The Palladin

[The Dark Elf]

I quite like the fact that the Palladin is just a better knight. Although I agree I would like to see slightly more special abilities.

For those wanting a demon hunter then we would usually play the undead or witch hunters.

[Torval]

My GM left paladins in the game as they were but made a new O.C.C. just for his world called a War Bishop. In a nut shell, it is a holy knight with some cool special abilities. It works really well.

[sasha]

The difference in power is not the sole difference and it's not even the most important difference. The knight has several career paths available to him that the palladin does not. This difference may be meaningless or may be very significant depending on your point of view. From my point of view, there's no need to change either class.

[Dustin Fireblade]

For our game I've re-written all the classes. We have 30 classes in our core book, all paired into class groups, meaning there are two directions to go in any class-group. Within the Knight group, we made it so you can go the Paladin path or the Cavalier path. The Paladin serves the church, and Cavalier serves nobility. I think they're pretty balanced. The Paladin has the Demon Death Blow, where as the Cavalier has the Master of the Lance ability. They both get followers. Skill-wise, the Cavalier has more combat skills than the Paladin, who is stuck with skills like Lore:Religion. Basically, in regular combat the Cavalier is a bit better, but against the supernatural the Paladin is better.

I'm not too concerned about balance between classes (it seams that the experience tables correct this), but I do think they should all have a special appeal. That is why we re-wrote all the classes and put something in each one to look forward to playing.

Do you have these posted somewhere?

[sasha]

The difference in power is not the sole difference and it's not even the most important difference. The knight has several career paths available to him that the palladin does not. This difference may be meaningless or may be very significant depending on your point of view. From my point of view, there's no need to change either class.

If you are talking about the family background, both Knights and Palladins roll on that.

My problem with these two classes is that they are too similar and they serve the same function with one being obviously superior to the other. Like I said, I am keeping the Knight as-is. It has a function in the world and in adventuring. I am changing the flavor of the Palladin class without trying to significantly change its level of power. Mainly, I am attempting to make the focus something like a "nobleman's warrior-monk".

I am almost finished with the write up of the class. I should be done in the next hour or so.

I was not talking about the family background.

I was talking about career paths -- the very thing that makes these two classes very different classes.

Knights can be officers in the army of the kingdom; diplomats; patriots; politicians; landowners; or questers for political, religious, or personal reasons.

A palladin is a fighting machine with a very singular reason for being: to destroy "truly terrible evil, the most frightful monsters, and the most despicable villains".

I view these as very different character classes which have very different functions in the world and in adventuring. I don't understand why anybody thinks a pally is a souped up knight. They're distinct classes. So I don't understand the need to change the flavour of either.

To each his own, I suppose.

As far as your write-up, the Palladin should get Martial Arts as an O.C.C. skill, I think. In PFRPG it's described as "Palladin Combat" and "Hand to Hand: Martial Arts/Palladin".

[Reagren Wright]

Everyone seems to have forgotten about the Holy Crusader O.C.C. from Yin Sloth. Has
spells and the ability known as the heavy touch. Althought its 1st edition, it doesn't take
much to turn into 2nd.

[Runeslinger]

I think Sasha has a good point. While there is nothing mechanically supporting this, other than the OCC write-up, it is pretty clear that the Palladin is intended to be a wandering righter of wrongs, and opponent to evil. While the write-up does continue on to address alternate alignment choices, and how those with those alignments would be perceived, the class does seem to be quite narrow, and with a very clear purpose. That means, if the Palladin is not out and about doing these things, they really are not being a palladin, and so should perhaps be something else.

I personally see this in a similar way to notifying a player of a potential alignment change. Leading a softer, less-driven lifestyle, taking on mundane duties not directly involved in the quest to 'slam evil,' and getting embroiled in the political intrigues and the squabbles of the court, do not lead one to maintain the level and intensity of training, and purity of spirit and focus required to be what this OCC is described as being. In essence, when they start acting like 'just a knight,' they become 'just a Knight.'

If you had a Thief, who did not engage in thievery, hanging out in the library instead, would you not suggest he become a scholar?

Yes, the two classes are very similar, and from a certain point of view, the Palladin seems to just be a better version of the Knight. However... you know what Uncle Ben said to Peter.

All that aside, your OCC does come across as distinct from the Knight, and gives potential players a distinct reason to choose one over the other apart from the less obvious one which already existed. It is important in a group that each player has an opportunity to provide something unique to the group.

[sasha]

Knights can be officers in the army of the kingdom; diplomats; patriots; politicians; landowners; or questers for political, religious, or personal reasons.

Palladins can be all those things as well, especially if they come from nobility. There is nothing preventing them from doing so. The only difference is that the Knight may be more likely to do so than the Palladin.

Actually, nowhere does it say a palladin is likely to be any of those things; quite the opposite, it says explicitly and clearly what a palladin is.

[sasha]

Knights can be officers in the army of the kingdom; diplomats; patriots; politicians; landowners; or questers for political, religious, or personal reasons.

Palladins can be all those things as well, especially if they come from nobility. There is nothing preventing them from doing so. The only difference is that the Knight may be more likely to do so than the Palladin.

Actually, nowhere does it say a palladin is likely to be any of those things; quite the opposite, it says explicitly and clearly what a palladin is.

No, it doesn't specifically say. The book says what they tend to do, what they are perceived as.

"They are the greatest fighting men alive trained to be the very quickest and deadliest of all warriors. Palladin are fighting machines skilled in several weapons and martial arts combat, as well as being exquisite equestrians."
They are first and foremost warriors - they are not politicians, diplomats, landowners, police, soldiers, and so forth.

"Like knights, they are often of noble birth and usually highly educated, although some are born from more humble beginings."
What they have in common with knights is background, not the various knightly career paths spelled out clearly under the Knight O.C.C. and not found in the Palladin O.C.C. write up. They have a very specific career path, which a knight is free to take, but so is a wizard free to take it.

"The palladin is dedicated to destroying evil, protecting the innocent and righting injustice wherever it is found."
Not tending to such dedication but actually dedicated to it.

As written, the ONLY thing that significantly differentiates them from the Knight is the Demon Death Blow, which is a ****-poor mechanic to define a class. Taking a Knight, giving them higher bonuses, and giving them a single situational attack does not make it a different class. It makes it a Knight with higher bonuses, literally no different than if one rolled a Knight with a high IQ and PP.

I suppose from a strictly mechanical and character power point of view this is true.
But Palladium character classes are more than mechanics. The difference between knights and pallys is more than a mechanic. The difference is a role.

From a purely mechanical and power perspective, there's no reason to play a Soldier O.C.C. when you can play a knight instead. But a role-based approach tends to lack a primacy of mechanics and power in the decision-making process.

The simple fact is that it is a souped-up Knight with no purpose and identical but better mechanics to the Knight. I took it upon myself to re-write the class to change the Palladin so it is more fitting of its "stated" role. I honestly don't see what your problem with this is. You have said your opinion and if you still don't like it, we already know that. Move on.

No, it's not a simple fact that it is a souped-up knight. It's your opinion that it is a souped-up knight.

Re-writing the pally to be more fitting its role is fine, and I even offered a suggestion for improvement to the re-write that you posted. What I disagreed with was that the a pally needs a re-write because it's just a souped up knight. You have conflated that with disagreement that the pally needs a re-write at all.

[sasha]

Like I said before, blab all you want about role. At the end of the day, a Knight is almost as capable of doing the job as a Palladin is. Flavor text means exactly jack **** if it is not backed up by the class' mechanics.

My point has nothing to do with capability; that's something you've foisted upon it. You keep saying you understand my point, but clearly you don't.

From a purely mechanical and power perspective, there's no reason to play a Soldier O.C.C. when you can play a knight instead. But a role-based approach tends to lack a primacy of mechanics and power in the decision-making process.

Of course there is. Soldiers recieve perks that Knights do not. Furthermore, Knights are hampered when not fighting on horseback. Soldiers are not hampered in such a way. From a sheer versatility standpoint, I'd rather have a Soldier than a Knight.

That's hardly a purely mechanical and power perspective.

Soldiers do not get better perks than officers.
Knights are not hampered when fighting on foot (they get hand to hand: expert, soldier gets basic).

No, it's not a simple fact that it is a souped-up knight. It's your opinion that it is a souped-up knight.

Yes, it is a simple fact. I have proven this and you refuse to see it. Instead, you see fit to **** all over someone else's efforts.

Oh so just claiming something is a fact is enough to make it a fact. Interesting approach.
I haven't **** over anything. You asked a question. I answered it.

We know your opinion. There's no reason for you to post on this thread further. We all know now that you don't think the Palladin needs a re-write. We all know that you think that ****-poor mechanics can be made up for with a few lines of flavor text. We don't need to be told again like we're children. We get it already.

Now unless you have something constructive to add, stop hijacking my thread.

No, unfortunately you don't get it. I'll point it out again:

Re-writing the pally to be more fitting its role is fine, and I even offered a suggestion for improvement to the re-write that you posted. What I disagreed with was that the a pally needs a re-write because it's just a souped up knight. You have conflated that with disagreement that the pally needs a re-write at all.

You asked "Anyone ever thought of tackling a re-write of the Palladin, to make them something other than a Knight with higher bonuses?"
If you don't want answers to the question, no reason to ask the question.

[sasha]

I think hand to hand martial arts is too expensive. Make it one skill or even allow the player to choose between at no cost.

I think aura of vengeance should be I.S.P. based.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Well....

I don't particulary care for it. Basically it's the "Spiritual Path" and the "Aura of Vengeance" powers that bug me.

First though on "Strengh of Spirit" I really see no good reason to have Exorcism. As I mention below this is the area of the Priesthood. I could see Mind Block being as more appropriate,

On the Spiritual Path powers these were designed because "fighting evil is not simply about force of arms, but also education and aiding the downtrodden." The problem I see here is that this is the role of the Priest and Monk, at least as I see it.

Regarding the "Aura" power, basically I never had a problem with Demon Death Blow, and don't feel this is a needed change.


At any rate, as mentioned we have the Holy Crusader, the Holy Palladin of Rurga, and the "Crusader of Light" (I think that's what its called, from Baalgot Wastelands) as options for the holy warrior.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Alright well let me say this then - none of our Palladin players have had problems fighting the supernatural with what the main book class gave them.

The Priest, Monk and Palladin all have different jobs to do in regards to their religion, and all need to work together to further the goal of that religion. I don't see how giving the Palladin "powers" to do the job of all three fixes anything. The Palladin's job is to kill big nasty evil things and lead by example. It's the job of the Priest and Monk to aid and educate the masses.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Dude taking a freaking pill and relax....


I said I didn't care for it. In case English is not your first language, that does not automatically mean it sucks.

I offered a replacement psi power for Exorcism and you rejected it, defending your choice and without even asking for clarification as to why I offered it.

I gave you my thoughts on the Spirit Path. Again never said it was bad, you apparently just didn't like the fact that I thought it was out of place for the OCC.

I understand exactly what you mean by DDB, yet you choose not to have a discussion on the power. Again...did not say that your replacement was bad either.

I offered my insight into how a religious order works in the Palladium world in relation to the Palladin, and you immediately get defensive.


Like it or not this is constructive criticism.

[Runeslinger]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, there is a massive difference between arguing to solve a problem, and arguing to win an argument.

It would be a shame if you stopped trying to include others in your creative attempts, and it would certainly be a shame if the reason for doing so was an internet argument.

I certainly did not launch an attack, personal or otherwise, am not doing so now, am not the only one, and most definitely addressed the core question, which was, "Anyone ever thought of tackling a re-write of the Palladin, to make them something other than a Knight with higher bonuses?" The initial answer from those who took the time to read and follow the thread were all different variations on, "No, we don't think it is necessary to alter the Palladin OCC as written, for these reasons... (OCC description, roleplaying, existence of Holy Warrior OCC variants elsewhere in other PFRPG books)." Despite that response, you even got a request to post your proposed OCC.

Once you posted your proposed changes, they were not ignored. Instead comments were made and advice was given. For something that it seems the readers considered to be an unnecessary investment of time, that is pretty impressive, as is the level of attention paid to the thread. Lots of threads die quick and ignoble deaths here. People actually tried to get involved and help out with this one.

As one of the interested observers, I can say that it does seem like the only comments which would have been met with a welcome from you would have been those that agreed with the need of the revision in the first place, agreed with the direction of those revisions, and made suggestions on how to make it more of what it is, rather than less. For that reason, I stopped contributing. If that observation is in error, my apologies.

What I would have contributed at that earlier stage, had I thought it would have been considered, is that not all of us consider it necessary to have overt mechanical support for fighting evil in this OCC. The inspiration for this sort of character is from literary figures such as the Knights of the Round Table; normal men, strong in faith and dedication, choosing to face great peril, of natural and unnatural origin, simply because it is the right thing to do *not* because they have the supernatural means to fight it.

If you had wanted to go on and revise one of the numerous other OCCs built around being supernatural opponents of supernatural evil, then that would have been a very different matter in terms of my offering mechanical suggestions. I suspect others feel the same way.

FWIW, I think it is important to remember that when a person works hard on something which they believe is important and useful, they want to receive positive feedback and encouragement. That desire for praise can increase the sensitivity to comments which do not immediately provide that encouragement. Those who responded did not have anywhere near the emotional investment, or need for any, in their positions.

It might be worth your while to stick around and keep at it.

[Aaryq]

Rhom,
I've tried to PM you twice, but my computer seems to be pissed at me today. Could you PM me the write up so I can see it? I've been trying to re-do the Paladin pretty much since I got PFRPG. From what I've read in this thread (in-between the back and forth) it sounds like a decent write up...Every time I tried to do the Paladin, it's derailed completely in play-test...maybe this one will work.