Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 60
  1. #11
    Senior Member Jaleela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    248
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    I'm inclined to see more paladins than Ryan (perhaps this depends what a paladin is), but even I don't see whole units of paladins. (Frankly I generally don't see whole units of fighters either, so that may be telling).

    Let's assume the Western Imperial Temple raises an elite unit called Knights of Haelyn. I would imagine perhaps 50 infantry with and average level of 4, or 25 horsemen with an average level of 4. So given the assumption of 25 or 50 men, I'd see maybe 2x Warrior 4, 2x Fighter 4, and one paladin or cleric in an informal leadership role, for groups of five that I would replicate five times for the mounted knights and ten times for the unmounted knights. Two of the informal leaders would instead be formal leaders, perhaps a 6th and a 7th level paladin or cleric (one of each?).

    I figure the major temples of Haelyn could each field one unit like this.

    Well, your mileage clearly varies. I merely point out that we have examples of thousands of dedicated people from privleged classes who gave away every advantage their social class afforded them to become militant monks with rigid discipline - both in their daily life, and on the battlefield, and that they clearly were an elite warrior class, who outperformed their counterparts in what was considered already to be a military elite (knights).

    Since his objection as first posed was based primarily on there not being enough dedicated warriors to a religious ideal to have more than *one* palladin per religion or sect, I pointed out an actual example from European History. Let's not forget the warrior monks of Japan, while we are looking to actual examples that existed as well.

    From my point of view, a lot of peoples campaigns as described underplay the importance of clerics, temples, and religions, by a serious margin, and go by a more modern model, of religions, while overplaying the impact and commonality of magic (which takes away from it's wonder and power, in my mind), using it as a commonplace science and technology substitute. To me, this ruins the medivalesque feel I and my players crave in a campaign, but the best thing about D&D is that it is many things to many people, and people can design their own campaigns, and pick and chose rules to suit, while ignoring others that don't.

  2. #12
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ryancaveney View Post
    However, since I find them both insufferable roleplaying headaches and mechanically unnecessary given free multiclassing, I see no reason at all to keep them in 3rd ed.
    What I really like about free multi-classing is that you can build the "paladin" you want precisely. The ratio of fighter to cleric, or ranger to druid, or barbarian to druid, rogue to cleric, and on and on. And if you think a paladin of Ruornil has wizard levels, go for it. While I have no problem with the paladin per se, it seems more like a hold-over from single classing 1st and 2nd edition than a class that makes sense in 3rd edition. If a player wanted to play a paladin or a paladin varient, I wouldn't object. The concept of the holy warrior dedicated to his cause I think has a lot going for it.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MatanThunder View Post
    there would be NO turning for T/N, and all others neutrals must not be part of a nature patheon as Undead are beyond their understanding to control or affect (druids can't turn undead)
    This is my single biggest objection to the way the cleric-undead interaction is handled. To my mind, druids should be much better at turning undead than any other religion, since undead are first and foremost unnatural (especially as, for example, skeletons and zombies don't even have enough willpower to qualify as Evil). In Cerilia, I see opposition to and power to harm the undead, in order from greatest to least, as Erik, Ruornil, Avani, Laerme, Nesirie, Cuiraecen, Sera, Haelyn, Belinik, Eloele, Kriesha. In fact, I allow priests of Haelyn to choose to *command*, rather than turn, undead, if they wish -- it expresses loyalty to the state even after death.


    Ryan

  4. #14
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaleela View Post
    Since his objection as first posed was based primarily on there not being enough dedicated warriors to a religious ideal to have more than *one* paladin per religion or sect, I pointed out an actual example from European History.
    Well, the basis of the limitatation was that paladins used to require an incredible charisma, based on a standard 3d6 method of character generation. Other requirements would further limit this already small pool of potential paladins. Add the rigorous ethical constraints and the pool deminishes further.

    I have no doubt that a very large group of people would adhear to rigorous ethical constraints and join a religious knightly order. If that is your only requirement to call people paladins, then they no doubt exist in very large numbers. If they must exibit special qualities in addition (see discussions on how many clerical spellcasters there are starting say,
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaleela View Post
    here.
    If I were modeling Knights Templar, Hospitilars, Teutonic Knights, or other religious knightly orders, my own choice would to make them warriors and fighters lead by paladins and clerics. Paladins have too much going on as a class to represent these guys.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0


    This is my single biggest objection to the way the cleric-undead interaction is handled. To my mind, druids should be much better at turning undead than any other religion, since undead are first and foremost unnatural (especially as, for example, skeletons and zombies don't even have enough willpower to qualify as Evil). In Cerilia, I see opposition to and power to harm the undead, in order from greatest to least, as Erik, Ruornil, Avani, Laerme, Nesirie, Cuiraecen, Sera, Haelyn, Belinik, Eloele, Kriesha. In fact, I allow priests of Haelyn to choose to *command*, rather than turn, undead, if they wish -- it expresses loyalty to the state even after death.
    I have to agree with you on this Ryan!!!!

    I never agreed that druids should be unable to turn undead. I didn't house rule it in though....I do that a lot for ideas which need to be worked into the game because of good logic.

    Their gods would be just as much against the undead forces, and another note you might want to make is that not all neutral deities are not nature oriented, so they are capable of turning or controlling undead as they wish. Of course they are not druids either.

    I believe this was one of the many attempts to weaken more powerful classes in some vain attempt to make it seem more even steven......I hate issues like these where someone is trying to establish a equality based on their personal beliefs in a game where all the classes are and never were equal.

    I would house rule it in myself......maybe with a +2 turn bonus for the forces of life discorporating undead and returning them to the land.

    Later

    Last edited by MatanThunder; 06-02-2007 at 06:57 AM.

  6. #16
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Druids and undead.
    A counter argument to druidic turning is that druids have power over natural things, clerics over supernatural; as undead are inherently supernatural - and moreover absolutely opposed the nature, the druid has no power over them.

    Of course I allowed priests to turn other 'otherworldly beings' such as elves and (if they were very lucky) awnshegh and hostile scions too, so I know I played the turn undead ability very differently to most...


    Game balance
    To love or loathe it, consider it vital or irrelevant is player preference. I am a monomanic for it, I've played palladium and other games with no concern for balance and have seen it ruin game after game. If one PC can pulverise the others with ease - even all of the others together - complete any taks on their own without the others, then unless the player of that character is very mature, and quite possibly even then, the game rapidly ceases to be fun for the other players who become tag-along's rather than heroes.

    More than anything else whether or not a game is to be balanced needs to be agreed up front as otherwise it is deeply unfair to the players with the 'crap PC's'.

    Although the granted powers of clerics have been toned down for 3.5e (no more turn at will...) adding an ability to druids should be balanced elsewhere. So if you give Druids the power to turn undead then either restrict wildshape or reduce it in some way - Ken's suggestion to allow druids to use wildshape as either wildshape or turn undead seems fine as overall they still have the same power level albeit with wider usage. I however would by the same logic allow all cleric-types to swap their great granted power for another appropriate to the god much as allowing sponteaneous healing for one priest, and spontaneous smiting for a more militant priest. So perhaps priests of Nesirie could either turn undead or lay on hands, priests of Haelyn turn undead or let out a rallying cry...

    Of course this view means that I hate the loss of Skills and powers in 3.5e, and consider most prestige classes broken - if a prestige class gives something the main class doesn't then its overpowered without a compensating adjustment.... And the wonderful spellcasting prestige classes that basically act as gestalt classes are simply a bad joke. Let's not even mention the 'npc' classes in the DMG which are woefully under-strength...

    I would suggest that in the conversion from 2e to 3.5e in addition to dropping paladin and ranger (and not bothering to add barbarian - make rage a feat series already), priest should have dropped to D4 HD with people who want to play militant priests then taking some fighter levels.


    I would note incidentally that D&D was are biased to try and make classes 'even steven' - if not during combat than elsewhere. Familiarity with other systems highlights this approach which was designed to encurage a mix of classes in a party. D&D doesn't go as far as herosystem, but in general all classes are balanced across the game, although 2e in particularly often tried to balance a strength in one area with a weakness in another, so a priest got great spells, good combat, but was restricted by their gods moral code for example, which rarely worked.

    I'm curious Matan - would you be happy playing a character 5-6 levels lower than everyone else in the party? Higher? Would you be happy playing a standard class if the other players got gestalt classes? If not, then why be happy with an unbalanced class?

    Balance between classes is designed to ensure that all characters of equivalent level (in 2e equivalent xp) are roughly as useful across the game and is very necessary in most games I've played.

    <snip - post text moved to new thread on alignment>

    Plentiful paladins
    Hmm, I'd say it depends on how you see a paladin. If they are simply another type of agent employed by a deity then they should be as common, indeed since they need physical strength not a glib tongue or insightful nature probably more common. If they are a paragon of the deity's beliefs then they should be rarer as even priests are permitted their human frailties more than paladins...

    And historically the laws on inheritance often meant that many who were borne into privilege wouldn't stay there unless they either joined the army or the priesthood, so becoming a priest wasn't giving up everything, but often instead a way to keep it - medieval churches were vastly wealthy in many parts and often dominated by the nobility.

    I get the impression that the paladins Ryan has met and mine would be very different animals - several paladins in D&D literature to me sound LE or even CE with their rigid intolerance, brutal methods and lack of consideration for good...
    Last edited by AndrewTall; 06-16-2007 at 09:02 AM.

  7. #17
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Part two as I waffled on too long...



    Chosen of the gods
    Back to the main thread.

    When deciding if a god should have a champion, you need to decide whether a god needs them, and what effect being a champion has.

    Why bother?
    If a standard class can fit the bill, why create a new one? So if a paladin of Ruornil can satisfy the gods needs, you don't need to add anything for Ruonril to have a champion. Similarly if Belinik's champion can be reflected with a berseker, or Erik's with a druid, they have no need for a separate 'champion class'.

    I would add a champion only if I wanted to add something unusual to the character, otherwise keep it as a title with no attached game mechanics.


    What effect?
    Looking at Faerun, which is where Matan seems to be coming from, the main game effect of being a chosen of Mystra is that:

    Immortality. So the designers don't need to design a series of champions when making backstory, they can just have immortal McGuffins. This actually is a cheap power to throw around, even though in reality it would be highly sought after, immortality is great but has no real effect on game play beyond people's responses and the types of plans they make. 'The human insulted my friend, a century after he is dust in his grave I will desecrate his memory and make his people scorn his name'.

    Silver fire. To be honest this always sounded like 'Elminster is the bestest mage so he needs to be able to do everything magic' to me, but whatever. It's a powerful visually effective ability although the relative lack of usage indicates it was an afterthought after someone asked why old El couldn't do spellfire...

    Invulnerability to some spells. I don't really see the point aside from getting an author out of a hole in writing or show a trick, if a hostile spell is that bad fix the spell, not the character...

    Spontaneous spells. Now this is a major power given the spell slot system in most D&D games which does fit in very well with the idea of a closer understanding of magic.

    I would say that when converting to 3.5e the chosen should have been given a prestige class, 'chosen of mystra' and got the above as powers in place of spells (they don't need more spell levels anyway after L20 which is low for them) as it is simply giving them for free is unbalancing.


    The balance issue isn't a problem for M-T, but it is a problem for me - if Mystra can power up her folk without cost, why wouldn't the other gods do likewise? With lots of super-troopers around why would anyone not ally with a god for the power-up? Pretty soon everyone is superman, fine if you like the style but otherwise just a pain for the DM.


    Champion prestige class.
    The champion would therefore have a few unusual feats, possibly a shift from spells to granted powers or special abilities.

    New limitations could be social (hard to balance with crunch bonus's), weaknesses (Ruornil's chosen share a vulnerability of the god, are weaker in areas with low source potential, etc), loss of range in previous abilities, etc.


    So for example the champion of Belink:
    Could gain physical abilities like strength, constitution, regeneration, natural armour, rage, reputation. But lose intelligence, wisdom, charisma, dexterity, feats (who need skill when you've got strength, weaklings practice to overcome deficiencies, the mighty simply reach out their hands and take their prize...)

    A champion of Ruornil:
    Could cast either priest or wizard spells (not extra spells, but a wider selection), spontaneously cast from a tight list, gain intelligence, etc. But be vulnerable to cold iron (mythically a sovereign against much magic), unable to use 'shadow' implicated magic, be readily marked out as inherently magical, etc.

    A champion of Avani:
    Gain speed, intelligence, wisdom, charisma, light based powers, but lose strength when not in sunlight, be vulnerable to necromancy, or cold.

    A champion of Eloele
    Might be able to shadow walk, be inhumanly swift, but vulnerable to light, unable to effectively use heavy armour.

    A champion of Haelyn
    Gain rallying abilities akin to bardic music, inhuman insight into motivations, charisma bonuses, but be weakened by loss of faith by followers, perhaps not quite as tough as they would otherwise be.

    Etc, etc.

    Obviously if you don't want balance in your game, just ignore the losses, but don't be surprised when other players complain about favouritism or demand to be the chosen of their pet god...

  8. #18
    Senior Member Dcolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Dover N.H.
    Posts
    128
    Downloads
    58
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Should I pass this along to Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II? ;-)

    And why did no one prefer Geoffrey?
    It seems that most royals have rough and strained relationships with their offspring. (Especialy English Monarchs) I suspect the whole rival for the throne and not wishing to be suplanted thing is involved.

    The normal desire is to see your offspring do better than you, many Royals however do not wish to be remembered as the Parent of the great ruler and so they seem to undermine if not outright sabotage their children somtimes.

    Add a healthy dose of offspring wanting to oust you and sibling rivalry and you have a more disfunctional bunch than ever dared to appear on Jerry Springer...
    Good Morning Peasant!!

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0


    One item at a time, I will come back for another nip later!!

    Druids and undead.
    A counter argument to druidic turning is that druids have power over natural things, clerics over supernatural; as undead are inherently supernatural - and moreover absolutely opposed the nature, the druid has no power over them.

    Of course I allowed priests to turn other 'otherworldly beings' such as elves and (if they were very lucky) awnshegh and hostile scions too, so I know I played the turn undead ability very differently to most...
    The abomination against nature of the undead should be the key here. Deities of the nature portfolios would be heck bent on destroying this abomination to the life and nature forces, and to handcuff them with some arbitrary balance issue put their viewpoint out on an undefensible limb in LOGIC!!!

    Game balance has no place in the argument. I also see your supernatural viewpoint on it to be inherently flawed...as all deity affecting the real world could well be classified as supernatural, and not just the cleric skill set/alignments that you are trying to represent them as.

    The druid should have power over undead to DESTROY them......it is only logical from a forces of life/nature vs the forces of undeath/afterlife.

    Each to their own of course.

    Later



    BTW...If your rebuttal could find a way to be a little more concise I would appreciate it. I hate having to hike through a lot of material to find what your point is, but of course I will if you feel it is necessary to validate your point of view.....which I am not sure you can with the points I listed above.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MatanThunder View Post
    The abomination against nature of the undead should be the key here. Deities of the nature portfolios would be heck bent on destroying this abomination to the life and nature forces... The druid should have power over undead to DESTROY them......it is only logical from a forces of life/nature vs the forces of undeath/afterlife.
    Yes, that has always been my position.

    On a related note, my favorite RPG pantheon is the Orlanthi gods from Glorantha. In that system, unlike many D&D worlds, the God of Death is the primary *opponent* of the undead, because they violate his cardinal rule: after you die, you're supposed to stay that way. =)


    Ryan

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Can Cerilia handle the chosen of Rounil???
    By MatanThunder in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-03-2007, 12:44 AM
  2. Purchase policy or how do you handle the d20 flood?
    By Beruin in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-03-2006, 03:00 AM
  3. Invulnerable Blood Ability: How do you handle it?
    By Rhiannon Faramiriel in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-23-2006, 05:40 PM
  4. How to handle resurection of a scion
    By irdeggman in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-22-2005, 11:32 AM

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.