Results 11 to 20 of 29
Thread: Paladins and Multiclassing
-
03-18-2004, 03:10 PM #11
- 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
-
03-18-2004, 04:24 PM #12Something 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).
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...
-
03-18-2004, 06:10 PM #13
At 02:42 PM 3/18/2004 +0100, CMonkey wrote:
>Paladins are just fine as a standard class.
> 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
-
03-18-2004, 06:30 PM #14
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
-
03-18-2004, 09:52 PM #15
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...
-
03-18-2004, 10:10 PM #16I 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]
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
-
03-20-2004, 06:43 PM #17
- 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
-
03-20-2004, 08:50 PM #18
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
-
03-21-2004, 12:20 PM #19
- 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
-
03-21-2004, 07:20 PM #20
----- 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)
Bookmarks