers of that god, which in most cases is only the cleric.

Makes sense and I totally agree. I just always hated how Evil = No Healing anything ever, when it came to D&D. Minor exceptions for undead of course.

If I was an evil god, I would damn well put my Paladin of Tyranny up with some healing mojo. I may be pretty damn strong but mortals are squishy, even the more badass ones.

I could seeing an evil god only allowing followers to be healed, good tactic.

Paladin of Tyranny: Yo Fighter, I see you are bleeding out, ouch that looks bad...
Fighter: Yeah... Feels horrible... How about some help?
PoT: Wellllll I would, I mean we are friends and all but my deity you see, well I can only help other followers of the church... Sorry man... Not to much I can do, well... Nah...
Fightwr;: Please I'll do anything!
PoT: Wellllll ok, worship my deity and I can hook you up. :smallamused:

I kinda could see healing magic to be a drug, instead of naturally healing you really want the good stuff you know :smallbiggrin:

Random tnagent, I hate that healing is conjuration and not necromancy but hey, people can't wrap their heads around the spooky school of magic healing people haha.

[theNater]

Fighter is even more broad than Cleric or Wizard, and it's one of the worst classes in 3.X.
Fighters and Clerics/Wizards got hit differently by the broad/narrow division. Cleric and Wizard just flat got access to everything that might fit under their big umbrellas, while Fighter got only the things that didn't fit under the umbrella of one of the narrower classes. If Fighter had access to all the abilities of the other front-line classes, they'd have fared far better.

Themselves, yes. Their party members, not necessarily (and if they worship a god of pain and suffering, e.g. Loviatar, then perhaps not themselves either).
If one of Loviatar's highly skilled torturers is fatally wounded, a measure of healing that gets that torturer back to work is going to do far more to advance the cause of pain and suffering than just allowing nature to take its course.

[Kurald Galain]

If one of Loviatar's highly skilled torturers is fatally wounded, a measure of healing that gets that torturer back to work is going to do far more to advance the cause of pain and suffering than just allowing nature to take its course.

That doesn't mean it's going to happen, though. Gods don't necessarily always use the theoretically optimized method, either because it doesn't fit their character or because they physically don't have the ability. It doesn't make sense for a cleric of Loviatar to have the exact same abilities as a cleric of Pelor (and indeed, by both 3E and 4E RAW they don't have the same abilities!) even if you can vaguely justify it with some handwaving.

[Fwiffo86]

Just putting this out there....

Cleric of a god of plagues, to prove his faith, must voluntarily contract a deadly disease, for which there is no cure. As long as he remains faithful, his god keeps him from being ravaged by the disease and dieing.

Paladin of a god of plagues (odd concept, yes) Also must contract a disease, but it must be extremely virulent and communicative, so that where ever the paladin goes, his disease spreads.

just thoughts. not really part of anything.

[Felhammer]

I would see Divine Champion as the class and have the subclass decide the abilities.

Divine Champion of Tyranny should have vastly different abilities that Divine Champion of Freedom. Divine Champion of Life and Divine Champion of Destruction.

Tyranny: Hold Person x/day
Freedom: Freedom of Movement x/day
Life: Heal x/day
Destruction: Harm x/day
Neutral (L/C): ?
Neutral (G/E): ?

Then you gain these abilities based on your alignment. I'm blanking on what to give neutral Divine Champions right now. They all get smite and immunities but everything else cthat is gained can be based on god/alignment.

But you can have the same chassis without having the same abilities. Though I think evil and neutral paladins should be able to heal themselves with lay on hands, why wouldn't a god want their followers healing themselves?

You have described the ideal concept of the Cleric (which is close to how 5E is handling the class).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You have described the ideal concept of the Cleric (which is close to how 5E is handling the class).

Well yes, Paladins and Clerics are pretty much the same thing (as I've always said).

I'm not sure how they should actually make the Divine Champion distinct. I would be all for making the Paladin a sub-class than any class can then take (I may have posted this before).

Fighter (Paladin Sub-Class) = Crusader

Rogue (Paladin Sub-Class) = Avenger

Cleric (Paladin Sub-Class) = Templar

Mage (Paladin Sub-Class) = Divine Duskblade

Then each Paladin Sub-Class abilities can be determined by alignment. This way the Paladin may have more to deal with but the Paladin will be super awesome.

I actually would be cool if they handled all multiclassing by using sub-classes but I don't think they will.

[Kurald Galain]

Well yes, Paladins and Clerics are pretty much the same thing (as I've always said).

No, they're not.

The cleric is the archetypical champion of its deity. The paladin is the archetypical knight in shining armor representing justice, chivalry, and other virtues, and the idea that acting with virtue does indeed make you stronger. It's a classic literary trope that really doesn't make apply to just any random deity, certainly not a chaotic or evil one. If you want the abilities of this class without its ethos, then you haven't really understood what it's based upon.

[captpike]

No, they're not.

The cleric is the archetypical champion of its deity. The paladin is the archetypical knight in shining armor representing justice, chivalry, and other virtues, and the idea that acting with virtue does indeed make you stronger. It's a classic literary trope that really doesn't make apply to just any random deity, certainly not a chaotic or evil one. If you want the abilities of this class without its ethos, then you haven't really understood what it's based upon.

so you want to make a class that only works for 1/9 of all alignments, you might as well say every wizard has to be lawful neutral, and a non-LN wizard is a contradiction in terms.

why not just make a good paladin class and have things that change per alignment?

and you know, you have to make room for all different settings. it hardly makes sense to make a class that only works for the stock setting, when you can make it work for most of them

[Felhammer]

so you want to make a class that only works for 1/9 of all alignments, you might as well say every wizard has to be lawful neutral, and a non-LN wizard is a contradiction in terms.

why not just make a good paladin class and have things that change per alignment?

and you know, you have to make room for all different settings. it hardly makes sense to make a class that only works for the stock setting, when you can make it work for most of them

That's just what Paladins are. They are virtuous Knights in shining armor. They are akin to a prestige class you can play at level one. Rangers too are a specific concept, that being a noble knight of the wild. Both concepts make far more sense when they are viewed as sub-type of the Fighter/Warrior, which is what they originally were.

There is a stock setting. The game makes a lot of assumptions based on the idea that the campaign will be using the stock setting (like the fact that being a murder Hobo is a-ok, or that monsters run rampant in the wild, or that so-called good races band together to fight so-called evil races). If your DM wants to alter this aspect of the game, then he must adjust the game accordingly. Paladins do not work in every setting but then again neither do Druids, Wizards or Clerics.


No, they're not.

The cleric is the archetypical champion of its deity. The paladin is the archetypical knight in shining armor representing justice, chivalry, and other virtues, and the idea that acting with virtue does indeed make you stronger. It's a classic literary trope that really doesn't make apply to just any random deity, certainly not a chaotic or evil one. If you want the abilities of this class without its ethos, then you haven't really understood what it's based upon.

I could almost see the Paladin being folded into the Cleric, so that Clerics of, say, Heironeous are Paladins.




Fighter (Paladin Sub-Class) = Crusader

Rogue (Paladin Sub-Class) = Avenger

Cleric (Paladin Sub-Class) = Templar

Mage (Paladin Sub-Class) = Divine Duskblade


3 out of the four of those are much more easily explained by simply multi-classing the intended class with the cleric.

[theNater]

That doesn't mean it's going to happen, though.
Anything can be made to happen; we're discussing a system not yet released, with splatbooks yet to be written. Some people have been claiming that Evil deities would never want to have dedicated protectors and/or healers, which is completely ludicrous. Having those things is absolutely advantageous to the deity, and it's easy to design a deity who wants things that are advantageous.

Now if you want to say you'd prefer they don't want such things, as a flavor choice, that is a whole different matter and completely reasonable.

[Felhammer]

Anything can be made to happen; we're discussing a system not yet released, with splatbooks yet to be written. Some people have been claiming that Evil deities would never want to have dedicated protectors and/or healers, which is completely ludicrous. Having those things is absolutely advantageous to the deity, and it's easy to design a deity who wants things that are advantageous.

Now if you want to say you'd prefer they don't want such things, as a flavor choice, that is a whole different matter and completely reasonable.

Clerics fulfill the role of healer and protector for all gods.

[theNater]

Clerics fulfill the role of healer and protector for all gods.
Which is fine, if you define Clerics as being the healers and protectors for their gods. But Kurald Galain defines the Cleric as "the archetypical champion of its deity", and having the archetypical champions of deities of Plague and Tyranny be healers and protectors feels just as weird as giving those guys traditional Paladins.

I think a good solution to this(maybe not the best, certainly not the only) would be to have two distinct divinely powered classes. One would be a primary spellcaster, with the sort of close combat drawbacks that implies, with a spell list largely controlled by their choice of deity. These would be the characters tasked with moving the deity's purpose in the mortal realm forward, and their spells would give them the power to do that.

On the flipside, the other would be tasked with keeping the deity's place from slipping backward, by maintaining the well-being of the extant church. To that end, they'd have the physical prowess to intercept immediate threats, a bit of healing to keep themselves fighting and their charges breathing, and a handful of moderately helpful supernatural powers reflecting their deity's particular priorities.

I don't care what these classes are named. If someone insisted that PHB1 class names got shoehorned onto them, I'd be inclined to call the more spellcastery one the Cleric and the more physical one the Paladin, because those make (barely) more sense than calling them anything else from that list.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

3 out of the four of those are much more easily explained by simply multi-classing the intended class with the cleric.

Because paladins and clerics are pretty much the same thing. Multiclassing may suck in this edition or may not, who knows. But making something a sub-class could work out easier. Besides this would allow clerics to be paladins too instead of just everyone else :smallbiggrin:, can't MC cleric-cleric.

I keep hearing that paladins are the shinny knight version, however that sounds more like character traits than class traits. What is to stop a cleric from shinning up their armor and acting according to a paladin code? Then what is the difference? The cleric is a warrior priest and always has been, from 2e to 4e.

If the are different there better be a huge difference in their abilities. Like the rogue and bard. Both are Dex/Int/cha type of character (Str can replace one of the ability scores if wanted) rhat are akill monkies and yet they are vastly different due to class features. If you aren't making them vastly distinct then why have two classes?