Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
The Paladin: Cavalier Kit
Imagine a world of bold warriors, mighty wizards, and terrible monsters. Imagine a world of ancient ruins, vast caverns, and great wild wastes where only the bravest heroes dare to tread. Imagine a world of swords and magic, a world of elves and goblins, a world of giants and dragons. This is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. You take on the role of a legendary hero—a vigilant druid, a resolute paladin, a versatile ranger, or a charismatic warlock. In today’s excerpt from the forthcoming Players Essentials book, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, we preview the paladin.
So, unlike speculation, the Cavalier doesn't grant a mount back… it has alignment restrictions! Take that as you will, though while the Virtue of Sacrifice requires Lawful Good, the Virtue of Valor (not to be confused with Bardic Virtue of Valor) requires any of the three Heroic alignments, and is a perfectly viable choice for a Paladin who doesn't want to worry about "falling" out of alignment.
Talk about this Essentials preview here.
This paladin um...yay for having strength paladin support. Actually Baladins are likely getting major buffs from this.
Alignments? Really? This doesn't help new players, its blatent previous edition pleasing. For once the calls for 'evil support' actually have a legitimiate reason.
Now I wouldnt be surprised if the Bladesinger has a racial restriction.
Mearls must have a list of design goal changes in 4e and is seeing how many he can cross off.
You could houserule it in 3rd too, doesn't stop it being a horrible idea.
Not to get too off-topic, but the difference is that alignment was heavily interwoven into the mechanics of 3e (detect alignment spells, holy and unholy damage, alignment keywords, etc). As long as they don't bring back that stuff, it will be easier to houserule than the 3e paladin (though not as easy as the 4e PHB paladin) and having to do less work generally meets with my approval.
Regardless, stick to Virtue of Valor if you're upset with alignment restrictions, since you shouldn't be evil or chaotic evil to begin with anyways, and go for Virtue of Sacrifice only if you're one of those people who think Paladins are supposed to be kept to that code of honour stuff that they used to back in previous editions.
. . . since you shouldn't be evil or chaotic evil to begin with anyways . . .
While I agree that playing evil characters is not for everyone, and that it can go horribly wrong if not done well, I can't fall into step behind your notion that the game shouldn't be played that way. There's room enough for both styles, and I hope there will be minimal homebrewing required on both ends (for example, if an upcoming necromancer class had an evil alignment requirement for certain powers).
It just means that either: (A) They're living up to the stated 4e design goal that Heroes are Heroic, not Evil. That means they're LG, G, or U. Or (B) Blackguards will get a separate kit in a later product, since they're heavily emphasising the two castes of Paladins.
Regardless, stick to Virtue of Valor if you're upset with alignment restrictions, since you shouldn't be evil or chaotic evil to begin with anyways, and go for Virtue of Sacrifice only if you're one of those people who think Paladins are supposed to be kept to that code of honour stuff that they used to back in previous editions.
(A) Fails because its only 1 class. Not to mention, its a silly restriction with very little actuall rules on it. Does the DM go "You can't do that because your LG"? Essentials should have finally just killed alignment, its useless in 4e and only complicates things when you try to use it like other editions.
(B) Evil shouldn't have its own class/build. And due to A, it'll likely never happen.
While I love the paladin concept and play them alot, I absolutely hate alignment restrictions. If D&D is going back to this, then I'm done with it. I know I'm sounding like a raving idiot. But I am not ever going to return to alignment restrictions.
No WoTC.
No.
i notice that virtue of valor lacks an equivalent of spirit of sacrifice. i wonder why.
They just didn't preview it.
You can be retro without actually going backwards, and mechanically relevant alignment is about as bass-ackward as it gets.
While I agree that evil PCs shouldn't be allowed, mechanically-relevant alignment restrictions remain horrible. One of the things that sold me on 4e was, before its release, Mearls was asked about alignment, and he commented that it wasn't something he needed to worry about; that was a story thing, and he was the mechanics guy.
You can be retro without actually going backwards, and mechanically relevant alignment is about as bass-ackward as it gets.
I agree with all of that except for your first clause.
I'm not terribly fond of the alignment restrictions on the virtues, but, uh, guys? Paladins have alignment restrictions in 4e without Essentials. They have to be the exact same alignment as their deities.
That restriction in the PHB is a non-restriction. A PHB paladin doesn't not have access to their paladin class features because of their alignment; but the cavalier does.
A PHB paladin doesn't not have access to their paladin class features because of their alignment; but the cavalier does.
What specifically about the alignment descriptions for those features are bringing you to that conclusion? Because those really don't read any differently from p. 90 of the PHB, Paladins and Deities:
"As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve, as well as an alignment. You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity; ..."
Actually, if anything, the OG Paladin's restriction reads stronger than the Cavalier's feature restrictions do. Sounds like if you're not worshipping a deity and share his alignment, you can't be an OG Paladin in the first place.
In fact, IIRC, the fact that OG Paladins HAD to worship a deity was one of the early complaints about 4e.
Sounds like if you're not worshipping a deity and share his alignment, you can't be an OG Paladin in the first place.
Yeah, that part is true. However, you can be a paladin of any alignment and still have access to all your class features. By comparison, an evil cavalier loses access to their level 1 at-will attack class feature. That's the difference.
Sounds like if you're not worshipping a deity and share his alignment, you can't be an OG Paladin in the first place.
Yeah, that part is true. However, you can be a paladin of any alignment and still have access to all your class features. By comparison, an evil cavalier loses access to their level 1 at-will attack class feature. That's the difference.
Really? Where does it say that? Where does it even imply that?
Virtue of Sacrifice
A cavalier of sacrifice must be ready to give up anything—money, status, power, or life itself—to defend those too weak to shield themselves from evil. Cavaliers of sacrifice are renowned because of the hardships they endure for the good of others. You sleep in a stable while your allies rest in an inn, to save a few coins for the poor. You wear little more than simple, peasant’s garb when not in armor and are an ascetic devoted to your cause, willing to endure any ill or pain to prevent others from suffering it.
Even though the virtue of sacrifice carries a heavy cost, you must temper your actions with humility. You give up so much, but that sacrifice does not make you more noble than others. Pride is your enemy, because it threatens to lead you to arrogance and ultimately disdain for those you protect. Cavaliers of sacrifice who fall to evil become even more villainous due to the great distance they tumble.
Alignment: A cavalier of sacrifice must be lawful good. The virtue of sacrifice demands much from its adherents. Only the most honorable cavaliers embrace it.
Virtue of Valor
On the battlefield, you are the pinnacle of bravery. You stand resolute against any foe, from a seemingly endless wave of kobolds to a mountain-shaking titan. Without valor, the other virtues lose meaning and impact. To stand against a daunting foe or to hold tight to the exacting standards of the order of cavaliers—both of these tasks require faultless valor. You stand at the forefront of a battle, taking the vanguard position to both strike at your foes and shield your allies from your enemies’ most ferocious attacks. In this manner, your adherence to valor ensures that your bravery serves as a stirring example.
Valor must be tempered with wisdom. The valorous cavalier does not fight for the sake of fighting, but for the just cause. Valor turns to bloodlust when a cavalier fails to see that skill at arms is only one solution. Tales abound of valorous cavaliers who have fallen to evil. They didn’t abandon their virtue, but rather lost the wisdom needed to wield it for good.
Alignment: A cavalier of valor can be lawful good, good, or unaligned. While the ideal of valor demands bravery in combat, it asks only that its adherents refrain from attacking the weak or innocent.
The bolded sentences above say to me that your Sacrificial Paladin and Virtuous Paladin do not need to remain the same alignment throughout their careers. There is nothing that says they lose access to their powers if they fall, and the Valor of Virtue goes so far as to say that they don't lose their powers so much as they lose the "wisdom to wield (them) for good."
These alignment restrictions are no more onerous than any other Divine class requirement that you begin play with the same alignment as the deity you follow. Once I get the book two weeks from now, if there are rules for Paladins losing powers if they change alignment, I will happily eat crow in whatever manner you wish to serve it up. Until then, I think you are reading far too much into it.
That would be pretty cool
I'll take whatever crap is dished up about it when the book is released, but all that we've seen is that the alignment restriction says you must keep to your alignment restriction you chose, without telling the punishment. The implication being here that the punishment would be up to the DM, the Player, and/or the Group.
Alignment: A cavalier of sacrifice must are nearly always lawful good. The virtue of sacrifice demands much from its adherents. Only the most honorable cavaliers embrace it.
Fixed.
Alignment: A cavalier of valor can be lawful good, good, or unaligned. While the ideal of valor demands bravery in combat, it asks only that its adherents refrain from attacking the weak or innocent.
This doesn't actually say you can't be evil. It say's "you can be", not "you can only be".
I have no problem with default flavor, and suggested alignments. But i WILL have issue if they enforce them.
Alignment: A cavalier of sacrifice must are nearly always lawful good. The virtue of sacrifice demands much from its adherents. Only the most honorable cavaliers embrace it.
Fixed.
I don't understand what you're trying to do here. The excerpt clearly states otherwise. The Virtue of Sacrifice was made for all those people who complained that Paladins no longer had to be LG. It's part of the throw-back. But the Virtue of Valor was made so that everyone else didn't freak out. Even if people still are because it's framed in such a way.
Alignment: A cavalier of valor can be lawful good, good, or unaligned. While the ideal of valor demands bravery in combat, it asks only that its adherents refrain from attacking the weak or innocent.
This doesn't actually say you can't be evil. It say's "you can be", not "you can only be".
I have no problem with default flavor, and suggested alignments. But i WILL have issue if they enforce them.
Actually, excellent point here. WotC has stated time and time again that part of the core 4e assumptions are that D&D is Heroic Fantasy; you're playing heroic characters, and evil and chaotic evil characters aren't heroic. That said, they've also made alignment restrictions less heafty and have skitted around people who play evil and chaotic evil, sort of turning a blind eye to it. This seems to be another one of those blind eye assumptions. The Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, HotFL, HotFK, and DM's Kit all assume that you're playing one of the 3 Heroic Alignments. So here, they're following that assumption, saying "you can play any of the alignments that heroes can be, and we're not going to mention the other alignments, so if you're going to play them, don't tell us you are."
Alignment: A cavalier of sacrifice must are nearly always lawful good. The virtue of sacrifice demands much from its adherents. Only the most honorable cavaliers embrace it.
Fixed
I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
I'm trying to make sure that there's no mechanical restriction, or reason to have that alignment.
If i want to play a virtue of sacrifice as a self-centered machoist guy, who gives his surges away becaue he thinks everyone else is a wimp and needs a "real man's" protection, then i should be able to.
If i want to play a virtue of sacrifice as a pirate captain who will do anything for his crew (*cough* One Piece *cough*), but doesn't follow anyone's laws, I should be able to.
Edit: I can't really think of anything Evil off the top of my head, but i still want the freedom to do so.
Sounds like if you're not worshipping a deity and share his alignment, you can't be an OG Paladin in the first place.
Yeah, that part is true. However, you can be a paladin of any alignment and still have access to all your class features. By comparison, an evil cavalier loses access to their level 1 at-will attack class feature. That's the difference.
Really? Where does it say that? Where does it even imply that?Virtue of Sacrifice
A cavalier of sacrifice must be ready to give up anything—money, status, power, or life itself—to defend those too weak to shield themselves from evil. Cavaliers of sacrifice are renowned because of the hardships they endure for the good of others. You sleep in a stable while your allies rest in an inn, to save a few coins for the poor. You wear little more than simple, peasant’s garb when not in armor and are an ascetic devoted to your cause, willing to endure any ill or pain to prevent others from suffering it.
Even though the virtue of sacrifice carries a heavy cost, you must temper your actions with humility. You give up so much, but that sacrifice does not make you more noble than others. Pride is your enemy, because it threatens to lead you to arrogance and ultimately disdain for those you protect. Cavaliers of sacrifice who fall to evil become even more villainous due to the great distance they tumble.
Alignment: A cavalier of sacrifice must be lawful good. The virtue of sacrifice demands much from its adherents. Only the most honorable cavaliers embrace it.
Virtue of Valor
On the battlefield, you are the pinnacle of bravery. You stand resolute against any foe, from a seemingly endless wave of kobolds to a mountain-shaking titan. Without valor, the other virtues lose meaning and impact. To stand against a daunting foe or to hold tight to the exacting standards of the order of cavaliers—both of these tasks require faultless valor. You stand at the forefront of a battle, taking the vanguard position to both strike at your foes and shield your allies from your enemies’ most ferocious attacks. In this manner, your adherence to valor ensures that your bravery serves as a stirring example.
Valor must be tempered with wisdom. The valorous cavalier does not fight for the sake of fighting, but for the just cause. Valor turns to bloodlust when a cavalier fails to see that skill at arms is only one solution. Tales abound of valorous cavaliers who have fallen to evil. They didn’t abandon their virtue, but rather lost the wisdom needed to wield it for good.
Alignment: A cavalier of valor can be lawful good, good, or unaligned. While the ideal of valor demands bravery in combat, it asks only that its adherents refrain from attacking the weak or innocent.
The bolded sentences above say to me that your Sacrificial Paladin and Virtuous Paladin do not need to remain the same alignment throughout their careers. There is nothing that says they lose access to their powers if they fall, and the Valor of Virtue goes so far as to say that they don't lose their powers so much as they lose the "wisdom to wield (them) for good."
These alignment restrictions are no more onerous than any other Divine class requirement that you begin play with the same alignment as the deity you follow. Once I get the book two weeks from now, if there are rules for Paladins losing powers if they change alignment, I will happily eat crow in whatever manner you wish to serve it up. Until then, I think you are reading far too much into it.
This is very well thought out but from the wrong perspective. A paladin that falls to evil doesn't lose access to their at-will attack class feature (I never maintained that they did). A paladin that is evil to begin with however simply cannot select one of those at-will attack features because of the alignment restriction.
. . . since you shouldn't be evil or chaotic evil to begin with anyways . . .
While I agree that playing evil characters is not for everyone, and that it can go horribly wrong if not done well, I can't fall into step behind your notion that the game shouldn't be played that way. There's room enough for both styles, and I hope there will be minimal homebrewing required on both ends (for example, if an upcoming necromancer class had an evil alignment requirement for certain powers).
+1. I disagree with WotC's notion of alignments on principle. You're a Hero because you're affecting the world at large, not because you're following some Boy Scout code.
On-topic: I just don't care for pallies in general. Get the wanna-be knights off my lawn!
I get more disappointed the more I learn.
As far as the "alignment restriction" for this, I don't see a problem. There isn't a specific restriction for the class itself (unless I missed it) but instead determines which at wills (two I see being bantered about) can be used and what the player would choose to go with the alignment he has.
Yes, this is a game that is from a heroic perspective. Playing the Evil alignment turns ugly, both in the game and in various BBS boards discussions about it.
Playing the Evil alignment turns ugly, both in the game and in various BBS boards discussions about it.
I don't want to restart that arguement. I think it suffices to say that evil turns ugly when played poorly; and the threads turn ugly due to idealogical stubborness.
I'm just glad alignment has (thus far) been kept out of the mechanics enough to make it easily handwaved in houserules.
I'm mostly bummed to see they still have daily attack powers, I would have preferred somethign more similar to the knight but with some holy flavor thrown in instead of damage (Cha secondary instead of Con with different stances or even different auras would have been great). The lack of dailies on the martial style classes was one of my favorite thigns in the first essentials book (paladins are the most martial of the divne classes by design). I hope they get something radiant they can use on a mounted charge at will otherwise they're going to be missing out on some classic paladin tactics (I noticed neither at-will can be used on a charge which I'm dissapointed by).
I'm not happy with the design, Or the alignment restriction. However daily powers are a must for me to even look at 4.5 builds. So far it's the only class that isn't the cleric, or the magi that has them.
Just because a class uses weapons it does not need to be stupid in it's class design.
I agree with you about the alignment restriction, but I can't agree with your assertion that classes built without dailies are stupid in design. To me, the classes without dailies are more like endurance runners (going strong for an extended time) while the AEDU classes are sprinters. Each is a valid style and can work well together.
Personally my group leans that way and made use of those variants in 3.5 (and wrote up some of our own) and have added 4e house rule systems to change daily healing surges into an encounter based surge system for similar reasons. Annother advantage to designing without dailies is that it's much easier to plan for party effectiveness for your encounters when there isn't such a massive power sing that those daily powers grant, especially when stacked together for some spectacular "novas".
I was hoping for a paladin more similar to the knight, slayer and rogue builds for these reasons. I like to reward players for making good tactical decisions with their resources for a given situation rather than making good guesses as to how many encounters they're likely to have left on a given day.
I agree with you about the alignment restriction,
The game is moving back towards it's roots, for good or ill. You've liked some of the retro-stuff, haven't you? It's not surprising that you don't like all of it. But, hey, it's 'optional,' you can always just ignore alignments in 4e, there's no mechanial 'teeth' to alignment as there was in 3e.
To me, the classes without dailies are more like endurance runners (going strong for an extended time) while the AEDU classes are sprinters. Each is a valid style and can work well together.
I don't suspect the distance runner would do very well on the 4x100 relay team...
I agree with you about the alignment restriction,
The game is moving back towards it's roots, for good or ill. You've liked some of the retro-stuff, haven't you? It's not surprising that you don't like all of it. But, hey, it's 'optional,' you can always just ignore alignments in 4e, there's no mechanial 'teeth' to alignment as there was in 3e.To me, the classes without dailies are more like endurance runners (going strong for an extended time) while the AEDU classes are sprinters. Each is a valid style and can work well together.
I don't suspect the distance runner would do very well on the 4x100 relay team...
I'm sorry Tony. I don't know what a 4x100 is. I only run when I'm chased (and I find the olmpyics about as entertaining as watching paint dry). I assume from the context that it's a short race more suited to sprinters (AEDU classes).
I'll agree with your implied assertion (and forgive me if I'm getting it wrong) that AEDU classes, using their full abilities (this means dailies too), could outshine essentials classes without access to dailies. This assumes a shorter than average workday, and the spending of dailies (which a lot of players hoard for larger battles/boss-fights later in the workday).
Looking at the two side-by-side however, I see a different picture. I have a dream (I couldn't resist). I see the essentials classes and AEDU classes working together. I see AEDU classes bringing the pain (dailies) when survival is in question, with their non-dailied comrades steadily and reliably hacking through the workday.
"you can play any of the alignments that heroes can be, and we're not going to mention the other alignments, so if you're going to play them, don't tell us you are."
There's a DADT joke hiding in there somewhere, but I'm not brave enough to tell it...
"you can play any of the alignments that heroes can be, and we're not going to mention the other alignments, so if you're going to play them, don't tell us you are."
There's a DADT joke hiding in there somewhere, but I'm not brave enough to tell it...
That's exactly what it's like!
Only without making non-heterosexual-identified people out be be wrong. Because that's not cool, and DADT should be repealed stat.
That's exactly what it's like!
Only without making non-heterosexual-identified people out be be wrong. Because that's not cool, and DADT should be repealed stat.
I agree with you, but, man, you just opened a huge can of worms.
Ahem, moving right along ...
I think it'll come down to two things we haven't seen yet whether the Cavalier will be a worthy class: (a) the punishment mechanic, and (b) this Holy Smite thing which is apparently a substitute for encounter powers.
Looking at the two side-by-side however, I see a different picture. I have a dream (I couldn't resist). I see the essentials classes and AEDU classes working together. I see AEDU classes bringing the pain (dailies) when survival is in question, with their non-dailied comrades steadily and reliably hacking through the workday.
It's a nice dream, and I would like to share it. I do see one issue, though. As I have said elsewhere, rules are really (only) needed when there is conflict/tension between the players (including the DM, but as opposed to conflict/tension between the characters). By introducing a tension in natural desires between players who want a "five minute workday" (those with dailies) and those who don't (Essentials MBA-wallahs) while at the same time removing one of the mechanisms that encouraged longer workdays among the players of 'original' 4E characters (i.e. daily magic item uses) I think they are making a problem the game doesn't need.
a) rest and start a battle with 1/2/3 daily item powers
or
b) fight on and start a battle with 1 daily item power
Now you can..
a) rest and start a battle with all daily item powers
or
b) fight on and start a battle with all daily item powers
So the change actually helps. As do the "MBA-wallahs" (intra-party tension aside), since they'll only stop when out of surges.
Looking at the two side-by-side however, I see a different picture. I have a dream (I couldn't resist). I see the essentials classes and AEDU classes working together. I see AEDU classes bringing the pain (dailies) when survival is in question, with their non-dailied comrades steadily and reliably hacking through the workday.
It's a nice dream, and I would like to share it. I do see one issue, though. As I have said elsewhere, rules are really (only) needed when there is conflict/tension between the players (including the DM, but as opposed to conflict/tension between the characters). By introducing a tension in natural desires between players who want a "five minute workday" (those with dailies) and those who don't (Essentials MBA-wallahs) while at the same time removing one of the mechanisms that encouraged longer workdays among the players of 'original' 4E characters (i.e. daily magic item uses) I think they are making a problem the game doesn't need.
You seem to be under the impression that this is a new thing. There have always been classes that favored the 5 min workday while others did not. This goes back to 3e as well as AD&D 2e. 4e was the first edition that didn't have this as a default situation; and it would have worked if it wasn't for dailies (consider them the scooby gang messing up the grand plan). To get rid of the 5 min workday, either you need to eliminate dailies (which I wouldn't recommend because some people really like them), or you need to indroduce an element that pushes the party to keep going after dailies have been expended.
You seem to be under the impression that this is a new thing. There have always been classes that favored the 5 min workday while others did not. This goes back to 3e as well as AD&D 2e. 4e was the first edition that didn't have this as a default situation; and it would have worked if it wasn't for dailies (consider them the scooby gang messing up the grand plan). To get rid of the 5 min workday, either you need to eliminate dailies (which I wouldn't recommend because some people really like them), or you need to indroduce an element that pushes the party to keep going after dailies have been expended.
I realise the issue was present with earlier editions, and that Daily powers in 4E push for it; I'm just saying that it would be helpful if it were made more advantageous to tackle multiple encounters per day, not less. A mechanic already exists to encourage taking on extra challenges before an extended rest - milestones. Previously they gave action points and daily item uses; now they give just action points*. Action points are restricted by RAW to one per encounter, so 'saving them up' for a big encounter is not feasible/useful. Daily item uses, however, could be 'saved up' for a boss fight - hence the incentive they provided.
Introducing classes that don't have the incentive to extended rest after every encounter doesn't solve the problem, as you point out - it just adds a potential source of inter-player tension as some want the rest while others don't see the need.
*: Several rings also gain power after a milestone is passed - perhaps some additional features like this (for daily powers?) could give the incentive for longer "days"?