View Poll Results: Should Chap 1 be sanctioned?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1. Yes

    20 76.92%
  • 2. No

    6 23.08%
  • 3. Abstain

    0 0%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67
  1. #11
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Feb 6 2005, 09:33 AM

    One thing that sticks out a bit is that I don't see why anyone would want to play a paladin of Nesirie in its current form.
    Good to see you posting even occasionally Jan.


    The paladin issues were discussed at great detail in the past. They were voted on and have been sanctioned already, as has most of Chap 1 except for the noble, skills, feats and equipment. And even then the skills and feats and noble were discussed a whole lot already.


    There weren't a lot of people working on the paladin classes, Rasp and me.

    People voted on the alignment restrictions, etc.

    I have to disagree that the paladin of Nesire is sorely lacking compared to a cleric of Nesire. The paladin retains most of the normal paladin abilities and gains a few extra, has a larger spell selection than a normal paladin (less than the cleric - but that is the way it should be) and can cast moore spels than a standard paladin and les than a cleric - again as it should be.

    The default version allows a paladin of Nesire to freely multiclass with a cleric. It is only when using the variant that things change (basically the characer can't freely multiclass anymore but instead gains the straight class abilities which were chosen to be a decent amalgamation of the what would happen if a character multiclassed.


    In 2nd ed IMO the paladin of Nesire was the least often chosen paladin anyway. Pretty much the paladin of Avani ruled as far as which paladin was the most powerful. Things are a whole more balanced than they were in 2nd ed
    Duane Eggert

  2. #12
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Well --

    Paladins suffer quite a bit from MAD. They need high Charisma for their special abilities, high Wisdom for their spells, and high Strength and Constitution to be decent fighters. They can shirk on their Dex a bit due to their ability to wear heavy armor, and their Int usually comes dead last. Even if paladins have as good a BAB as fighters, they usually tend to have lower Strength scores, due to having to spread their scores differently, and prioritize differently when they level up. Being 1 or 2 points behind on attack values hurts a lot in the long run. Much more than that, and you quickly become next to irrelevant as any kind of warrior.

    What that means is that, in order to be balanced in a game with typical ability scores, a paladin's class abilities need to be somewhat more powerful than those of a fighter. In a game of atypically high ability scores, things change, of course, but that's a whole other nest of worms.

    Now, what you've done here is weaken the basic paladin class in five different areas:
    - Lower BAB
    - Lower HD
    - Changed Fort save for Will save (this can be seen as a tradeoff, but for various reasons, it'll probably average out to a penalty -- frontline fighters are meant to make those Fort saves)
    - No mount
    - Removed most of the paladin's combat-related spells

    What do they get in return for that?
    - More spells per day, higher spell levels, and earlier spells
    - (I'm assuming) a full caster level; this isn't as useful as it sounds, as this class doesn't need to beat SR a lot (at all), and most of its spells don't scale well with level
    - Some water-related abilities

    As the class stands now, there are several examples to compare it with offhand. The bard, the healer from Miniatures Handbook, and the psychic warrior (at least the 3e kind; haven't seen the 3.5 version). If you compare it to a cleric, it is woefully underpowered, as has already been noted. Of course, clerics are a tad too good to begin with, but anyway.

    What this class lacks first and foremost is a niche. It won't heal nearly as good as a cleric, it won't fight nearly as good as a paladin does; it won't really fight much better than a cleric, and it won't really cast spells much better than a paladin. And the other abilities it gets won't make up for that difference.

    Part of what makes paladins passable at high levels is their spellcasting ability; they can cast some pretty good buffing spells. Those are gone here, and that hurts a lot. It actually probably hurts about as much as the addition of higher-level spells helps, when those spells just aren't very useful straight up.

    At lower levels, of course, there are other tradeoffs. At 1st level, you trade +1 BAB and 2 hp for the ability to cast one 0-level spell once per day. That's a pretty poor tradeoff, especially considering the spells available. Cure Minor Wounds once a day? The hit point loss alone is more than equal to that.

    Compared to a bard, this paladin gets an inferior spell list, worse base saves, much fewer skill points, and class abilities that may or may not compare. (Note that the utility of an ability like Smite Evil may drop as the paladin's base attack drops.) A bard specializes in boosting the rest of the party, something this class is woefully lacking in -- and it doesn't pack enough of a punch on its own to compensate for that, either. Being able to heal better is largely irrelevant, as the ability to heal usually means you have to win or survive the fight first, which this paladin won't exactly excel at.

    Compared to the psychic warrior, this class simply doesn't have the bonus feats or the abilities that makes it worth it. Psychic warriors can get lots of interesting psionic powers that really boosts their combat prowess. And even then, they're somewhat weak most of the time.

    Compared to the cleric, this class is just bad. The cleric will fight very nearly as well, and cast much better spells. As the classes reach higher levels, the cleric will simply outpace this paladin. Clerics having better saves, better turn undead (or at all), domain abilities, and more and better spells more than makes up for all the abilities this class gets.

    This class is clearly better at fighting than the healer, but the healer is otherwise a much better... healer, especially on the frontlines.

    The paladin of Nesirie needs one of the following boosts, IMO (in order of preference):
    - Base attack set back to good.
    - More spells per day, and a better spell selection, including all the usual paladin buffs, maybe some summoning (water creature) spells
    - HD set back to d10, Fort/Will changed back, and some other or better special abilities
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  3. #13
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,130
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    I would have no problem in boosting the paladin of Nesirie back to d10 if I thought it was that unbalanced; however, the paladin is not a variant of the fighter per se... Rather, the class is a cleric/fighter mixup that represents a champion of the order; since Nesirie is less militant, her paladins play more of the crusading healer than the crusading warrior, if you catch my drift. And a mount is not very suitable (dolphin, anyone?)...

    An idea would be to have her have both good Fortitude and good Will saves, and one could grant her a deflection bonus to her AC equal to her Charisma bonus... But that's that, and I do not see us granting her more spells per day, but the idea of Summon Monster/Nature's Ally (Aquatic/Water only) seems interesting. Buffing spells is not a given, but an increase in skill points to 4 + Int might work.

    I am happy you like the Paladin of Cuiraécen; he is my most prized of all 4!

    As for the dodge bonus, I am referring to the dodge bonus dwarves get; in the PHB, they get a +4 dodge bonus vs. giants, but in Chapter 1. it reads they get +2 instead.

  4. #14
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,016
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Could someone please explain WHY this pretty big change to paladins is being made?

    2E papadins had a few special features, but nothing so grat as this. The paladin is a holy WARRIOR, so anything that derails it from that purpose if way of the mark IMO.

    B
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    125
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I'm not sure who found out that Nesirie's paladins was less militant than other paladins. As pointed out by GreenKnight, then Paladins are warriors. If you want the wandering healer, you simply take a Cleric. Then you can heal spontaneously.

    Paladin represent the holy warrior, that is a fighter first and a healer first. I don't think that part should really be changed.

  6. #16
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I would have no problem in boosting the paladin of Nesirie back to d10 if I thought it was that unbalanced; however, the paladin is not a variant of the fighter per se...
    Yes, it is. As already said, the paladin is a holy warrior. Always has been.

    Rather, the class is a cleric/fighter mixup that represents a champion of the order; since Nesirie is less militant, her paladins play more of the crusading healer than the crusading warrior, if you catch my drift. And a mount is not very suitable (dolphin, anyone?)...
    No, a mount is not very suitable. Which paladins of Nesirie didn't get in 2e, and don't get here. It is easy to replace the mount with something else -- some abilities, a better spell selection, etc.

    As for the rest of what you say, yes, the paladin is sort of a fighter/cleric mix. They need a distinct and definite role to contribute to a party, however. As it stands now, it falls short of all the chairs it could sit on. If you want to play a healer, wouldn't a cleric be a better choice?

    An idea would be to have her have both good Fortitude and good Will saves, and one could grant her a deflection bonus to her AC equal to her Charisma bonus...
    That might be workable, but the problem with that is that the character would still be a poor combatant; note that the HD/save option is my least favored option. It would make the class weak in much the same way as the monk is weak -- they survive, but they never really do any damage, don't pull their weight in a fight (which is what D&D classes mostly are balanced around) or in any other situation.

    That idea would probably turn this paladin into the ultimate 'piss the other players off' class -- they die because this paladin isn't a good warrior and can't defend them; the paladin lives to see another group of adventurers die because of her powerful innate defensive abilities.

    But that's that, and I do not see us granting her more spells per day, but the idea of Summon Monster/Nature's Ally (Aquatic/Water only) seems interesting. Buffing spells is not a given, but an increase in skill points to 4 + Int might work.
    More spells per day is just a solution if the others are unpopular; she needs *something* to compensate for that loss of BAB. And in the case her BAB stays low, if you want this paladin to do anything useful, some buffing spells are required. Otherwise, she'll be a worse combatant than the cleric. Sure, she can smite evil a few times a day. The cleric can boost his own strength, summon divine favor, divine power, and rain fire from the sky -- all the while being a better healer than this paladin. More skill points wouldn't do much except make this paladin even less focused, and inching ever closer to the concept of 'bard,' with the exception that bards are a support class, and this class actually has very little to support others with.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  7. #17
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Alright here are some thread links for past discussion on Chap 1 (which any one could find if they just took the time to look them up - I did it a page at a time in about 10 minutes). I didn't include all of the threads, there were severalabout elves and spellcasting, but if you want to read them you can check themout on your own. In these threads you will find the discussion (and polls) on paladins. The revised version of Chap 1 was first posted for serious work in March 2004. There have been numerous (some think too many) polls run to quantify issues as we went along and to decide (i.e., sanction) things as we went also.

    IMO revisiting issues that have already been decided is totally counter productive. If people didn't wish to participate in the discussion or votes as they came up, well that is a reflection on their commitment to getting this project (product) finished.

    The main point I'm trying to make is that we don't invalidate previous votes, unless there is something that casues a drastic change in the way things are done. For example Chap 1 has beensanctiioned. It won't be touched until we finish the remainder of the BRCS. At that time certain issues may casue us to revisit it to revise and mesh the chapters together (Specifically how on the battlefield is handled will cause a serious relooking at some blood abilities). But revisiting (and throwing out previous polls "just because" is just not right. If you don't like things that have already been decided then vote no for sanctioning. If the chap is not sanctioned then it will be time to go back to the writing table and start this process all over again.


    Paladins and multiclassing:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2363


    Poll: Trying to capture opinions on BR paladins:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2395


    Chap 1 (revised) – races, discussion on the races:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2442

    Poll Chap 1 revised humans, how to handle:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2457

    Poll: paladin alignments:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2515


    Chap 1 (revised) (first post March 2004)
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2317


    Poll: What is the historical reference for the Khinasi?:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2706


    Poll: What is the historical reference for the Brecht?:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2702

    Magician class – discussion on how to handle:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2700


    Poll: Bard, magicians and magic – determining lesser magic guidelines:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2697


    Rev Chap 1 Char classes:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2674


    Avani paladins:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2580


    Poll: Chap 1 classes sanctioning (except noble and magician): (Note this poll was run based on the results of the poll immediately following)
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2770


    Poll: Sanctioning vote for classes art of Chap 1:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2767


    Poll: Chap 1 races – sanctioning vote:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2761

    Chap 1 revision (7-04) except for magicians:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2749


    Chap 1 races:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2699


    Magician Spell List:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2815



    Rangers as arcane casters:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=1999


    Poll: Which is the better BAB for nobles?:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2781


    Which way should the noble go?:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2780


    Poll: Magician spell list:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2737


    Poll: Noble class abilities:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2853


    Poll: Noble class deciding how to write it:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2848


    Poll: Noble class:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2830


    Magician class sanctioned version:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2836


    Poll: Magician core class features:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2819


    Poll: Magician class sanctioning vote:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2822
    Duane Eggert

  8. #18
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Feb 7 2005, 04:08 AM
    As for the dodge bonus, I am referring to the dodge bonus dwarves get; in the PHB, they get a +4 dodge bonus vs. giants, but in Chapter 1. it reads they get +2 instead.
    It was left at +2 to balance out the DR they gain (the skill check modifiers while great for color and logic don't really translate into a solid game-mechanic balance). It was an attempt to keep from making them an EL race.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    125
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The main point I'm trying to make is that we don't invalidate previous votes, unless there is something that casues a drastic change in the way things are done. For example Chap 1 has beensanctiioned. It won't be touched until we finish the remainder of the BRCS. At that time certain issues may casue us to revisit it to revise and mesh the chapters together (Specifically how on the battlefield is handled will cause a serious relooking at some blood abilities). But revisiting (and throwing out previous polls "just because" is just not right. If you don't like things that have already been decided then vote no for sanctioning. If the chap is not sanctioned then it will be time to go back to the writing table and start this process all over again.
    Wouldn't that end out with a lot of errata during the time that other chapters are revisioned?

    Personally I'd rather work out a bit like:

    Write all stuff
    Playtest it. Get input back.
    Rewrite stuff that needs to be rewritten
    More playtesting
    Rewrite
    Playtesting.

    Gives more consistency IMO. Instead of:

    Write one chapter
    Playtest
    Make errata
    Write new chapter
    Playtest
    Make errata to both chapters
    Write new chapter
    Playtest
    Make errata to all chapters...

    Each chapter would then be a work in progress, until it all can be concluded.

  10. #20
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Wouldn't that end out with a lot of errata during the time that other chapters are revisioned?

    Personally I'd rather work out a bit like:

    Write all stuff
    Playtest it. Get input back.
    Rewrite stuff that needs to be rewritten
    More playtesting
    Rewrite
    Playtesting.



    While ideally that is the best way to do things, logistically there just isn't enough committed man/women power to accomplish that task.



    Here is a link to a thread that sums up the concept and desires of the mailserve/netforce:
    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=1115

    There was a poll (that got lost in one of the web' updates that had it clearly decided that people wanted a chapter at a time and basically to do things as they came out.


    What is really needed is a group of dedicated people who want to take overall cognizance of a specific chapter. Then things can be done in parallel instead ofme doing it all. What this means is someone who is willing to do an entire chapter and not just portions of it. This is what most people I have had discussions with seem to want to do - insert or work on parts but not the whole chapter.

    As a community we have ADD in the fact that we can't focus on any one thing for too long before moving on to something else.

    I could/would serve as the overall editor to ensure some sort of continuity/consistency (which is what Doom was doing in the beginning).

    The type of people needed are those with extensive knowledge of 2nd ed Birthright and 3.5 core rules. They must be able to check their ego at the door when dealing with the general population (hey I'm working on it OK ). They must not try to insert their own hose-rules. What I mean by this is that while everyone has their own version of the rules they use and will continue touse we are trying to develop a baseline for standardizatin. This baseling allows individual DMs to take what they want and add/change the other parts but there will be an area for commonality that can be used as the basis for discussion and a standard set of rules that people can use when they write adventures, etc. (Something I really would like to see happening in the long run). The person needs to be willing (and capable) of writing in English (US) {not making any claims as to whether or not is the 'proper' English but it is the WotC standard being used}. They must also understand and attempt to follow the core philosophy of the project (posted on the FAQ thread).


    Oh and that ego thing - anyone who is soley interested in just getting their name on the project need not apply. There have been a ratio of about 10 to 1 people doing this in the past both on the BRCS and the Atlas project.
    Duane Eggert

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.