In my games I I require Paladins to be of any good alignment. We were playing 5E sessions a week and after I ran the LMoP one of my plauyers wanted to DM. He has thought up a world and a plot hook where we have to go and discover El Dorado. Character generation is on Sunday, and he told us to ask about Paladins if we actually wanted to be one. It did actually come up. and he provided the following information.
Paladins have to be
Lawful Neutral
AND
Human only.
Apparently the Paladins are more or less the SS but I suspect they will be based on the Teutonic Knights and stereotypes about Prussia. I'm sure they will be fabricating claims and/or using the holy war/cleansing of heresy cassus belli on other nations.
An alignment and racial restriction. Even I do not have racial restrictions on Paladins. Said DM is a newer DM and the youngest member of our group at the ripe old age of 21. The new DM has also picked up a copy of the 1st ed DMG so he could also throw some old fashioned +2 backscatchers and random harlots at us.
Could be interesting anyway see how it pans out. I feel so bad about having to put up with these restrictions though!!!!
I'm... not really sure what you want anyone to say to this.
There is no functional justification outside of imposed fiat.
It really doesn't make sense mechanically and artificially limiting non-human races doesn't lead to any sort of richer world or experience.
Nothing particularly useful or meaningful comes from these sort of restrictions.
And yet... look, to a certain degree we have to accept that there are neanderthals and ergasters among us in this particular gaming community that will never evolve beyond their current state and never grow up and never open their minds. To function they need a very boxed world with as little flexibility as possible where everyone is a one-dimensional paper cut down and there are no surprises or twists at all. A major pillar of 5th edition was to offer them reconciliation and, if you chose to join the game of such a person and you choose to stay in that game, you kind of have to put up with their nonsense as long as you can.
Once you have had your fill, you can feel free to run your own game. In the meantime, at least figure out what they do as a GM and try to note the good as well as bad. It will help you take on such a role in the future.
Were I in that game, I would probably consider playing some Fighter/Cleric multiclass character who calls himself a paladin, just so I could buck the restrictions. Just like when I played in a game where the DM said no dwarves, and I played a short, stocky human with a big, red beard, scottish accent and a drinking problem.
I can imagine a dwarf paladin as easily as I can a dwarf fighter. Or a dwarf sorcerer. That said, I get the idea of the occassional race restriction.
In our 3.5 homebrew, bards, paladins, and rangers were prestige classes (from Unearthed Arcana). There were some race restrictions we house ruled in.
In our homebrew, paladins were holy warriors who acted as the military arm of the human church (each race had its own religion). It was extremely unlikely for a dwarf or elf to ever become a paladin of the order. Instead, dwarves and elves had their own paladin traditons (described in their write-ups). Elf rangers were akin to human knights. They sometimes trained elf-friends (humans) as rangers but no other races (I see no problem with allowing a PC only dwarf though-- the flavor remains). Bards were unrestricted.
These restrictions were just a way to add a bit o' flavor to the setting. Dwarves and elves could be paladins (as much as any human) they simply had their own traditions. Elves sometimes trained humans to be rangers but humans never trained elves without the supervision of another elf (the first rangers were and always would be, elves). Each race is different and sometimes (un)available classes bear this out.
just my 2 coppers
Depends on the campaign setting for me; in Greyhawk, if you want to adhere to the integrity of the setting, Paladins can only be LG Humans (Rangers, any Good Human), in a Planescape campaign (or any campaign that uses the Egyptian mythos), if you are dig Horus. you can be a CG Paladin, etc.
Good for you?
What's the point for discussion here?
Why not just post a blog about it?
This is the equivalent of "Only wizards can be gnomes in my campaign because reasons. The reasons beings I says so"
But yeah, not sure what you want us to say other than "Uh, I disagree, but okay? I didn't even wanna play a paladin anyway..." I mean, LN Paladins totes make sense as a general rule, but not as an exclusive one (as in, they are EXCLUSIVELY LN)
Does that mean everyone should be afraid of Paladins for his sessions?
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
The best "paladin" I ever played was a paladin of himself.
You know how the gods choose their champions? Well, they do and that is how warriors become paladins. This one guy, he figured why do the gods have to grant you paladinhood? Shouldn't that be something you can achieve on your own? Never mind the fact that he was a drunkard with a terrible mean streak who was completely full of himself.
Well he went adventuring make a name for himself. Everywhere he went, he told great tales of his deeds. He helped villages for no reason other than to make a name for himself and have the stories of his accomplishments spread. He was by now means good aligned, but he was a competent fighter. Eventually he gathered a following of "believers".
Here is the funny thing about belief in D&D. Belief is what created the gods. Without belief, they are powerless. Get enough belief in something, and miracles start to happen. Armand, the hero of this story had gathered quite a lot of belief, but it still came as a surprise (to him) when his attacks were infused with radiant power or he gained the ability to heal his followers.
Yes, Armand the brash angry warrior whose only real care was his own well being had become a true paladin. Not a paladin of any known deity mind you. He became a Paladin of himself.
He eventually grew in power to that of a Demigod. By this time his church was well established with followers reveling and drinking themselves to oblivion. There was an epic battle with the Church of the One True God where Armand died, became a Martyr, then Ascended to Godhood.
The point of this rambling story is that alignment restrictions on paladins would have taken away one of the most enjoyable PCs I have ever had the chace to play. Why take away your players fun?
I really wonder why some people are being so rude to Zardnaar. Why do you care if his friend is house-ruling paladins? He's not forcing you to use his house rules. I find it interesting to learn that younger players also like the flavor of alignment and racial resistrictions on paladins. I guess it's not a grognard vs. younger player debate. Thanks for sharing the anecdote Zard.
To be fair, he isn't saying non-humans can't be paladins, he is saying non-humans can't be paladins in his campaign. He is not making a statement about non-humans. It sounds like the orders of paladins in his setting are tied to a specific human institution. And that institution does not recruit non-humans.
You don't need to make this bigger than it is. It is this guy's vision of how his little corner of the world works. Cut him some slack.
Zardnaar wrote:
Considering how different the three types of paladins are, does his restriction pertain to all three? I could see that the "chivalrous warrior" type might be restricted to humans, being based around a holy order, but would that order also take the avenging type paladin, or the nature defender?
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Not sure what the discussion is supposed to be here. Alignment restrictions make Katanas the best Paladin?
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Max CHR, MC Warlock and fire off eldritch blasts with hip pumps, have a pompadour and say "uhhh-huuuuu" a lot.
Zardnaar wrote:
I see nothing wrong with limiting Paladins and Druids by race, religion is normally a cultural and ethnic thing. I like different religions for different ethnic groups. People forget that Druids were an ethnic religion, and Druids and Sidhe did not get alot, as Sidhe worship was a competing religion with Druidism.
pukunui wrote:
See, my setting goes in the opposite direction with paladins. The term "paladin" is used interchangeably with "knight" and is a title bequeathed upon individuals who have performed exceptional services for their king, or anyone who belongs to a paladin order.
About 20-25% of paladins in my setting aren't even martial characters.
So, other than the fact that your character may or may not be working for a bunch of jack-booted stormtroopers, what do you know about the rest of the campaign world?
Mad_Jack wrote:
How do his reasons for restricting Paladins compare to your reasons?
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Novacat wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
There are warriors with no magical ability, arcane and/or divine casters with no fighting prowess, and everything in between. Some paladin orders even employ spies or assassins. The in-universe use of the word "paladin" is completely divorced from the class. *Most* paladins in the setting are magic-wielding warriors, but not all.
Lawolf wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I don't get it either really? Are you just waving this around as a banner to show everyone that other people use restrictions, or did you really just find it that insteresting?
I for one see no problem with it. If the creator wants to show there is a strick order of knights or a brotherhood(sisterhood what have you), then restrictions may be needed. Maybe the only other races are in the 'New World' or are not of the starting nation. I myself have done similar things, but I would rarely call them out as direct class names. Usually I create a unique order or organisation.
I certainly do not think that restrictions take away flavor of a game inherently. Though I rarely try and restrict something just because.
Brock_Landers wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Sounds like good campaign concept. There is really nothing wrong with having Paladins act more like a true historical holy warrior. After all, sometimes you have no choice but to exterminate entire infidel populations
arnwolf666 wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Diffan wrote:
mellored wrote:
I'm grateful for the more open default. The less restrictive default encourages DMs to make paladins a part of whatever setting the DM runs instead of encouraging a specific flavor. I've always heard and believed that D&D is supposed to be something that each table makes their own, and I think that flavor-based restrictions on races and classes are best presented as part of campaign settings.
SirAntoine wrote:
Diffan wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I don't understand why we need five classes spread among six books to cover the generic high fantasy concept of a person in service who is a warrior first and a miracle worker second.
Farmer42 wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Note the DMG does include notes on things like alignment and class restrictions so if you want a Greyhawk game LG only Paladins are an option.
In my games its LG Paladins only, don't like it tough.
I'm partial myself to X-treme alignment Paladins only. That is to say, a Paladin could be only LG, CG, TN(Full Balance), LE, and CE.
I thinkk the big thing is a lot of people skipped 4E and for the PAthfinder and AD&D crowds you still have the LG only type Paladins in game. IIRC 2E explained why it was so basically Paladins are special.
Diffan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
I love the Paramander, Blackguard, Antipaladin, Illrigger, etc. But what I liked about them was that they were not Paladins. They were there own class. A Paladin was LG.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
The DEFAULT rule should never be exclusionary. The classes, as outlined in the PHB, are there as the most basic archetypes for people to use in their games. Yes, you might want to change a rule down the line. But the most basic toolkit should be fairly open. So if you want to limit it in your game, fine. It's a lot easier for a DM, old or new, to put a restriction on something than it is for a player to get a DM to change a rule in the book. Particularly if the DM is new.
Kangodo wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Paladins are what you make of them and 5th edition makes it even easier to do so. House rules made to restrict certain classes are not fun for alot of people BUT I have to think that , IF, a Dm has a logical reason for it it might be worthwhile for us as players to explore the concept he has in mind before ripping up a character sheet and walking out the door.
I believe that 2 Paladins from 2 different dieties should not be alike or have the same views even if they have the same alignment and it is up the the Dm's to add that flavor. When I was younger and played the older editions I always pictured all Paladins being the same and having the same personalities and goals and never gave it another thought.
Perhaps a thread should be started when those so inclined could share their Paladin orders with us? Lets face it, with the new system t5here really is a great deal of information, stories and orders we could share. How should Paladins of Tyr, Torm and Bahamut differ from each other? What oders have you added to your cmapaigns that mirror those of our own history?
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
People, I just ask to you: do you know the difference between a core-book, default choice and a splat-book, optional features to be approved by the DM?
In the core books, Paladin was always LG. Splat-books did gave them other alignments, but under variants, with slightly different names, in splat-books. I mean, even 3e made them. In the Unearthed Arcana, which does not seems to be a “standard” book. 4e was the first one to break the tradition. Inclusion does not justify bowdlerization of classes, and more options can be given by the book, so it’s a win-win situation.
cassi_brazuca wrote:
I just simply do not understand the disconnect. The LG Paladin archtype is STILL here. You can still impliment alignments and then pow make a Paladin that is Lawful and Good and adheres to the tenents of his/her oath.
No where does it say it is gone and in its wake only other aligned paladins roamed the Earth.
Do we really need a special 'nod' to how the class looked 15+ years ago?
Diffan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
cassi_brazuca wrote:
cassi_brazuca wrote:
Istbor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Istbor wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar, I am a TSR era player as you well know. (Grew up with Paladin as defined in "Hearts and Lions" as the D&D version) I have no problem with you setting alignment and conduct restrictions for your own game. This is of course not how it's spelled out RAW in the PHB or DMG for 5e. though. I am for diverse Paladin type holy champoins like the Alignment Paladins from the old school Dragon Magazine Article that was likely the inspiration for the 5e. Paladin. I am not for a traditionalist like you or I forcing restrictions on the community or fanbase at large. I say you folks play the way it makes you happy in your own games, just as Zard and I will do for ours. No badwrongfun here, rather- just have fun! This in effect means you are doing it right. 
One other question if I may: Zard- I am curious: Why did you choose to make your thoughts known about this on the forums instead of say writing a blog or even posting a Houe rules Vlog or Youtube opinion vid?
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Or my personal favorite, "This is how it was when I started playing X years ago, and it wasn't until Y when it changed. I needs to go back to how it was." That's like saying we should change all of our cars back to carbureted engines with a Roots supercharger. Worked well wnough for the better part of a century, right? And they'd work perfectly well in a modern car! We don't need high compression NA IFE engines! Or a modern turbo system with pressure bleed and valve systems! Things change. Old things can still be useful or practical to go back to, but there is no reason to tie the industry standard to the past.
Farmer42 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The books should give us tools to use given how we play and what we like. They have no other purpose, and failing to "appease" all the fans of the LG-only paladin would be a mistake.
I just wish the wold drop the paladin class altogether and be done with it. Fighter/Cleric. Done. How hard can it be?
kalil wrote:
A song?
SirAntoine wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Non LG Paladins in TSR era were in non core books though startigng from the Anti Paladin in Dragon in the early 80's through to the Horus Re priests in Powers and Pantheons which was non core and in a specific setting. Which is fine IMHO Darksun had no Paladins what so ever.
At home you can do whatever you like but in AL you can be anything I suppose except CE and NE in alignment. The Paladin was not better than the other classes in AD&D either unless they got a holy avenger or rolled a lot of high stats like 4 17's +
1E2E Paladin.
17 Charisma required
18/xx strength helps a lot.
15 or 16 con helps.
Dex 15+ helps. 18 dex in full plate gives you AC 23 (-3 in AD&D)
ANd even iff you had all of that you are really only better than a PHB 1977 fighter, 2E or 1E fighter with weapon specialization not so much. ANd the code was really really rough on you as well. IN the good ol days people wanting non LG Paladins generally wanted the power but not the responsability.
Horus Re did not allow CG Paladins. Sunhawks (his priests) could be CG or LG. They were allowed to use a handful of weapons+ longsword, any armor, used the cleric spell table and xp rates and had a better spell selection than Paladins.
Sunhawk
Major Spheres: All, astral, charm, combat, elemental (fire and air),law, sun, summoning, war
Minor, Creation, divination, elemental (earth/water), guardian, animal, healing, necromantic, protection, time, weather,
They got some Paladin abiliites, warriro multiple attacks, and get a lot of light and heat based effect with a final ability to cast chariot of sustarre which was a flying chariot of fire in 2E.
Orethalion wrote:
I don' think he knows how powerful some of the 2E specialty priests were. Clerics of Mystra, Azuth, Wee Jas were a bit nuts.
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
I wouldn't mind it as a sidebar in the DMG. But in the PHB, the player options should be as streamlined as possible. That isn't something that would directly impact players, as it's a DM call for a campaign, so it is a btter fit for that book.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Why is this still going on?
Some people think Paladins should only be LG. The creators of the book/rules disagree.
There is nothing that prevents a houserule to restrict them to LG => Problem solved.
Why is there the need to have this in a book?
Farmer42 wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
kalil wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
kalil wrote:
kalil wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
So Orethalion, Brock_Landers, say someone takes an Oath of Devotion and all that, believes in all those things truly, but then is a jerk. Or an alcoholic. Or gets fooled into doing terrible things for what he believes is the greater good. Is he not Lawful Good, or is he not a Paladin?
Farmer42 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Chiba_Monkey wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If a paladin in Lawful, he should stick to the rules. The ones in the PHB that spell out what a paladin is. Beyond that, he should stick to whatever house rules or setting constraints the DM dreams up. Because the DM is the lawful authority in the game, and the paladin has to obey the lawful authority. If the DM says to a dwarf, "An thou art a Paladin, thou shalt be Human" then he instantly becomes a short, bearded human paladin with a greataxe on one shoulder and a chip on the other.
On the other hand, if the paladin is not lawful, he can ignore all that and simply be whatever he choses to be or feels called upon to be, although that might involve worshipping a different DM.
BoldItalic wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
kalil wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
RCanine wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
By that logic, paladins shouldn't be alignment bound, either, since they were child muderers and rapists historically. Charlemange's paladins were not nice people.
Farmer42 wrote:
So it's fine to argue one class based on history and another based on idealized storytelling of one group? You're being inconsistent.
SirAntoine wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Lawful Good only Paladins have a certain status that is lost by allowing just anyone to be a Paladin. While I agree that this is primarily an in-game distinction the Paladin has traditionally had powers that supported his role as an idealized holy warrior and protector. Prime among them was his ability to Detect Evil.
By allowing Paladins to be of any alignment they have lost their special place in the world. When an old school Paladin showed up in a town the people looked on him with awe. They knew he would protect them no matter the personal cost. They knew he could be trusted with just about anything. If a town's magical sacred stone, worth millions of gold pieces, was stolen they would trust the paladin to recover it and return it to them.
By contrast if the “Paladin” in my current AL game were to get her hands on a stone like that she would skip town and wouldn't be shy about bashing a few heads if they got in her way. Oath of the Ancients or no.
arnwolf666 wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
But by your own logic, when people talk about druids these days they aren't talking about the historical version. They're talking about the fantasy trope version. Just like the paladin.
Farmer42 wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
If it clears things up. I like Paladins as depicted by Gary Gygax. I play D&D because I like the magic system created by Gary Gygax. I like the Gygaxian magic system. I hate to use the term Vancian because Gary never used it. And the magic system was never intended to be a recreation of Jack Vance's Dying earth. Just as the Paladin was never intended to be a recreation of Charlemagne.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I think it would've been more prudent of the designers to make a Crusader class with different arch-types that alignment could be added to. The names of the different alignment-based classes could've been ones seen from previous editions.
However that would have confused some, angered others, and pleased little. The designers took what they felt was the core tenents of the class, threw them in there with the Breaking an Oath section and left it up to DMs to decide for themselves how to handle it. I fail to see why that's bad or how creating restricting Alignment requiremts somehow makes it better. Further not everyone agrees with Gary Gygax's vision of the game. I certainly don't and have only played version of the game that he probably wouldn't touch. I'm cool with that. The point is, the masses have spoken on the issue. They have been very verbal about the issue. The new age of gamers don't want to be saddled with RPing trops on an official level. They'd rather figure out for themselves how to best handle the situation without the rules smacking them in the face.
Take that for what you will.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Diffan wrote:
RCanine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The LG Paladin should be the only one who can use a holy avenger or at least a good aligned Paladin IMHO.
Zardnaar wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Diffan wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
randl wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Q: Why were Paladins EVER required to be Lawful Good and follow a restrictive code of behaviour?
A: Because, when first introduced, they were fighters that were just plain BETTER than other fighters by virtue of lucky die rolling. The alignment/behaviour restrictions were a limiting factor for balance. "Ok, you get extra abilities, but you have extra restrictions too."
Q: Do we still need those restrictions for game balance?
A: No, because the class as a whole is actually balanced against other fighting classes without tacking on RP restrictions.
So once you eliminate actual game balance reasons, you have only respect for tradition. And I actually agree with and support that; I just think it's better handled at the DM/Setting level than the rules level.
It wouldn't have hurt anything to have called the class itself "Champion" and have a distinct sub-name for each of the 9 alignments in the class description (with "Paladin" being the LG one) but that boat already sailed in 2014 and it ain't coming back. Live in the now, my friends.
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
That's called confirmation bias. The human brain is wired such that once we accept something as the truth, we will continue to believe it, regarless of whether or not it is proven factually incorrect later. In fact, we are likely to misremember consistently based on our first belief.
I can't find my AD&D stuff, but in my blue box Expert book, fighter progression is Veteran, Warrior, Swordmaster, Hero, Swashbuckler, Myrmidon, Champion, Superhero, Lord (Lady), then Xth Level Lord. I doubt the AD&D titles are much different. What's notable, all of the martial focused classes, inclusing hafling and elf, use that title progression to level 7. Magic Users, theives, and clerics have unique progressions. But nowhere in the Blue Box does a fighter become a knight.
Farmer42 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1st Ed rangers are called Ranger Knight at 9th level. I aways thought that was cool.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Orethalion wrote:
Having lived near Lake geneva for years, I can assure you no deity would live there.
Kangodo wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
I have, fortunately, avoided all this: simply not acknowledging the Time of Troubles and Spellplague action.
Diffan wrote:
Areas that will likely return isince the sundering is a big back flip.
Diffan wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
There's an old regional american brand called 50/50 that was a grapefruit and citrus soda.
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
I liked the high level campaign book but for other reasons. The templates for the monsters and game advice were useful as a reference book for levle 20+ games it was all but useless. I actually like the players option books a lot with the proviso they should have been called DMs options. No way would I let players use skills and powers as is to tweak the existing classes. A cleric can access all 8 wizard schools and still have minor access to healing, a d8 hit dice, bonus spells and cast the "priest" spells in armor and level up faster than the actual wizard.
I liked the high level campaign book but for other reasons. The templates for the monsters and game advice were useful as a reference book for levle 20+ games it was all but useless. I actually like the players option books a lot with the proviso they should have been called DMs options. No way would I let players use skills and powers as is to tweak the existing classes. A cleric can access all 8 wizard schools and still have minor access to healing, a d8 hit dice, bonus spells and cast the "priest" spells in armor and level up faster than the actual wizard.
BECMI went to 36th level. But I am fine with epic being 13th-20th level. Really the last 10 years or so I been doing 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells as High Magic. It seems 5E is beginning it at 6th level. That is fine by me. I never really liked high level play when it was just inflated numbers. I really looking at high level play as beginning around 12 or 13. Although if 5E can pull off a 21-36 level game that is not just inflated numbers I would be very impressed. Personally I would like to do it as hp and proficiency bonus does not increase. just cool abilities.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote: