View Poll Results: How should BR paladins be handled?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Per PHB

    2 7.41%
  • Per PHB with each having the ability to freely multiclass with one other class

    11 40.74%
  • Rewrite each as a new class

    5 18.52%
  • Variants for both 1 and 3 above

    3 11.11%
  • Variants for both 2 and 3 above

    6 22.22%
  • Abstain

    0 0%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Here is another poll, this one on BR paladins. When it says per the PHB that means all paladins are the same, but they still have to gain their abilities from one of the deities - i.e., BR paladins can't serve just a cause. This is to keep the flavor of the original setting intact.

    I didn't add the choice of using prestige classes, since using them is something that people tend to do instead of using the standard paladins from the PHB, basically an overall house-rules thing. It also requires at least a 5th level character to qualify for a prestige class (per the 3.5 DMG, pg 197).

    Complete Warrior gave an example of an alternate paladin that can be used for rewriting the classes. Rewriting as a new class entails any aspect of the class, hit dice, BAB, saving throws, class abilities, spell lists, etc. - so if you are considering this option keep in mind that nothing about the paladin class in the PHB can't be changed.

    Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting gave examples of paladins that can freely multiclass with another class.

    Again we need to keep the required books to use only the core 3 (or SRD).
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    69
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just out of curiosity, why would you exclude an idea that more than a few people in the community have adopted; the Paladin being a prestige class? If you want an accurate poll, shouldn't this be an option?

    Also, I think that ideas from other books should be allowed, as long as the relevant information from those books are referenced. I would be happy to type out the information for Green Ronin Publishing's Holy Warrior class. It is what our group uses instead of the Paladin class, and it works very well for us. I would just need someone's help on how to upload the pdf and/or doc file so that people could download it. :unsure:

  3. #3
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just out of curiosity, why would you exclude an idea that more than a few people in the community have adopted; the Paladin being a prestige class? If you want an accurate poll, shouldn't this be an option?
    I thought that I had addressed that one. Making paladins a prestige class "requires" a minimum of 5th character level in order to qualify {New specific rules for 3.5}. This has huge ramifications on the any NPCs from the 2nd ed material. It also eliminates making them a "core" class. This (making them prestige classes) is still, IMO - based on the way people have posted on this issue, is an issue people have with the "core" rules and paladins and is only extrapolated into the the BR setting because of that.

    {quote]Also, I think that ideas from other books should be allowed, as long as the relevant information from those books are referenced. I would be happy to type out the information for Green Ronin Publishing's Holy Warrior class. It is what our group uses instead of the Paladin class, and it works very well for us. I would just need someone's help on how to upload the pdf and/or doc file so that people could download it.[/quote]

    Other than being illegal, unless it is OGC (which off hand I doubt)? That is why I said we couldn't use the CW non-spellcasting ranger directly out of the book, since it is not OGL.

    Since it looks like there will be a variant to have separate paladin classes, I am very open to people sending me their "proposals". Then I'll either put them for votes, combine them, or just pick the one that looks the most complete - depending on what people send me.

    My e-mail is irdeggman@cox.net
    Duane Eggert

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    69
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Irdeggman on Apr 1 2004@ 08:30 PM
    I thought that I had addressed that one. Making paladins a prestige class "requires" a minimum of 5th character level in order to qualify {New specific rules for 3.5}. This has huge ramifications on the any NPCs from the 2nd ed material. It also eliminates making them a "core" class. This (making them prestige classes) is still, IMO - based on the way people have posted on this issue, is an issue people have with the "core" rules and paladins and is only extrapolated into the the BR setting because of that.
    But that's just your opinion right? People should still have the option when voting. The elimination of the paladin as a core class in BR, would only happen if the majority of people wanted them to be a prestige class. Your poll doesn't even entertain that option. :unsure:

    Other than being illegal, unless it is OGC (which off hand I doubt)? That is why I said we couldn't use the CW non-spellcasting ranger directly out of the book, since it is not OGL.
    Don't worry it's not illegal, as that section of the book is OGC. Green Ronin is simply one of the coolest companies in existence and that's just one reason why.

    It may not be necessary to create separate paladin classes. Green Ronin has provided a system in which Holy Warriors can choose domain abilities (much like clerics do), and gifts of god (which are spell-like abilities, usually useable once per week). The scanned version of the Holy Warrior class (in pdf format) is about 12 pages and 3.2 MB. If people can help me to upload this excerpt you can all make your own decisions.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Nether-Netherland
    Posts
    309
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I prefer the UA paladins, but they're not a voting option, so now I can't vote.

    Not that I actually use any paladins in my campaign -- we play in Brechtür and all of my players have a chronic aversion to paladins. Hell, a druid is about the most religious they're willing to go and then only because they're so in tune with nature. They even try to avoid dealing with NPC clerics as much as possible -- or at least, they usually don't trust them. And no, they're not all elves. :P
    <span style='color:darkgray'>&quot;I like to be passionate and sincere, but I also like to have fun and act like a dork... Geeks unite.&quot;
    &#160;</span>&#160;<span style='color:brightgray'>&#160;&#160;—Kurt Cobain</span>

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by the Falcon@Apr 2 2004, 05:50 AM
    I prefer the UA paladins, but they&#39;re not a voting option, so now I can&#39;t vote.
    Why couldn&#39;t you vote? Or did you mean that you couldn&#39;t vote for UA paladins.


    Also which one from UA? The paladin variants: Freedom, Slaughter and Tyranny; The prestigious character class or possibly the Gestalt character variants?

    There are just too many variants there to narrow anything down. Besides UA was designed for use as a &#39;guide&#39; for modifications for a &#39;house-ruled&#39; campaign - that is for use a guide when developing house-rules.

    Also see the premise of only &#39;requiring&#39; the core 3 books for use of the BRCS.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #7
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    QUOTE (Irdeggman on Apr 1 2004 @ 08:30 PM)
    I thought that I had addressed that one. Making paladins a prestige class "requires" a minimum of 5th character level in order to qualify {New specific rules for 3.5}. This has huge ramifications on the any NPCs from the 2nd ed material. It also eliminates making them a "core" class. This (making them prestige classes) is still, IMO - based on the way people have posted on this issue, is an issue people have with the "core" rules and paladins and is only extrapolated into the the BR setting because of that.


    But that&#39;s just your opinion right? People should still have the option when voting. The elimination of the paladin as a core class in BR, would only happen if the majority of people wanted them to be a prestige class. Your poll doesn&#39;t even entertain that option.
    Let&#39;s see - in the core rules the options of replacing a core class are to revise the class or to create a new one.

    Changing a core class that was a shared core class (that is a core class of the core rules and a core class of the BR setting (from 2nd ed)) is outside of the scope of this project.

    That is similar to saying using Ars Magica, GURPS or some other ruleset other than D&D as the basis for the BRCS.

    Using this project as a means of getting a set of house-rules adopted as &#39;core&#39; is also not in the agenda. Some things have/had no clear cut rules so there was some play involved - but things like changing how the paladin class works, from a standard class to a prestige class is well beyond this, especially since there are core-rules mechanics recognized for accomplishing these types of changes. Specifically creating a new (or variant class) like the polls asks.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #8
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,130
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Generally, while the concept of paladins as a prestige class is conceptually correct for other settings, it seriously lacks when applied on Birthright, which had the concept of LG holy warriors from the start, a common old fantasy setting ideal (and I am referring to the setting as it was introduced by Richard Baker, who, to put it in a very round-about manner, made my DM, who agrees with the general concensus that FR has too many annoying or illogical bits and pieces, rethink of taking a look at the Player&#39;s Handbook of Faerûn due to Baker&#39;s revised regional feat system&#33.


    Do not forget that modern ethics push towards a more loose form for holy warriors, but fantasy is above all a matter of epics and drama, and, like it or not, a LG character has a lot more of these to deal with than most other alignments...

    The most common ethical issue I present to most people is the example of the evil mage who is about to sacrifice a young maiden as an offering to his demon master so that he can be granted additional power (plot/character devices are a DM&#39;s best tool&#33; B) ); they know that while he is granted that power he will be helpless, and so a cup de grace could be delivered, however, the paladin would never accept such a cowardly, deceitful, honourless, and outright evil act (letting an innocent die so that you can make what waits ahead of you easier)&#33;

  9. #9
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    What, exactly, do we mean by a "Variant Paladin Class?"

    Are we talking about a single class with modular options that vary depending on one&#39;s deity chosen? Or are we talking about [groan...] 5 variant classes for the different paladin types?

    I voted for the free multi-classing option because well, of course I had to back my own proposals, but more I&#39;m thinking about how much of a bog-down it is to wrestle over a new class and get people to agree on anything as "official" material. I mean, look how long it took to agree on some variant for the Elven Arcane Nature Spells, and plenty of folks are still dissatisfied&#33;

    Thus, I&#39;m a big fan of small &#39;tweaks&#39; to the existing paladins in part because it&#39;s a lot less work and shouldn&#39;t be such a shocking change from the core rules. That&#39;s my idea of a variant - something that varies from it s original form but is still recognizable. As opposed to an Alternative, a completely different mechanical set which is related only in concept...which I&#39;d say is the form most "Variants" in the official stuff has taken...they&#39;re really more like complete alternative rulesets. But I digress...

    All I&#39;m saying is make the tweaks along the same lines we have been going so that Ch 1 doesn&#39;t stall out for 6 months while we argue over what is acceptable...total variant rules are great things to post here on BR.net for downloading, so long as they&#39;re easy to find and identify...

    Osprey

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    69
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by irdeggman Posted on Apr 2 2004@ 12:32 PM
    Let&#39;s see - in the core rules the options of replacing a core class are to revise the class or to create a new one.
    Are you talking about the options presented in the 3.5 DMG? If you&#39;ll notice, there is a space there that says something like "Variant rules are the meat of this chapter", and "This chapter contains alternate rules, concepts, and ways of doing things". Just because it&#39;s in a core book doesn&#39;t make it "official".

    Changing a core class that was a shared core class (that is a core class of the core rules and a core class of the BR setting (from 2nd ed)) is outside of the scope of this project.

    That is similar to saying using Ars Magica, GURPS or some other ruleset other than D&D as the basis for the BRCS.
    That&#39;s a little bit of exaggeration, don&#39;t you think? Changing a class to make it a prestige class instead of a core class, isn&#39;t like using a completely different rules system.

    Your poll isn&#39;t wholly reflective of the community&#39;s (voiced) attitude towards Birthright Paladins. That would be fine if the close to 4000 members, were all offering different opinions, about how they would like to see the Paladin class portrayed in Birthright; but they aren&#39;t. There have only been a few different options set forth (that I&#39;ve seen - there of course may be a ton more) and paladins as a prestige class is one of them. I&#39;m just wondering why you get to make the choice for the "group". "I&#39;m lawful good", is a completely justified answer. :P

    Using this project as a means of getting a set of house-rules adopted as &#39;core&#39; is also not in the agenda. Some things have/had no clear cut rules so there was some play involved - but things like changing how the paladin class works, from a standard class to a prestige class is well beyond this, especially since there are core-rules mechanics recognized for accomplishing these types of changes. Specifically creating a new (or variant class) like the polls asks.
    Why are you so down on variant rules? Variant, or house-rules, have shaped D&D, making it what it is today. Anytime you present a deviation from the norm (whether that is the norm of 2nd edition Birthright, or 3.x edition D&D), you are in effect adopting a "house" rule. Without a variant way of doing things we would still be playing 2nd edition (not that that isn&#39;t a lot of fun at times too).

    As for getting &#39;house&#39; rules adopted as &#39;core&#39;, there are quite a few &#39;house&#39; rules in the first chapter of the BCS alone:
    • humans not having racial ability modifiers
    • clerics becoming a core class
    • the addition of a noble class
    • the changes to the magician class

    Or were you planning on removing all of these and adhering to campaign setting definition? :unsure: :lol:

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.