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 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Nether-Netherland
    Posts
    308
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by irdeggman+Apr 2 2004, 01:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman &#064; Apr 2 2004, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    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?[/b]
    No, I was just thinking about the paladins of Honor, Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny. (I completely forgot about the prestige version.)

    The poll says: "How should BR paladins be handled?"
    Well, in my opinion, paladins of Avani or Haelyn are paladins of honer and paladins of Cuiraécen or Nesirie are paladins of freedom. I would even go so far as to say that paladins of slaughter would be highly appropriate for Belinik and that paladins of tyranny would not be a bad idea for Kriesha.

    <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman
    @Apr 2 2004, 01:24 PM
    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.
    [/quote]Most of the stuff—and at least all of the paladin stuff—in UA is open gaming content. So you can simply include it in the BRCS, which means you won&#39;t actually need to own UA in order to use it. All that is required is that you include the d20 License or even just the OGL. It&#39;s that simple. Free for the taking.
    Anyways, I disagree that "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". Most of the stuff in there are variants; there are only a couple of house rules in there. As has been stated before (see here), the true intention of UA is for others to use its rules variants in their own products and run with them.
    <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>

  2. #12
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Apr 2 2004, 11:40 AM
    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?
    Osprey
    Yes that is exactly what I was talking about - 5 classes in the variant. Due to the desire expressed by many people to maintain the uniqueness of the individual paladins of BR having each one represented as a class works.

    IMO Haelyn and Moradin (maybe some slight tweaking due the special mount thing or just substituting some subteranean ones) work pretty well as PHB paladins while Nesiree, Cuircean and Avani&#39;s paladins have more uniqueness amongst them.

    Having free-multiclassing for each paladin does help to preserve the 2nd ed flavor. Having separate/individual classes for them provides a means of capturing them more completely vice the approximation provided by multi-classing.

    Avani&#39;s paladins provide the hardest challenge since in 2nd they were without a doubt the most powerful ones, pretty much something from 2nd will end up being lost here just to keep them balanced with the others.

    Nesiree for example could be done (mind you this is just a quick take on it and I am seeking input/write ups by anyone out there) didn&#39;t have a special mount in 2nd ed (this also fits in 3.5) so maybe changing their spell selection (more water-oriented and healing spells), the water breathing special ability (from the sea domain), changing their spell progression, along with dropping their HD to a d8 vice a d10 (they are not really the warrior type paladins - more healers, IMO) would serve as a template for creation of a class.

    Cuircean in 2nd ed had no spells nor ability to turn undead but could specialize in a weapon as a fighter. So dropping the spells and turn undead ability, adding a few bonus feats (not as many as a fighter, but a few extra) including specialization following the rules for a fighter. Could work.

    Again this are just off the cuff ideas.

    But yes it is more work.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #13
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just to keep people up to speed on this poll. The results so are:

    Per PB - 1
    Per PHB with multiclassing - 7
    Rewrite each as a new class - 4
    Variants for 1 & 2 - 3
    Variants for 2 & 3 - 6
    Abstain - 0

    Trend so far appears to me to use the multiclass option as the default with a variant for a new class for each paladin.

    That is so far and things could change during the next week.
    Duane Eggert

  4. #14
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Just so you know, I voted for the Seperate Class version. My campaigns would not be the same without paladins devoted to the dark powers for the PCs to fight. The variants offered in UA are fair examples of what I&#39;d like to see, although they would need to be altered for BR (for example a Paladin of Ruornil may have smite shadow instead of good or evil).

    However, I do not think this is something that needs to be in the core material&#33; We do not need to fill hundreds of pages with all the different variants we can think of to cover every possibility, just one version of the rules is needs. Perhaps at some time in the future you can release a book covering the various religious orders and feature the variant versions of the paladin in there...
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Nether-Netherland
    Posts
    308
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Apr 4 2004, 02:21 AM
    Just so you know, I voted for the Seperate Class version. My campaigns would not be the same without paladins devoted to the dark powers for the PCs to fight. The variants offered in UA are fair examples of what I&#39;d like to see, although they would need to be altered for BR (for example a Paladin of Ruornil may have smite shadow instead of good or evil).

    However, I do not think this is something that needs to be in the core material&#33; We do not need to fill hundreds of pages with all the different variants we can think of to cover every possibility, just one version of the rules is needs. Perhaps at some time in the future you can release a book covering the various religious orders and feature the variant versions of the paladin in there...
    I think Raesene has a very good point here: It&#39;s much more important to finish what is absolutely required or necessary first—the &#39;core&#39;, so to speak—before progressing (some might say digressing) to all the fancy, detailed, extra stuff. You can always add that on later on. Try to think modular. It also makes the task seem much less daunting if you tackle just small bits at a time, instead of trying to take on everything all at once.
    <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. #16
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    IMO Haelyn and Moradin (maybe some slight tweaking due the special mount thing or just substituting some subteranean ones) work pretty well as PHB paladins while Nesiree, Cuircean and Avani&#39;s paladins have more uniqueness amongst them.
    For paladins of Moradin, I&#39;ve substituted the magical mount with the ability to summon an Earth Elemental once per day, HD = Paladin Level, stays 1 round per paladin level. Seems to me fairly balanced: more punch in a single battle perhaps, but without the benefits of an intelligent companion who can also be guardian, friend, fast steed, and fighter.

  7. #17
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Apr 3 2004, 07:21 PM
    Just so you know, I voted for the Seperate Class version. My campaigns would not be the same without paladins devoted to the dark powers for the PCs to fight. The variants offered in UA are fair examples of what I&#39;d like to see, although they would need to be altered for BR (for example a Paladin of Ruornil may have smite shadow instead of good or evil).

    However, I do not think this is something that needs to be in the core material&#33; We do not need to fill hundreds of pages with all the different variants we can think of to cover every possibility, just one version of the rules is needs. Perhaps at some time in the future you can release a book covering the various religious orders and feature the variant versions of the paladin in there...
    I agree with not including so many variants that the BRCS becomes another UA. In this case, IMO, we should stick to the the 4 paladins from 2nd ed and include dwarves/Moradin since it fits in so well with the 3.5 ruleset and they can have paladins now (whereas dwarves were forbidden in 2nd ed).

    If we include a way to address these 5 paladins then that gives DMs something to use as a guide for developing their own variations, like those you mentioned Ian.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #18
    Site Moderator Ariadne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    near Frankfurt/ Germany
    Posts
    801
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted for the FR model (PHB paladin with one multiclass option). Seems to make most sense to me...
    May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!

  9. #19
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    After what has been post, I agree with the consensus of using the FR model (which is part of what I have voted for) and add further information on additional "books" that will go further down the path of priesthood, paladinhood and whatnot.

  10. #20
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    As the majority of people seem to have gone with the FR model (freely multiclass as another class) then I have no problem with this. Personally I don&#39;t use it, but it does provide a nice simple set or rules for handling paladins of different faiths.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

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.