Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    As far as paladins being a prestige class or a template - this is something that those of these opinion have had troubles with in the core rules and is really not a BR-specific issue. Hence it doesn't really belong here, IMO.

    That is to say that based on past posts most (I will not say all, but I'm pretty sure it is all who use those variations) apply to any setting they use paladins in. So it is not a BR issue but a core-rules issue.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #12
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Something I think you have missed is the granted power of the domain. Paladin's of Nesire gain the domain granted power (water breathing). This is very much on par with equvalent power levels.

    Since they don't need to multi-class in order to gain this they gain greater benefit from their paladin levels. They gains spells quicker (also a bonus spell per the rules for domain spells), increased healing benefits, etc.

    This was an attempt to capture what the 2nd ed paladin had as far as special abilities. In 2nd ed paladins of Nesire did not have special mounts but they gained the granted abilities of the the priests (i.e., the domain granted power).
    OK, you're right, I didn't mention that benefit - but c'mon, Irdeggman, look at the whole picture presented. If you let them freely multiclass as clerics, the same as Paladins of Haelyn are currently presented, they can choose two domains, one of which could be the Sea, and gain that power any ways. The only need 1 level of cleric to get the granted powers of 2 domains. Are you somehow implying that the Sea domain is far stronger than any other one?

    The point was to make them equal to the other paladin classes - and since they for some reason can't multicalss, they're not at all equal - not one bit. I think Neserie's focus as healers, as well as a general theme of devotion, makes them very well suited as paladin/clerics - more so than Haelynites, even.

    And if you allow them that 1 class to multiclass into clerics...compared to the Haelynites, they still get shorted because Haelynites get a warhorse, while the Neserieans get nothing. Granted domain power or not, you seem to have missed the balancing fact that a Haelynite cleric/paladin would also get 2 domain powers. That's why I suggested a familiar-type animal companion from the sea.

    Come on, man! I appreciate the conservatism in trying to keep the flavour of the old system, but can't you see how the current system is saying, "Paladins of Neserie simply are weaker than any of the others?" I'm not looking to overpower anyone here, I'm looking to balance the paladins out AND improve the revised game so we can say, "Check it out! We've got the 3.5 Birthright setting, and it's better than ever!" That was one of the main points of the 3.x revisions of D&D itself, was it not? To revamp the old system and make a better one?

    When free multiclassing with one other class is a staple of every other paladin type, it becomes a theme, and in this case the Neseriens get excluded. This is a 3e conversion. All I'm asking is that we open things up and allow for a little more diversity and options for characters while still keeping thematic guidelines - my proposal would allow paladins of Neserie, as paladin/clerics, to be very much like their 2e predecessors, but it would ALSO allow other neat and interesting possibilities. A paladin/cleric with Healing and Protection would be awesome for a Holy Warrior of Neserie! See, the cleric aspect ensures that whatever domains are chosen remain within Neserie's portfolio and thus very thematic - just not choiceless as is the current system, and thus it ends up dry, rigid, and two-dimensional.

    I don't know how it happened, but a theme got started with the multiclassing paladin bit. Personally, I love it - I think it opens up the paladin class and lets them be a lot less cookie-cutter generic. Now see it through instead of allowing it for all but one type...

  3. #13
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 02:42 PM 3/18/2004 +0100, CMonkey wrote:



    >
    Paladins are just fine as a standard class.
    > I mooted this before, and in my campaign at least, been proved right

    > since. Paladin`s detect evil at will is unbalancing in any campaign that

    > moves beyond simple dungeoneering.

    >

    > One more vote for prestige class (at least) I`m afraid.



    If one makes the paladin a prestige class it allows them to go through a

    page--squire--knight process that is so often considered a part of the

    genesis of such warriors (and there are several knightly prestige

    classes.) Paladins need not necessarily be stereotypical knights, but it

    does seem to be the case more often than not that they get played that way,

    and in the long run it`s more fun IMO to play their knightly qualities with

    a little more development "through the ranks" as it were. That`s another

    reason to do away with the multi-classing restriction on paladins (and

    multi-class restrictions in general, for that matter.)



    Gary

  4. #14
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 04:10 PM 3/18/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



    > As far as paladins being a prestige class or a template - this is

    > something that those of these opinion have had troubles with in the core

    > rules and is really not a BR-specific issue. Hence it doesn`t really

    > belong here, IMO.

    >

    > That is to say that based on past posts most (I will not say all, but

    > I`m pretty sure it is all who use those variations) apply to any setting

    > they use paladins in. So it is not a BR issue but a core-rules issue.



    I think it`s both. It`s definitely a 3e issue--but it`s also a BR issue in

    that paladins in our favorite setting have several dissimilarities with the

    core class. The issue of multi-classing is one in particular, especially

    since the door is opened by the proposed system of Chapter 1 that uses

    multi-classing as a way of portraying the differences between the

    two. Technically, the system of prestige classes really is a

    multi-classing issue.... It is about characters taking levels in a

    different class from their first one, after all. There are a few more

    restrictions in the form of prereqs than does normal multi-classing, but

    it`s really an extension of multi-classing.



    The particulars of the BR "paladins" might be easier to take if they were

    presented as prestige class options rather than regular classes. There

    have been, after all, a good half-dozen prestige classes that are basically

    just variants on the paladin in supplemental texts published after the core

    books. The Holy Liberator, for instance, is just a chaotic good paladin,

    the Blackguard is just a chaotic evil (anti-)paladin, etc. It`s probably

    easier to just do away with paladin as a character class--for all that they

    were presented as a "core" class in the original BR materials--and using

    the prestige class option as a solution for all four (or five in the 3e

    updated that expands paladins to dwarves, which is one of the ones for

    which a prestige class seems particularly more apt IMO) of the classes that

    are basically paladin variants.



    Gary

  5. #15
    Junior Member JanGunterssen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    10
    Downloads
    68
    Uploads
    0
    Osprey, I buy your idea of making Nesirie Paladins freely multiclaseable with clerics.
    I also leke the idea of the Haelynites multiclassing as Nobles (but it bring some problems with if Noble means nobility ans noble birht or not)
    Regarding Moradin paladins, I don't believe that their role as Paladins would be to create things or deal like honest armorers. I see Moradin's paladins as fighters of their faith.
    In the end, I think the better proposal is to take the Holy Warrior from the "The Book of the Righteous" as Ming pointed. I think it is the most coustemizable option that allows us to take the spirit of the 2nd Ed BR.
    Dark is the night, for all...

  6. #16
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    I think it`s both. It`s definitely a 3e issue--but it`s also a BR issue in
    that paladins in our favorite setting have several dissimilarities with the
    core class. The issue of multi-classing is one in particular, especially
    since the door is opened by the proposed system of Chapter 1 that uses
    multi-classing as a way of portraying the differences between the
    two. Technically, the system of prestige classes really is a
    multi-classing issue.... It is about characters taking levels in a
    different class from their first one, after all. There are a few more
    restrictions in the form of prereqs than does normal multi-classing, but
    it`s really an extension of multi-classing. [Geeman]
    I'd rather go for the open multiclassing (at least with a single thematically appropriate class, as presented in Ch 1 and in my first post in this forum) with starting paladins, and then allow for more specialized versions for prestige classes. I can see where you're coming from with the idea of prestige classes being streamlined multiclass characters, but I'd argue that's only one of two forms of prestige classes. In fact, the streamlined multiclass type is something that was opened up a great deal more with 3.5 than in 3.0 D&D, with the introduction of the mystic theurge, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcane archer, and duelist in the DMG, thus officially sanctioning them as "core" prestige classes. But I think you're ignoring the remaining 50-75% (a guestimate) of prestige classes, which are quite different. These are the second type of prestige class - the flavoured specialists. These include PrC's like the Loremaster, the Assassin, the Dwarven Defender, the Archmage and Hierophant, the Horizon Walker, Shadowdancer, and the Thaumaturgist. And if one includes the 3.0 class books (song and Silence, Tome and Blood, etc.), the specialists FAR outnumber the multiclass types.

    Also, I think the idea with allowing a single multiclass option for paladins is that they still retain some of the core class restriction in that they must remain dedicated to their path without deviation. The idea behind the multiclass allowance is that the paladin's deity and portfolio determines what is or is not "deviant" for their paladins' paths. To keep the paladin core class but remove multiclass restrictions entirely does away with this idea altogether, which is not only a truly radical departure from the core paladin class, but robs them of any distinct flavour as a class except for what players or DM's require or ascribe to them.

    Personally, I like the idea of a single multiclassing option for each type of BR paladin, one appropriate to the deity they follow (hence the Noble/Paladin of Haelyn and the Cleric/Paladin of Neserie, whose domains strongly reflect clerical specialties - Healing and Protection especially - more than any other BR deity).

    What this allows is for low-level characters to be dedicated holy warriors in service to a deity from the start of their adult careers, rather than much later (as they would be as a prestige class). But not so narrow and 2-D as the core paladin class.

    Then, at higher levels, open up prestige classes that represent specific types of paladins - in fact, I would have no problem with several types for any given deity, if there was a creative impetus to create such classes. The general characteristics would allow them to build on the base paladin abilities, and then add special prestige class features depending on the choice of prestige class. I'd expect at least one streamlined multiclass type PrC for each base paladin type based on the multiclass options, and also several dedicated specialist types that fill very specific roles within their temple's or deity's service, depending on the specific agendas of each faith. For instance a dwarven paladin prestige class dedicated to fighting the dwarves' racial enemies, Orogs, might be a good type of religious zealot for the dwarves, while a Neserien "Defender of the Lost" (from the BR.net archives) might represent one path for her holy warriors.

    The main idea is to allow starting paladins to be more open and flexible than core type paladins, while at higher levels they can funnel their efforts into more specialized roles or streamlined versions of the multiclass base types. I think this can integrate your ideas of more open low-level progression, and later still allow for the dedicated specialists and those who take the basics to the next level.

    Also, this allows for the revised BRCS to be more modular, letting the paladin class remain recognizable to those who are familiar with the core rules, and allowing for Prestige Classes as add-on features rather than a total revamping of the base system.

    Osprey

  7. #17
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Osprey,
    I wasn't saying I was gainst changing the multiclassing rules only trying to point out something I think was being overlooked.

    Another option (from Complete Warrior and UA, even though it is in the core books but only recently has WotC started to embrace it) is creating 'new' classes.

    For example:

    A paladin of Haelyn probably fits pretty well as the 'standard' paladin as does Moradin.

    Cuirecean could be redone to better 'embrace' the figher theme, perhaps dropping spellcasting ability (and turning undead) {as was done in 2nd ed} replacing it with the ability to specialize and some fighter feats (not the same progression as the fighter since other paladin abilities, like lay on hands and special mount are still available)

    Nesiree - could be changed to be less fighter paladin oriented (change the BAB progression to average vice good), drop the special mount and give the water breathing special ability with a different spell list, perhaps a different progression.

    Avani - that is the one that is hard to embrace. In 2nd ed, they were clearly the most powerful paladin class. Maybe a different spell list, possibly a different spell progression.

    These are just thoughts.

    By the way, multiclassing paladins wasn't something that was originated in the BRCS - it was based on Forgotten Realms, which already had it.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #18
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The paladin of Avani I have used is a kind of a seeker. A powerful warrior,

    but with some color text which would more resemble a monk (why should

    contemplative warriors be martial artists?) whose spell lists includes a few

    more informational spells and whose Will save was improved, while the Fort

    save was basic. Khinasi paladins of Avani tend to get light warhorses,

    rather than heavy, because it meshes better with Khinasi regional feats.

    The special mount of the paladin of Avani gets a +2 Int. I eased up on the

    remove disease so that by level 16, he tops off at Remove Disease 4/week.

    Skills include Knowledge (all).



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Kenneth Gauck schrieb:



    >The paladin of Avani I have used is a kind of a seeker. A powerful warrior,

    >but with some color text which would more resemble a monk (why should

    >contemplative warriors be martial artists?) whose spell lists includes a few

    >more informational spells and whose Will save was improved, while the Fort

    >save was basic. Khinasi paladins of Avani tend to get light warhorses,

    >rather than heavy, because it meshes better with Khinasi regional feats.

    >

    The Khinasi regional feats on p. 25 of the BRCS in table 1-6?

    City-Dweller, Erudition, Master Diplomat, Master Merchant and Seafarer

    seem unrelated to the horse of a Paladin and Mounted Archery and

    Plainsrider seem to fit to all horses from their description.



    The difference I see would be more the type of barding Anuireans use

    (heavy barding that slows the heavy warhorse from 50 ft to 35 ft. while

    Khinasi would use medium or light barding so that they need not use

    light warhorses to have faster horses than Anuireans.



    >The special mount of the paladin of Avani gets a +2 Int.

    >

    The normal heavy warhorse has INT 2 and so INT +2 = 4, but already at

    5th level the Paladins Mount gains INT 6 and that raises to 9 on level

    20 of the Paladin. What would be the difference of a INT 6 or 8 horse or

    later an INT 9 or 11 horse? The horse gains 2 + INT mod. skill points

    per HD and the negative modifier means that int he early levels it

    always gets only the minimum of 1 skill point, +2 INT or not makes no

    differnce. The difference a +2 on INT would make is only that from level

    11 of the Paladin onward the Paladins Mount gains not the minimum 1

    skill point per HD but 2 skillpoints per HD.



    Has that any other effect?



    >I eased up on the

    >remove disease so that by level 16, he tops off at Remove Disease 4/week.

    >Skills include Knowledge (all).

    >

    Even Knowledge (Planes)? brrrr

    bye

    Michael

  10. #20
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

    Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:10 AM





    > The Khinasi regional feats on p. 25 of the BRCS in table 1-6?



    No, the regional feats I devised. Some years ago I looked at the war cards

    and observed that each nation had a consistent set of advantages and

    disadvnatages, and those play into my feats.



    As a result of this study, and historical analogy, I see the Basarji on

    light warhorses capable of great strategic speed, not just a slightly faster

    tactical speed. I take the Plains States to be like the great steppe which

    produced all the great pastoral peoples. So the cavalry tradition is going

    to be more Mongol (or Turkish) than it would be Arabic. They only nation for

    whom the Composite Shortbow is a martial weapon, rather than an exotic

    weapon is the Basarji. I have a feat that allows a Basarji to train their

    light horse for more speed, so that when a character rides a horse so

    trained, they get a +10 speed. I have a Basarji feat called Skirmish, which

    is just like Shot on the Run, except its based on riding a mount (so the

    total distance can`r exceed your mount`s normal move) and the prereq is

    Mounted Archery.



    > The difference I see would be more the type of barding Anuireans use

    > (heavy barding that slows the heavy warhorse from 50 ft to 35 ft. while

    > Khinasi would use medium or light barding so that they need not use

    > light warhorses to have faster horses than Anuireans.



    The purpose of a heavy warhorse is for shock action, and Basarji cavalry is

    designed more for light cavalry tactics (skirmish, raid, pursuit) rather

    than heavy cavalry tactics (charge and break the enemy line). Look at

    Anuirean units, there are both Knights and Cavalry. They have heavy and

    light cavalry. Going by the ratings of the units, Rjurik, Brecht and the

    unit called "Khinasi Light Cavalry" is more like Anuirean Cavalry than it is

    like Anuirean Knights. There are some specialized units, say the Blackgate

    Stormlords who are knightly, but in general, only Anuireans have heavy

    cavalry. If I wanted a unit of Basarji heavy cavalry, indeed I would

    proceed as you have described and make them lightly armored (Speed 3,

    Defence 3) compared to the Khinasi Light Cavalry (4-2) or Anuirean Knights

    (2-4). They would be rare.



    > Plainsrider seem to fit to all horses from their description.



    This is an insult to Anuirean horsemanship, I think. I give this feat to

    both Anuireans and Basarji characters. Both are preeminent horse people.



    > Has [the Int bonus] any other effect?



    The same effect that the Paladin`s warhorse has when its Int increases by

    the Paladin`s level. A creature that has an animal intelligence can only do

    what is either totally natural (you can feed your horse) or what you have

    trained it to do (tricks, see Handle Animal). An animal with a higher Int

    can do was a person of that Int can do, with regard to animals, you can

    analogize to children of that many years of age. An animal with a 7 Int can

    follow instructions suitable for a 7 year old child. If you send an animal

    with an 11 Int out with the instructions, "bring me a druid" you`ll either

    get a druid or you`ll be told there were none found. If you ask an animal

    with a 6 to find a druid you might get a hermit, a ranger, a scion, or

    anything that matches the animal`s conception of what makes a druid a druid.

    This problem gets larger the less experience the animal has with drudis.

    The Int 6 animal with a lot of experience with druids will do better than

    the Int 6 animal without. The Int 11 animal will do reasonably well in

    either event assuming that druids are not totally unfamiliar. Smarter

    animals can manage a two-part discription better than lower Int animals. If

    you describe a ranger as a "nature-warrior" the smart animal tests every

    case for both desriptions, the other animal might bring back druids or

    knights, which only match one of the descriptors.



    There is no substitute for using children as models for low Int creatures.

    Experience with little ones gives you good ideas about what kinds of errors

    in reasoning will be common with low Int creatures, because it provides a

    functional framework for dealing with semi-intelligent animals, something we

    have no real experience with. A paladin`s warhorse with a 6 Int is already

    as smart (or smarter) than a chimpanzee.



    It also stands to reason that if Handle Animal works the way it does with

    creatures of animal Int, you could give the task a +1 bonus for each 2

    points of Int of the animal beyond 2. A warhorse with an 8 Int would give a

    +3 bonus to the task. Presumably, they could learn more and more complex

    tasks too.



    I would apply Piaget`s four stages of reasoning to the Int of animals this

    way. Creatures with animal Int are in the Sensorimotor stage. They can do

    things that animals can do. Animals between 3-7 Int (inclusive) are in the

    Preoperational stage. They can reason and follow instruction, but their

    thinking lacks system and so is often wrong. Animals between 8-12 are

    Concrete Operators. As long as they deal with concrete (real) things they

    reason pretty well. Animal beyond 13 can reason abtractly. They are Formal

    Operators.



    All humanoid characters become concrete operators when they get to be

    teenagers regardless of Int, exepting, perhaps, the really low Int

    characters. Today it is estimated that only a third of people in

    industrialized contries every really get to formal operations, so I would

    limit this kind of reasoning to PC`s, characters with high Int or Wis, and

    the like. Some characters, say an expert craftsman, might be formal

    operators with regard to their craft (pricing, crafting, bargaining,

    appaisal, learning new techniques) but are concrete operators everywhere

    else.



    > Even Knowledge (Planes)? brrrr



    This would depend on the cosmology of the campaign in question, but in

    general yes. I see no reason a paladin of Avani could not learn about the

    Shadow World (Avani combats it) or the realm that Avani dwells in. Interest

    in other planes (where does Haelyn live?) would fit under just a general

    quest for knowledge suitable to all followers of Avani. Obviously, if

    something doesn`t exist in a specific campaign world, you cannot know about

    it. So even if the only other plane in a game is the SW, the Knowledge

    (Planes) is effectively Knowledge (Shadow World). For the two reasons

    above, this makes sense.



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.