If it's for paladins, they definatly need to fix that.
Actually, my reading of the ToC is that the Dragon article adds mounts to the Cavalier, instead of it being something they have in the book.
You mean MORE mounts. I'm sure they'll have some mounts in the book.
Actually, my reading of the ToC is that the Dragon article adds mounts to the Cavalier, instead of it being something they have in the book.
You mean MORE mounts. I'm sure they'll have some mounts in the book.
No, I meant what I said.
Mounted warfare is the cavalier’s forte. Cavaliers who select the Pace of the Virtuous Charger class feature possess a mystic bond to the steed which serves them in battle.
Sounds just as likely that it is adding the Virtuous Charger feature as it is adding to it.
I'm surprised they're adding a build that's presumably heavy into mounted combat, given the relative lack of support (there's not even a Lance in 4e!), and the total lack of any such thing for the Knight, the quentessencial mounted warrior - of course 'Cavalier' /is/ just another word for Knight...
No, I meant what I said.Mounted warfare is the cavalier’s forte. Cavaliers who select the Pace of the Virtuous Charger class feature possess a mystic bond to the steed which serves them in battle.
Sounds just as likely that it is adding the Virtuous Charger feature as it is adding to it.
I'm going to have to disagree with your interpreation here(or at least my reading of your interpreation). The quote clearly states that all cavaliers specialize in mounted combat. Now then, the Pace of Virtuous Charger might get you a mysticaly connected mount, but all cavaliers will be using mounts.
An Astral Mount would be a much more interesting as an option available to ALL Divine Class than some half-baked second rate Beastmastery class feature (something already not very popular and undersupported) that doesn't work in a dungeon!
Astral Mount is divinely magical. It doesn't obey the same laws as a normal mount. It could be fixed for when you explore dungeons – as in becomes something more useful at that time.
True, but I still stand by my idea that astral mounts being a generic Divine support would be interesting. Paladins on divine chargers, Clerics on divine unicorn with healing powers, Invoker atop majestic Astral eagles and the Avenger riding on a flying Astral SHARK!
:D
Even if effects that deal with Good or Evil are back, Alignment should affect gameplay AS LITTLE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
No.
Even if effects that deal with Good or Evil are back, Alignment should affect gameplay AS LITTLE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
Why? It is super cool to have a spell/sword that does extra damage to evil things.
And moral code =/= automatic link to alignments. If when you are a Cavalier you have to be polite to members of the opposite sex their is no link to alignments.
And they can just say that Cavalier can have a moral code and then produce a list of various and optional restrictions a player and DM can agree on. Nothing wrong with that. And people can invent their own or ignore the moral code altogether.
That's all well and good; but the moment they reintroduce "roleplay this way or lose all your powers" the class is worthless.
The big one being that the party tends to lack faith in paladins because their codes are so much easier to violate than say a clerics.
That's all well and good; but the moment they reintroduce "roleplay this way or lose all your powers" the class is worthless.
Why? It is just a suggestion.
There are plenty of bad DMs and bad players that consider suggestions to be ironclad rules.
That's all well and good; but the moment they reintroduce "roleplay this way or lose all your powers" the class is worthless.
But that is a classical(in the D&D sense) paladin! As Essentials has taught us everything from old editions is better than how things are in 4ed!
:P
There are plenty of bad DMs and bad players that consider suggestions to be ironclad rules.
They don't have to be bad, they just have to be inexperienced. Like the audience of the Essential products is supposed to be.
That's why I find so strange that these products introduce things like the Instant Friends spell and other "decide yourself what the effects are" powers.
And, @ Ranadiel :+1
But, I don't mind losing them in return for the better class balance 4e delivered (no more RP-limitations 'balancing' mechanical powers).
I never hated the Go Team spells and enchantments. Having Good & Evil (and Law & Chaos) as palpable forces with overt effects isn't out of line for an heroic fantasy game.
But, I don't mind losing them in return for the better class balance 4e delivered (no more RP-limitations 'balancing' mechanical powers).
I agree. Alignment shouldn't have any mechanical effects.
Alignment can still matter a lot in the game because of roleplay. A group can decide to make alignment a fun motivation for npc interaction.
Maybe the insight skill could identify alignment? I'm not sure if that counts as a mechanical effect though.
Can't wait for paladin mount.
Divine. Maybe it can fly!
Do you guys think that the HoFK cavalier will use MBAs or AEDU? For myself, I want AEDU powers. I hope it uses strength. I'll bet it'll be either AEDU with charisma or MBA with strength. At least, I'll have something to like, either way.
I never hated the Go Team (Alignment) spells and enchantments. Having Good & Evil (and Law & Chaos) as palpable forces with overt effects isn't out of line for an heroic fantasy game.
But, I don't mind losing them in return for the better class balance 4e delivered (no more RP-limitations 'balancing' mechanical powers).
So much hate against roleplaying in a roleplaying game. Yeha board game where we just role dices!!!
Alignement is so important for roleplaying that all role playing games use them, don't they ?
I never hated the Go Team (Alignment) spells and enchantments. Having Good & Evil (and Law & Chaos) as palpable forces with overt effects isn't out of line for an heroic fantasy game.
But, I don't mind losing them in return for the better class balance 4e delivered (no more RP-limitations 'balancing' mechanical powers).
So much hate against roleplaying in a roleplaying game. Yeha board game where we just role dices!!!
How do you get that? Having mechanics that act as an RP-straightjacket is somehow /good/ for RP?
It actualy force people to RP.
Player: I am a noble Paladin!
DM: Sweet. Ok so you see a woman coming toward you.
P: I **** her!
DM: What? A noble Paladin doesn't to that!
P: Where is it writen? Why can't I do that? You suck!
DM: Well do you want to play a Black Night sort of Paladin?
P: No, I am the Paladin of the Holy Light, defender of truth and justice and serial rapist. I might also beat up a few kids from time to time.
DM: Serial rapist can't be Paladins, you god won't tolerate it. Rapist aren't fighting for truth and justice.
P: Tyrant! Where is that writen? Alignements are retarded. YOu have gone mad with power!
... Has this ever happened to anyone, ever? I could create just as equally improbable a situation.
DM: The Evil Warlord strides forth, covered in an armor made out of screaming babies.
Paladin: I attack!
DM: You kill a baby! You fall!
Paladin: Well, I guess I won't attack then.
DM: You're letting evil go unpunished! You fall!
Paladin: What.
Yep I agree completely with goldomark. A Paladin has to be lawful good honestly. If the player decides to use his Paladin to ****, or do something evil like that then he becomes a fallen and changes allignment. There's no relativization to some things... some thing are just pure evil and cannot be part of the code of conduct of a Paladin. I much prefer to play games with the old alignment system, so I import it to 4e sessions, at least for Paladins.
I do not use the word honourable lightly. Honour is the back bone of a pally no matter what is his alignment. The code of conduct is like that.
Depends of what your definition of a Paladin is. They may have the same "name" in 4E without being the same "thing" as they were in other editions.
For me they are "fighters of the faith", whatever the faith is. Code of conduct? yes, they have, it is the code of their faith. Not the arthurian code of chivalry.
Paladins of Gruumsh are impossible for you - logical for me.
Seems you are defining the Paladin with in mind an "ethic" that is not in itself a part of the 4E d&d world.
And, if we have to talk about RP, a 4E Paladin of Gruumsh, or Erathis, or the Raven Queen, or any other god, is not less interesting than a lawful good paladin of Moradin or Bahamut. Even these two should act differently, and have different values and codes.
I do not use the word honourable lightly. Honour is the back bone of a pally no matter what is his alignment. The code of conduct is like that.
Depends of what your definition of a Paladin is. They may have the same "name" in 4E without being the same "thing" as they were in other editions.
For me they are "fighters of the faith", whatever the faith is. Code of conduct? yes, they have, it is the code of their faith. Not the arthurian code of chivalry.
Paladins of Gruumsh are impossible for you - logical for me.
Seems you are defining the Paladin with in mind an "ethic" that is not in itself a part of the 4E d&d world.
And, if we have to talk about RP, a 4E Paladin of Gruumsh, or Erathis, or the Raven Queen, or any other god, is not less interesting than a lawful good paladin of Moradin or Bahamut. Even these two should act differently, and have different values and codes.
Uhhm I understand that some ppl like to play "evil Paladins" like Paladins of Gruumsh yes? But even in this case they follow extrict rules and a code of conduct related to the alignment of that god. Good Paladins must be good, evil paladins must be evil, etc.
Uhhm I understand that some ppl like to play "evil Paladins" like Paladins of Gruumsh yes? But even in this case they follow extrict rules and a code of conduct related to the alignment of that god. Good Paladins must be good, evil paladins must be evil, etc.
Except that "extrict rules and code of conduct" are not always applicable... I chose Gruumsh because he is a Chaotic Evil warrior god - a paladin ( a sacred warrior ) of Gruumsh will have a philosophy, a "moral code" that is by no way "lawful". Honor will not be important for such a paladin - power and violence will. He models his actions on his god.
Again, it is a question of definition :
- are the Paladin seen as the incarnation of chivalry, as we see it ? And we see it as medieval litterature inspired it at first - an incarnation of the ideal warrior in service to the christ ?
- or are they sacred warriors of their faith ? And in this case, in the polytheistic universe of D&D, they may have very different behaviors and ethics.
I'll dare to say that both view are valid - it depends on what you want the paladin to be, an archetype of the medieval knight, or a "template" for a fantasy warrior of any faith.
Edit : just for information, the only paladins of Gruumsh (or other evil gods) I have are NPCs. I had two players who chose paladin as their class, one of the Raven Queen (Unaligned), one of Moradin (LG). I suspect one of my player to be interested in a paladin of Torog, but it will be for another campaign ;)
You can have a LG pally and a CE one. One defends a city under siege, the other is doing the siege. When they will both meet they one issues a challenge to the other and the other can't refuse because they have a code of honour. Simple.
Are you really claiming that (for example) a paladin of Lolth, the goddess of lies and treachery, would accept a challenge to single combat because she follows an unbreakable code of honour?
Because that's one of the most insane things I have ever heard.
But I do see Evil Paladins as having a sense of honor - even if its the honor of being the most feared. Not only do Evil Paladins uphold a code of conduct, they care about their public image.
So in the case of a Paladin of Lolth, perhaps she would agree to meet the other Paladin in single combat. But it would be because she already thought of a great trick to betray that Paladin. Thus she would be maintaining her reputation for cunning treachery. Her honor.
But I do see Evil Paladins as having a sense of honor - even if its the honor of being the most feared. Not only do Evil Paladins uphold a code of conduct, they care about their public image.
So in the case of a Paladin of Lolth, perhaps she would agree to meet the other Paladin in single combat. But it would be because she already thought of a great trick to betray that Paladin. Thus she would be maintaining her reputation for cunning treachery. Her honor.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I agree that even a paladin of Lolth will have some patterns of behaviour she is expected to stick to. But to use words like 'honour' or 'code of conduct' or 'chivalry' to describe that behaviour is to render those words utterly without meaning.
You obvioulsy never watched Fox News.
I don't live in the US. All I see of Fox News is the occasional clip shown on The Daily Show (one of our TV channels broadcasts TDS episodes the day after they air in the US) or on one of the MSNBC evening shows (which I watch over the internet when my connection is working well enough). So my judgement of their insanity is second hand and probably pretty biased. Anyway, I did specifically say it was "one of the most insane things", not "the most insane thing".
Also: "Jet packs!!1!!eleven!!"
Maybe the paladin of Lolth would accept the challenge but would fight dirty.
Therefore, the word 'honour' is inappropriate.
So if we put our minds together, we can find a code for Cavalier that could apply to Cavalier of all alignments. I am sure we could find some common ground without it being a stretch.
No. I really don't think we can. Any 'code of conduct' that could apply to someone of absolutely any alignment would be so vague as to be worthless. Even things like "you must always blahblahblah" are antithetical to a chaotic alignment.
CAn't we use our minds for good instead of infighting? Infighting make kittens cry.
Who's fighting? I am just disagreeing with you.
CAn't we use our minds for good instead of infighting? Infighting make kittens cry.
Who's fighting? I am just disagreeing with you.
Thank you! Cant people just enjoy disagreeing?
But I do see Evil Paladins as having a sense of honor - even if its the honor of being the most feared. Not only do Evil Paladins uphold a code of conduct, they care about their public image. So in the case of a Paladin of Lolth, perhaps she would agree to meet the other Paladin in single combat. But it would be because she already thought of a great trick to betray that Paladin. Thus she would be maintaining her reputation for cunning treachery. Her honor.
You keep using that word [honor]. I do not think it means what you think it means. I agree that even a paladin of Lolth will have some patterns of behaviour she is expected to stick to. But to use words like 'honour' or 'code of conduct' or 'chivalry' to describe that behaviour is to render those words utterly without meaning.
Im thinking of the word 'honor' in the sense of an honor-shame culture, where shame is accute embarassment at criticism by others for failing to fulfill ones social obligations. The general punishment is such societies is shunning and exile - 'losing face' sotospeak. Ones personal identity is more collective and less individuated. For example, anecdotally from a Western perspective, when asking a man about his opinion on a matter, he may answer with what his dad would say, and his sister, then his mother, and so on. Theres is a vivid sense the mans identity really is the entire family, and he himself is only an aspect of that collective identity.
In the case of the extreme culture of the Drow, the collective identity would be the House. Lolth would be the sovereign and the sacred matron her representative. All members of the House would see themselves as appendages of the matron (whoever the matron may be). Exile from the House would be an unbearable existential pain. Moreover, the social obligation would be to remain in power and in control - by any means necessary - at all times. Loss of power to a usurper would provoke accute shame. This shame would be even more extreme because not only would other Drow stop fearing the usurped and engaging in open contempt, but on smelling blood would seek to kill the weak Drow to remove a futurely restored competitor.
In this sense, Drow honor is already extreme. For a Paladin of Lolth, it would be even more so.
So both Ranger builds are confirmed dual-source (Martial and Primal). Watch the Cavalier be dual-source Martial and Divine.
Yup. I would now be very surprised if this is not the case. I'm not sure yet whether this new design direction is one I approve of. I'm not keen on the idea that swinging a weapon around is automatically martial, but I don't have anything against dual-power-source characters per se. I guess I'll wait and see how WotC executes the idea in practise.
In this sense, Drow honor is already extreme. For a Paladin of Lolth, it would be even more so.
See, I just don't see 'shame' as being something drow care about. At all. Getting exiled from your house is bad because it's effectively a death sentence, because you no longer have anyone to watch your back and protect you from all the many people you've pissed off previously. It's not bad because it's shameful and embarassing.
To me, drow don't even really understand the concept of 'shame'. They follow something akin to Anton LaVey's philosophy: they do whatever they want whenever they want, and the only thing that can stop them is their own sense of self-preservation and the understanding that more powerful drow can always do whatever they want to them.
A drow paladin would be driven by the following:
- Her own desires;
- Fear of her superiors in whatever order she belonged to;
- Fear of Lolth's punishments;
- Fear of appearing weak, as weakness invites attack from both enemies and 'allies'.
Only the last of those is anything close to what you're talking about.
A drow paladin would be driven by the following:
- Her own desires;
- Fear of her superiors in whatever order she belonged to;
- Fear of Lolth's punishments;
- Fear of appearing weak, as weakness invites attack from both enemies and 'allies'.
Only the last of those is anything close to what you're talking about.
I still feel, sociologically, these scenarios induce 'shame' - at least they would for reallife humans. For example, human children fear their parents ('superiors') and getting caught disobeying the parents provokes an emotion of shame.
I feel, for Drow, the last item in the list would produce a kind of shame. The mistake of 'appearing weak' wouldnt only provoke fear, but also an emotion of profound humiliation.
Nevertheless, Drow arent Human. Drow may literally be incapable of shame.
Moreover, I am satisfied with your above Drow 'code of conduct' for the Drow Paladin. It seems usefully detailed for inspiring roleplay decisions, and has great Drow flavor.
I think the only thing I would emphasize is, a Drow Paladin would not only pursue this code (as most Drow would) but would also maintain a public image of following this code, and would aggressively defend the reputation for doing so.
I'm not keen on the idea that swinging a weapon around is automatically martial, but I don't have anything against dual-power-source characters per se. I guess I'll wait and see how WotC executes the idea in practise.
I mostly agree. I wouldn't want, say, the Swordmage or Warden to have dual sources. But I think it fits just fine for the Paladin/Cavalier. Previous editions of that class (AD&D in particular) were pretty much just as martial as they were divine. Formal weapon training was pretty prominent in their fluff, and some of the most skilled swordsmen from AD&D lore were Paladins, which screams that they have to have a strong martial component.
As for execution, I love the Executioner and I like what I've seen so far from the Hunter, so I'm not going into it with any sort of prejudice.
Couldn't cavaliers just be a fighter build with a class feature that adds bonus riders to attacks if they're mounted plus a few thematic feats linked to said class feature and tematic utility powers?
No, because it's a Paladin. We already know it's a Paladin.
Couldn't cavaliers just be a fighter build with a class feature that adds bonus riders to attacks if they're mounted plus a few thematic feats linked to said class feature and tematic utility powers?
Since it's an announced Paladin build, no. The original (AD&D) Cavalier was a Fighter sub-class, and not divine in nature. It would have made some sense to do the Knight that way.
But, 4e has generally avoided builds that encourage using mounts. I guess mounts are complicated or hard to balance or something...
Astral Mount is divinely magical. It doesn't obey the same laws as a normal mount. It could be fixed for when you explore dungeons – as in becomes something more useful at that time.
True, but I still stand by my idea that astral mounts being a generic Divine support would be interesting. Paladins on divine chargers, Clerics on divine unicorn with healing powers, Invoker atop majestic Astral eagles and the Avenger riding on a flying Astral SHARK!
:D
that is one evil imagination you have there
Appears to me that the Essentials don't have a lot of love on the boards. Am I wrong?
While I don't follow the development of the game as close as most of you. I am going to guess that the Cavalier is indeed a build for Essentials. Not a Theme.
Appears to me that the Essentials don't have a lot of love on the boards. Am I wrong?
Most people who like essentials are busy playing it, not here complaining about it.
168 hours pr week.
40 hours "roughly" sleeping.
40 hours at work.
8 if your "lucky enough" to get them of actually playing. What are we supposed to do with the other 80 hours? We might as well be here, as compared to a porn site...
- Read a book
- Talk with friends/family
- Watch your favorite TV show
- Exercise
- Try to master the fine art of cooking
- Try to think of cool plot ideas for your campaign that you can relay to your DM
- meditate
... That's seven things you can do rather than complain on the internet. There's probably a lot more than that too.
This is a separate post, because the forum's 'Multi-Quote' function does not work over multiple pages.I get the impression they're both. Slayers are 'Fighters,' but they have their own 'class' entry in the Compendium.
I am not ready to assume the way data is entered into the Compendium database reflects fundamental truths about the design intent of the rules. Slayers are still fighters, even if the Compendium implies they are their own class.
Some things written in HotFL itself can be interpreted to mean the knight and the slayer are considered to be separate classes. For example, both have separate sidebars where your hit points, bonus to defenses, healing surges per day, etc are listed; the heading for these sidebars is "Class Traits", not "Build Traits", and the skills are "class skills", not "build skills". Features that knights and slayers gain are "class features", not "build features".
It kinda makes me wonder if there will be dual-class stuff. Like you get a fighter encounter at level 3, and a warden encounter at level 7...
Err, i guess that's basicly a hybrid, which is also it's own class...
Some things written in HotFL itself can be interpreted to mean the knight and the slayer are considered to be separate classes. For example, both have separate sidebars where your hit points, bonus to defenses, healing surges per day, etc are listed; the heading for these sidebars is "Class Traits", not "Build Traits", and the skills are "class skills", not "build skills". Features that knights and slayers gain are "class features", not "build features".
Regardless wether Essentials is a new edition or not I can't help but shake the feeling it was written in the mindset it was one... I guess its to make it more approachable to those who never played 4e to make it feel like 'the begining'.
Which I think is what fuels the ressentment of the 'Essentials is 4.5!' types.
They can't do that because the essentials books are trying to pretend ritual caster dies not exist.
Wrong.
www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons...It also features more feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing.
Contrary to what certain parties have been trying to pass off as the unassailable truth, Rituals still exist for Essentials characters.
I thought that Essentials was just the initial 10 'evergreen' products? Or have we now established that from here on out, it's all Essentials?
I thought that Essentials was just the initial 10 'evergreen' products? Or have we now established that from here on out, it's all Essentials?
Uh ... what? It is clearly NOT an Essentials book. It has a non-Essentials cover. It doesn't have Essentials in the name. It specifically says it is for supporting both non-Essentials and Essentials stuff.
They can't do that because the essentials books are trying to pretend ritual caster dies not exist.
Wrong.
www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons...It also features more feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing.
Contrary to what certain parties have been trying to pass off as the unassailable truth, Rituals still exist for Essentials characters.
I thought that Essentials was just the initial 10 'evergreen' products? Or have we now established that from here on out, it's all Essentials?
1)It is.
2)"We" have not, but the people who are fearfull have.
Meh. Or we might be right because we are lucid and not fearful.
They will not be labled essentials. Only the 10 products will be.
As to how much they resemble essentials is, as of now, unknown, and it's fear, or hope that allows us to speculate.
Unless you're claiming to know the future?
Unless you're claiming to know the future?
Know, no. Speculate based on past performance, yes. Whatever comes along will be flavored by, and influenced by essentials.
Somehow i doupt your speculation is scientific, since you don't give yourself a margine of error.
And by past performance (1 book), 1/2 the classes will be AEDU, 1/2 will be something else.
1) More fluff, each power and feat seems to get a paragraph
2) Level chart, each class get's it's own
3) Features as you level, all the classes pick up features as they level instead of just level 1 (not that this is exactly new, as a few classes, like barbarian, did it, but now every class seems to).
The Cavalier article that was supposed to go up tonight has been replaced with one for Ranger Beastmasters.
Wasn't the Cav always supposed to be the 22nd as an essentials preview? They tend to do those on Mondays and Fridays, (Monday is Ranger Scout, and the following friday is Warlock Hexblade)
I wouldn't be so upset at WOTC's last-minute bait-and switch, and my purchase of DDI for the month just for the Cavalier Mount article, if the Beastmaster article was actually, you know, good.
I don't see anything bad about it actually. A bit of explanation fluff, then some unique and useful crunch. The only errata I could see for it is the fluff box in the wolf trip power too.
Ironically, the Beastmaster Horse companion is probably a much better idea than a Cavelier/Paladin celestial mount. It only need 3 little rule extensions to fit well into the beastmaster framework/powers.
the idiotic "Everything from now on is Essentials!" fearmongering ...
What is idiotic is denial of past business practices.
Considering i started playing with 4e. 3->3.5 means nothing.
Considering that leadership has changed. Old buisness descicions don't mean anything either.
Also, i've enjoyed most (all?) of Merls articles.
It doesn't need the lable Essentials to be Essentials. It just needs the simplified classes, the fluff, reprint of the rules, hybrid power sources.
Well that's a pretty broad definition. I guess PHB1 Delux edition is essentials. Since it was a reprint, had fluff, and contained the simple ranger class. (or does it have to contain all 4?)
I see... I see... Someone flaming me!
Never!
the idiotic "Everything from now on is Essentials!" fearmongering ...
What is idiotic is denial of past business practices.
Right, you hate Essentials. WE GET IT.
Take that crap to General Discussion and its 3 million dedicated Essentials hate threads where it belongs and people interested in the topic of this particular thread don't have to see it.
Geez.
the idiotic "Everything from now on is Essentials!" fearmongering ...
What is idiotic is denial of past business practices.
Right, you hate Essentials. WE GET IT.
Take that crap to General Discussion and its 3 million dedicated Essentials hate threads where it belongs and people interested in the topic of this particular thread don't have to see it.
Geez.
It's not even Essentials hate, it's that fact that the game is now going to follow the Essentials Philosophy. I don't quite hate it, but it's a little jarring for them to basically do something of or a 90 degree change in design philosophy. It's not even fearmongering, because I'm pretty sure that's how all the products are going to be from now on; we aren't going to be getting anything like the old PHB's or the additional Power books; but we're going to get the E philosophy influenced books with a different take on classes, feat restrictions, and fluff. As long as they produce interesting material, it's going to be okay. If it's trash, then it's not going to be okay. I so far like Heroes of Forgotten Lands(?) (HoFL).
I never said I hated it. I was talking about past business paractices. Please, take your anger elsewhere.
And nobody in this thread cares. So YOU take your crap elsewhere.
Now, to switch gears back to the original topic, which people WILL care about, the Cavalier preview is finally up, and surprisingly, it is single-source Divine.
Luckily, the Virtue of Valor (what, they killed the Bard and stole his stuff?) is allowed to be LG, G, or U, so that's the one to go with unless you buy into the ole' "PALADINS MUST BE LAWFUL GOOD" concept.
According to the description, the 'Virtue of Sacrifice' Cavalier Paladin must be Lawful Good. Or else what? The class mechanics seems to reignite pointless alignment debates. This sentence in particular worries me: '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.' This description is begging for 'Lawful Stupid' behavior and endless debates against Lawful Stupid behavior.
That said, Im open to the Paladin class messing around alignment flavor (but only the Paladin class). The possibility of Good Paladins of Virtues versus Evil Paladins of Vices honestly seems interesting. However, it is important to prevent Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Stupid. It is also important to guarantee access to class features despite possible changes in alignment, so a now-Evil 'fallen' Paladin of Virtue can still use the Virtue class feature, and presumably a now-Good 'redeemed' Paladin of Vice can still use the Vice class feature.
References to alignment flavor must be clearly irrelevant to actual class mechanics.
At least the flavor of spiritual traditions is explicitly openended. So, Paladins may or may not have patron gods. This allows players to personalize the cause that their Paladin character champions.
I strongly suspect the cavalier will have defender aura, since that power isn't classified as martial. Battle guardian *is* a martial power, but that's only to be expected; the cavalier will probably have an at-will called something along the lines of holy guardian, which deals radiant damage just like divine challenge/divine sanction. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this power was even called divine sanction.
(snip!)
I also wouldn't exactly be shocked if the cavalier ends up using domains. Naturally they'd be different domains than those available to the warpriest; freedom, justice, and loyalty all seem like logical possibilities to me. And of course, since WotC going for the retro feel with Essentials, the cavalier could quite possibly have an beneficial aura power (maybe even a choice of such powers, or one linked to the chosen domain), ala the 3E paladin's Aura of Courage.
I guess we'll see on Friday
Re: valiant strike, I strongly suspect that will be an encounter power, rather than an at-will.
If anything, the cavalier is less restrictive than the existing paladin. You can play an unaligned, or even good-aligned, cavalier who worships Bane as the embodiment of martial honour, courage and discipline, and it's perfectly legal even if you take the alignment restrictions as being an unbreakable and strictly-enforced rule. Before, a paladin of Bane had to be evil if you were applying the alignment restrictions rigidly.
Also worthy of noting, alignment is NOT designated specifically as a "prerequisite" or "requirement," so, RAW, that eliminates any chance of your features not functioning if your alignment changes.
It is also, surprisingly, without a mount
Like I predicted waaaaaay back in post #4 when I said it sounded like the (now delayed until next month) Dragon article was going to add mounts instead of it already being part of the class.
I stand vindicated! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Unless that pace of the virtuous charger thing is a mount instead of a movement ability of course. But it would be kind of stupid to give a mount at level 4 instead of 1 like a lot of characters can get.
I do not understand why people are upset about the alignment restrictions.
Its because alignments themselves are highly disruptive to actual gameplay. The endless debates about what does or doesnt qualify as Lawful Good are uncool and unfun.
When alignment is strictly flavor, theres no problem, because both the DM and the players can legally reflavor, thus supply definitions and codes that make sense to them. But when alignment starts to get hardcoded into the mechanics itself it can and often does become game breaking.
Paladins (and clerics, invokers and avengers) already had alignment restrictions.
There was a reason 4e abandoned alignment as a gaming mechanic.
All that has changed is that the 'officially allowed' alignments are now dependent upon the 'virtue' you choose rather than the deity you choose.
Hardcoding the setting flavor into the Cleric mechanics is problematic too. It makes it illegal for non-polytheistic settings, including modern settings from using the Cleric class. It is literally illegal for third-party settings like Amethyst to use the Cleric class because the GSL forbids them from rewriting the Cleric description to better suit their modern setting.
Baking flavor into the mechanics is always problematic for a game of imagination like D&D.
There are still absolutely no mechanical penalties for violating or changing your alignment, so you can completely ignore the 'restriction' anyway.
It isnt clear there are no penalties for changing alignments. The penalty for 'fallen' Virtue Paladins and presumably 'redeemed' Vice Paladins may simply be listed elsewhere. Even if there are no penalties, the class description doesnt explain what happens when a player changes or ignores alignment, so it is still illegal to do so. Thus alignment remains disruptive to game play.
The Virtue of Sacrifice says plainly, this kind of Paladin must give up his life. This is extremely disruptive to actual gameplay. It is also bait for alignment debates.
If anything, the cavalier is less restrictive than the existing paladin. You can play an unaligned, or even good-aligned, cavalier who worships Bane as the embodiment of martial honour, courage and discipline, and it's perfectly legal even if you take the alignment restrictions as being an unbreakable and strictly-enforced rule. Before, a paladin of Bane had to be evil if you were applying the alignment restrictions rigidly.
I agree, baking flavor, whether the flavor refers to the specific spiritual tradition or to the specific alignment is problematic.
Otherwise it looks fine.
So Holy Smite is the encounter power booster, and Valiant Strike is the auto at-will. I'm also guessing that Righteuos Shield and Radiance are features to add to defenses? Maybe the old Add Cha to stuff; though I have no idea what Radiance would do... maybe it's the Turn Undead equivalent.
It also seems that you may get a lay on hands equivalent at level 2. This class isn't as exciting as either the Druid or the Ranger...at the moment.
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.
------
I think what this means isn't that you should offer your life to the villain in exchange for that nameless peasant's life. What I think it's saying is that you shouldn't be in this for the money, status, power: you should be adventuring because you can protect others, and be ready to not get that monetary reward, and not complain that your DM didn't give you the magic items and the gold that you wanted because you're in this for the cause, not for the ends. That's the Rogue's reward.
For example, in Record of Lodoss War, Holy Knight Parn and his companions always say, "give the reward money to Woodchuck (their Thief partymember). That show was based on an early D&D game. The idea being that the Paladin isn't in this for any sort of reward; and will be willing to sacrifice what he or she'd get, and put his or her life on the line to save someone – such as getting into a fight with an army of gnolls to save the peasant's daughter, even though there is a chance of death involved, and even though he knows that even if he saves her, her parents can't pay him for his trouble.
Unless that pace of the virtuous charger thing is a mount instead of a movement ability of course. But it would be kind of stupid to give a mount at level 4 instead of 1 like a lot of characters can get.
The 3rd Edition paladin didn't get Special Mount until level 5. For that matter, the 3E ranger didn't gain an animal companion until level 4.
I wonder how having a mount is appropriate for a defender? It sounds more like a tool for a striker.
Well it could make your aura size increase.
I wonder how having a mount is appropriate for a defender? It sounds more like a tool for a striker.
The most obvious use would be allowing you to more quickly & easily move from one ally to another. Also, several mounts have attacks that let you move and/or knock enemies prone, both things that can help defend your allies (perhaps a mounted cavalier will even gain a bonus to powers that do such things). The dire boar in particular would probably make a good mount for a defender.
Unless that pace of the virtuous charger thing is a mount instead of a movement ability of course. But it would be kind of stupid to give a mount at level 4 instead of 1 like a lot of characters can get.
The 3rd Edition paladin didn't get Special Mount until level 5. For that matter, the 3E ranger didn't gain an animal companion until level 4.
Yes, I know what 3e got. This isn't 3e.
Beastmaster Rangers and Sentinel Druids get their animals at 1st level, and some of them can be used as mounts. Having another class not get a mount until level 4 is stupid. Though honestly I'd be happier with them not getting a mount at all. Or at least have it be optional - a choice of two or three differet "Charger" choices, only one of which is a mount.
A paladin is a tank, not a battering ram.
Appears to me that the Essentials don't have a lot of love on the boards. Am I wrong?
While I don't follow the development of the game as close as most of you. I am going to guess that the Cavalier is indeed a build for Essentials. Not a Theme.
Appears to me that the Essentials don't have a lot of love on the boards. Am I wrong?
Most people who like essentials are busy playing it, not here complaining about it.
168 hours pr week.
40 hours "roughly" sleeping.
40 hours at work.
8 if your "lucky enough" to get them of actually playing. What are we supposed to do with the other 80 hours? We might as well be here, as compared to a porn site...
- Read a book
- Talk with friends/family
- Watch your favorite TV show
- Exercise
- Try to master the fine art of cooking
- Try to think of cool plot ideas for your campaign that you can relay to your DM
- meditate
... That's seven things you can do rather than complain on the internet. There's probably a lot more than that too.
This is a separate post, because the forum's 'Multi-Quote' function does not work over multiple pages.I get the impression they're both. Slayers are 'Fighters,' but they have their own 'class' entry in the Compendium.
I am not ready to assume the way data is entered into the Compendium database reflects fundamental truths about the design intent of the rules. Slayers are still fighters, even if the Compendium implies they are their own class.
Some things written in HotFL itself can be interpreted to mean the knight and the slayer are considered to be separate classes. For example, both have separate sidebars where your hit points, bonus to defenses, healing surges per day, etc are listed; the heading for these sidebars is "Class Traits", not "Build Traits", and the skills are "class skills", not "build skills". Features that knights and slayers gain are "class features", not "build features".
It kinda makes me wonder if there will be dual-class stuff. Like you get a fighter encounter at level 3, and a warden encounter at level 7...
Err, i guess that's basicly a hybrid, which is also it's own class...
Some things written in HotFL itself can be interpreted to mean the knight and the slayer are considered to be separate classes. For example, both have separate sidebars where your hit points, bonus to defenses, healing surges per day, etc are listed; the heading for these sidebars is "Class Traits", not "Build Traits", and the skills are "class skills", not "build skills". Features that knights and slayers gain are "class features", not "build features".
Regardless wether Essentials is a new edition or not I can't help but shake the feeling it was written in the mindset it was one... I guess its to make it more approachable to those who never played 4e to make it feel like 'the begining'.
Which I think is what fuels the ressentment of the 'Essentials is 4.5!' types.
They can't do that because the essentials books are trying to pretend ritual caster dies not exist.
Wrong.
www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons...It also features more feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing.
Contrary to what certain parties have been trying to pass off as the unassailable truth, Rituals still exist for Essentials characters.
I thought that Essentials was just the initial 10 'evergreen' products? Or have we now established that from here on out, it's all Essentials?
I thought that Essentials was just the initial 10 'evergreen' products? Or have we now established that from here on out, it's all Essentials?
Uh ... what? It is clearly NOT an Essentials book. It has a non-Essentials cover. It doesn't have Essentials in the name. It specifically says it is for supporting both non-Essentials and Essentials stuff.
They can't do that because the essentials books are trying to pretend ritual caster dies not exist.
Wrong.
www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons...It also features more feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing.
Contrary to what certain parties have been trying to pass off as the unassailable truth, Rituals still exist for Essentials characters.
I thought that Essentials was just the initial 10 'evergreen' products? Or have we now established that from here on out, it's all Essentials?
1)It is.
2)"We" have not, but the people who are fearfull have.
Meh. Or we might be right because we are lucid and not fearful.
They will not be labled essentials. Only the 10 products will be.
As to how much they resemble essentials is, as of now, unknown, and it's fear, or hope that allows us to speculate.
Unless you're claiming to know the future?
Unless you're claiming to know the future?
Know, no. Speculate based on past performance, yes. Whatever comes along will be flavored by, and influenced by essentials.
Somehow i doupt your speculation is scientific, since you don't give yourself a margine of error.
And by past performance (1 book), 1/2 the classes will be AEDU, 1/2 will be something else.
1) More fluff, each power and feat seems to get a paragraph
2) Level chart, each class get's it's own
3) Features as you level, all the classes pick up features as they level instead of just level 1 (not that this is exactly new, as a few classes, like barbarian, did it, but now every class seems to).
The Cavalier article that was supposed to go up tonight has been replaced with one for Ranger Beastmasters.
Wasn't the Cav always supposed to be the 22nd as an essentials preview? They tend to do those on Mondays and Fridays, (Monday is Ranger Scout, and the following friday is Warlock Hexblade)
I wouldn't be so upset at WOTC's last-minute bait-and switch, and my purchase of DDI for the month just for the Cavalier Mount article, if the Beastmaster article was actually, you know, good.
I don't see anything bad about it actually. A bit of explanation fluff, then some unique and useful crunch. The only errata I could see for it is the fluff box in the wolf trip power too.
Ironically, the Beastmaster Horse companion is probably a much better idea than a Cavelier/Paladin celestial mount. It only need 3 little rule extensions to fit well into the beastmaster framework/powers.
the idiotic "Everything from now on is Essentials!" fearmongering ...
What is idiotic is denial of past business practices.
Considering i started playing with 4e. 3->3.5 means nothing.
Considering that leadership has changed. Old buisness descicions don't mean anything either.
Also, i've enjoyed most (all?) of Merls articles.
It doesn't need the lable Essentials to be Essentials. It just needs the simplified classes, the fluff, reprint of the rules, hybrid power sources.
Well that's a pretty broad definition. I guess PHB1 Delux edition is essentials. Since it was a reprint, had fluff, and contained the simple ranger class. (or does it have to contain all 4?)
I see... I see... Someone flaming me!
Never!
the idiotic "Everything from now on is Essentials!" fearmongering ...
What is idiotic is denial of past business practices.
Right, you hate Essentials. WE GET IT.
Take that crap to General Discussion and its 3 million dedicated Essentials hate threads where it belongs and people interested in the topic of this particular thread don't have to see it.
Geez.
the idiotic "Everything from now on is Essentials!" fearmongering ...
What is idiotic is denial of past business practices.
Right, you hate Essentials. WE GET IT.
Take that crap to General Discussion and its 3 million dedicated Essentials hate threads where it belongs and people interested in the topic of this particular thread don't have to see it.
Geez.
It's not even Essentials hate, it's that fact that the game is now going to follow the Essentials Philosophy. I don't quite hate it, but it's a little jarring for them to basically do something of or a 90 degree change in design philosophy. It's not even fearmongering, because I'm pretty sure that's how all the products are going to be from now on; we aren't going to be getting anything like the old PHB's or the additional Power books; but we're going to get the E philosophy influenced books with a different take on classes, feat restrictions, and fluff. As long as they produce interesting material, it's going to be okay. If it's trash, then it's not going to be okay. I so far like Heroes of Forgotten Lands(?) (HoFL).
I never said I hated it. I was talking about past business paractices. Please, take your anger elsewhere.
And nobody in this thread cares. So YOU take your crap elsewhere.
Now, to switch gears back to the original topic, which people WILL care about, the Cavalier preview is finally up, and surprisingly, it is single-source Divine.
Luckily, the Virtue of Valor (what, they killed the Bard and stole his stuff?) is allowed to be LG, G, or U, so that's the one to go with unless you buy into the ole' "PALADINS MUST BE LAWFUL GOOD" concept.
According to the description, the 'Virtue of Sacrifice' Cavalier Paladin must be Lawful Good. Or else what? The class mechanics seems to reignite pointless alignment debates. This sentence in particular worries me: '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.' This description is begging for 'Lawful Stupid' behavior and endless debates against Lawful Stupid behavior.
That said, Im open to the Paladin class messing around alignment flavor (but only the Paladin class). The possibility of Good Paladins of Virtues versus Evil Paladins of Vices honestly seems interesting. However, it is important to prevent Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Stupid. It is also important to guarantee access to class features despite possible changes in alignment, so a now-Evil 'fallen' Paladin of Virtue can still use the Virtue class feature, and presumably a now-Good 'redeemed' Paladin of Vice can still use the Vice class feature.
References to alignment flavor must be clearly irrelevant to actual class mechanics.
At least the flavor of spiritual traditions is explicitly openended. So, Paladins may or may not have patron gods. This allows players to personalize the cause that their Paladin character champions.
I strongly suspect the cavalier will have defender aura, since that power isn't classified as martial. Battle guardian *is* a martial power, but that's only to be expected; the cavalier will probably have an at-will called something along the lines of holy guardian, which deals radiant damage just like divine challenge/divine sanction. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this power was even called divine sanction.
(snip!)
I also wouldn't exactly be shocked if the cavalier ends up using domains. Naturally they'd be different domains than those available to the warpriest; freedom, justice, and loyalty all seem like logical possibilities to me. And of course, since WotC going for the retro feel with Essentials, the cavalier could quite possibly have an beneficial aura power (maybe even a choice of such powers, or one linked to the chosen domain), ala the 3E paladin's Aura of Courage.
I guess we'll see on Friday
Re: valiant strike, I strongly suspect that will be an encounter power, rather than an at-will.
If anything, the cavalier is less restrictive than the existing paladin. You can play an unaligned, or even good-aligned, cavalier who worships Bane as the embodiment of martial honour, courage and discipline, and it's perfectly legal even if you take the alignment restrictions as being an unbreakable and strictly-enforced rule. Before, a paladin of Bane had to be evil if you were applying the alignment restrictions rigidly.
Also worthy of noting, alignment is NOT designated specifically as a "prerequisite" or "requirement," so, RAW, that eliminates any chance of your features not functioning if your alignment changes.
It is also, surprisingly, without a mount
Like I predicted waaaaaay back in post #4 when I said it sounded like the (now delayed until next month) Dragon article was going to add mounts instead of it already being part of the class.
I stand vindicated! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Unless that pace of the virtuous charger thing is a mount instead of a movement ability of course. But it would be kind of stupid to give a mount at level 4 instead of 1 like a lot of characters can get.
I do not understand why people are upset about the alignment restrictions.
Its because alignments themselves are highly disruptive to actual gameplay. The endless debates about what does or doesnt qualify as Lawful Good are uncool and unfun.
When alignment is strictly flavor, theres no problem, because both the DM and the players can legally reflavor, thus supply definitions and codes that make sense to them. But when alignment starts to get hardcoded into the mechanics itself it can and often does become game breaking.
Paladins (and clerics, invokers and avengers) already had alignment restrictions.
There was a reason 4e abandoned alignment as a gaming mechanic.
All that has changed is that the 'officially allowed' alignments are now dependent upon the 'virtue' you choose rather than the deity you choose.
Hardcoding the setting flavor into the Cleric mechanics is problematic too. It makes it illegal for non-polytheistic settings, including modern settings from using the Cleric class. It is literally illegal for third-party settings like Amethyst to use the Cleric class because the GSL forbids them from rewriting the Cleric description to better suit their modern setting.
Baking flavor into the mechanics is always problematic for a game of imagination like D&D.
There are still absolutely no mechanical penalties for violating or changing your alignment, so you can completely ignore the 'restriction' anyway.
It isnt clear there are no penalties for changing alignments. The penalty for 'fallen' Virtue Paladins and presumably 'redeemed' Vice Paladins may simply be listed elsewhere. Even if there are no penalties, the class description doesnt explain what happens when a player changes or ignores alignment, so it is still illegal to do so. Thus alignment remains disruptive to game play.
The Virtue of Sacrifice says plainly, this kind of Paladin must give up his life. This is extremely disruptive to actual gameplay. It is also bait for alignment debates.
If anything, the cavalier is less restrictive than the existing paladin. You can play an unaligned, or even good-aligned, cavalier who worships Bane as the embodiment of martial honour, courage and discipline, and it's perfectly legal even if you take the alignment restrictions as being an unbreakable and strictly-enforced rule. Before, a paladin of Bane had to be evil if you were applying the alignment restrictions rigidly.
I agree, baking flavor, whether the flavor refers to the specific spiritual tradition or to the specific alignment is problematic.
Otherwise it looks fine.
So Holy Smite is the encounter power booster, and Valiant Strike is the auto at-will. I'm also guessing that Righteuos Shield and Radiance are features to add to defenses? Maybe the old Add Cha to stuff; though I have no idea what Radiance would do... maybe it's the Turn Undead equivalent.
It also seems that you may get a lay on hands equivalent at level 2. This class isn't as exciting as either the Druid or the Ranger...at the moment.
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.
------
I think what this means isn't that you should offer your life to the villain in exchange for that nameless peasant's life. What I think it's saying is that you shouldn't be in this for the money, status, power: you should be adventuring because you can protect others, and be ready to not get that monetary reward, and not complain that your DM didn't give you the magic items and the gold that you wanted because you're in this for the cause, not for the ends. That's the Rogue's reward.
For example, in Record of Lodoss War, Holy Knight Parn and his companions always say, "give the reward money to Woodchuck (their Thief partymember). That show was based on an early D&D game. The idea being that the Paladin isn't in this for any sort of reward; and will be willing to sacrifice what he or she'd get, and put his or her life on the line to save someone – such as getting into a fight with an army of gnolls to save the peasant's daughter, even though there is a chance of death involved, and even though he knows that even if he saves her, her parents can't pay him for his trouble.
Unless that pace of the virtuous charger thing is a mount instead of a movement ability of course. But it would be kind of stupid to give a mount at level 4 instead of 1 like a lot of characters can get.
The 3rd Edition paladin didn't get Special Mount until level 5. For that matter, the 3E ranger didn't gain an animal companion until level 4.
I wonder how having a mount is appropriate for a defender? It sounds more like a tool for a striker.
Well it could make your aura size increase.
I wonder how having a mount is appropriate for a defender? It sounds more like a tool for a striker.
The most obvious use would be allowing you to more quickly & easily move from one ally to another. Also, several mounts have attacks that let you move and/or knock enemies prone, both things that can help defend your allies (perhaps a mounted cavalier will even gain a bonus to powers that do such things). The dire boar in particular would probably make a good mount for a defender.
Unless that pace of the virtuous charger thing is a mount instead of a movement ability of course. But it would be kind of stupid to give a mount at level 4 instead of 1 like a lot of characters can get.
The 3rd Edition paladin didn't get Special Mount until level 5. For that matter, the 3E ranger didn't gain an animal companion until level 4.
Yes, I know what 3e got. This isn't 3e.
Beastmaster Rangers and Sentinel Druids get their animals at 1st level, and some of them can be used as mounts. Having another class not get a mount until level 4 is stupid. Though honestly I'd be happier with them not getting a mount at all. Or at least have it be optional - a choice of two or three differet "Charger" choices, only one of which is a mount.
A paladin is a tank, not a battering ram.