Paladin Replacement -- Holy Warrior
Keith Davies
Hi All,
I'm considering replacing the Paladin base class with something more
generic. Paladin will probably still be available as a prestige class.
Right now I'm still at the ideas stage, with a fair amount of room for
adjustment.
Holy Warrior is actually more closely based on the Fighter class than
the Paladin. At its core, Holy Warrior *is* a Fighter who receives
Divine feats (as described in Dof) rather than combat-based feats. A
Holy Warrior gains no spellcasting ability through this class.
Each Holy Warrior must have a single patron god, be of a suitable
alignment for that patron god (I haven't decided if that means 'same
alignment' or 'within one alignment step'), and remain true to the god's
dogma and ethos.
At first level, the bonus feat he would normally receive is spent on
(probably) Extra Domain, to give him access to a single domain. This
feat will never give him access to the spells, but the domain power will
be available. Because he cannot channel divine power (yet), domain
powers that use channeling will not work yet.
At third level the character will gain the ability to channel divine
power (takes the place of Turn Undead IMC; Turn Undead is a specific way
divine power may be channeled); his channeling level is that of a cleric
two levels lower.
The Paladin's Mount class feature is gone, replace with a 'Divine
Companion' feat. Not all gods will provide a Divine Companion, and the
Companion will vary from god to god -- in some cases it may still be a
mount, in others an animal companion, in yet others it might be an
Outsider. A particular god may offer more than one type of Companion.
Multiclassing will still be allowed, as long as the multiclass is a
reasonable fit for the god's ethos and dogma. Multiclassing as Cleric
is almost always reasonable (there are a couple points described below),
other classes may be reasonable based on the god. For instance, it's
likely fine for a Holy Warrior of the God of Assassins to multiclass as
Rogue freely. Similarly for the God of Magic and the Wizard class.
When multiclassing as a Cleric it may be tempting to select different
domains in the two classes. Each class is treated separately for the
purpose of level-based effects, unless the same domain is chosen in both
classes, in which case the class levels stack. For instance, the Magic
domain gives the character the ability to trigger certain items as a
Wizard of one-half his level; if a Holy Warrior/Cleric takes this domain
in both classes the class levels will stack.
Things I'm not sure about:
Divine Grace. Should this still be a class feature? Should I make it a
limited feat? Should it be dropped altogether, or included in the
Paladin prestige class only (which is what I'm tempted to do).
Domain spells. Right now a Holy Warrior taking a domain gains only the
domain power (domains where the power is '+1 caster level' suck for
this, but I think they suck *anyway* and am working on changing the
domain powers to somethinger better). They don't gain spells or any
other benefit of the domain because they don't cast spells. I am
considering softening this a bit -- the spells in chosen domains count
as 'on the character's spell list' for the purpose of using magic items.
A Holy Warrior with the Destruction domain can't cast /shatter/, but may
use a wand of /shatter/
'Holy Warrior Feats'. At this point they are defined as being the list
of divine feats. It might be an idea to constrain these by the god;
some divine feats might not be available to Holy Warriors of all gods.
There are other feats that make sense to add the list (particularly
Skill Focus).
Holy Warrior skills. I expect Holy Warriors will get 2+Int mod skill
points per level. I'm not sure exactly what the list of skills should
be. To start I suppose I could use the Paladin spell list, but I'm
somewhat tempted to make the list vary by god (model using something
like the Expert class -- pick, say, 6 skills as class skills, no more
than one of which may be an exclusive skill). Alternatively, use
another class's spell list, as deemed appropriate to the god (God of
Magic would probably use Wizard skill list, God of Assassin's the Rogue
skill list, etc.), possibly with a few skill added (Knowledge(Religion)
being an obvious one).
Thoughts, comments? I'm still feeling this idea out.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
keith....@kjdavies.org reality in the hope that reality will
crack first is impressive, but futile"
-- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
Wolfie
>
>I'm considering replacing the Paladin base class with something more
>generic. Paladin will probably still be available as a prestige class.
>Right now I'm still at the ideas stage, with a fair amount of room for
>adjustment.
I once made blackgaurd into a base class along with paladin. Although making
them both into prcs would make sense. But it is kinda silly to have one extreme
as a prc and not the other. I see where you are coming from. Although in D&D
holy means good and unholy means evil. So I would suggest an name more along
the lines of "Warrior Priest" or "Champion."
>Each Holy Warrior must have a single patron god, be of a suitable
>alignment for that patron god (I haven't decided if that means 'same
>alignment' or 'within one alignment step'), and remain true to the god's
>dogma and ethos.
Sounds good. I would suggest within one step. I don't think being a
"half-priest" should have tougher prereqs than a full Cleric.
>At first level, the bonus feat he would normally receive is spent on
>(probably) Extra Domain, to give him access to a single domain. This
>feat will never give him access to the spells, but the domain power will
>be available. Because he cannot channel divine power (yet), domain
>powers that use channeling will not work yet.
I strongly reccomend against giving domains to a noncaster, paladins don't even
get them. I suggest treating turning/rebuking as a cleric but at the same level
as a paladin.
>At third level the character will gain the ability to channel divine
>power (takes the place of Turn Undead IMC; Turn Undead is a specific way
>divine power may be channeled); his channeling level is that of a cleric
>two levels lower.
>
Alright, fair enough.
>The Paladin's Mount class feature is gone, replace with a 'Divine
>Companion' feat. Not all gods will provide a Divine Companion, and the
>Companion will vary from god to god -- in some cases it may still be a
>mount, in others an animal companion, in yet others it might be an
>Outsider. A particular god may offer more than one type of Companion.
Ok. So more like familiars or perhaps the blackgaurds ability. Seems alright.
>Multiclassing will still be allowed, as long as the multiclass is a
>reasonable fit for the god's ethos and dogma. Multiclassing as Cleric
>is almost always reasonable (there are a couple points described below),
>other classes may be reasonable based on the god. For instance, it's
>likely fine for a Holy Warrior of the God of Assassins to multiclass as
>Rogue freely. Similarly for the God of Magic and the Wizard class.
Alright. Fair enough.
>When multiclassing as a Cleric it may be tempting to select different
>domains in the two classes. Each class is treated separately for the
>purpose of level-based effects, unless the same domain is chosen in both
>classes, in which case the class levels stack. For instance, the Magic
>domain gives the character the ability to trigger certain items as a
>Wizard of one-half his level; if a Holy Warrior/Cleric takes this domain
>in both classes the class levels will stack.
I recomend against them getting domains in the first place to avoid this kind
of problem all together.
>Things I'm not sure about:
>
>Divine Grace. Should this still be a class feature? Should I make it a
>limited feat? Should it be dropped altogether, or included in the
>Paladin prestige class only (which is what I'm tempted to do).
I would do it with the Paladin prc method. Or if you do give it to this class
don't call it Divine Grace.. remember Divine means good in D&D and you are
making an any alignment class.
>Domain spells. Right now a Holy Warrior taking a domain gains only the
>domain power (domains where the power is '+1 caster level' suck for
>this, but I think they suck *anyway* and am working on changing the
>domain powers to somethinger better). They don't gain spells or any
>other benefit of the domain because they don't cast spells. I am
>considering softening this a bit -- the spells in chosen domains count
>as 'on the character's spell list' for the purpose of using magic items.
>A Holy Warrior with the Destruction domain can't cast /shatter/, but may
>use a wand of /shatter/
>
I recomend against this. If you must do this then I suggest LOTS of play
testing.
>'Holy Warrior Feats'. At this point they are defined as being the list
>of divine feats. It might be an idea to constrain these by the god;
>some divine feats might not be available to Holy Warriors of all gods.
>There are other feats that make sense to add the list (particularly
>Skill Focus).
This is interesting. Just remember to either give all gods the same amount of
"crunch" or do it by how powerful the deity is. Things have to be fair or if
they arn't they have to make sense. Just remember if you make weak gods have
less cool stuff players probably won't select them very often.
>Holy Warrior skills. I expect Holy Warriors will get 2+Int mod skill
>points per level. I'm not sure exactly what the list of skills should
>be. To start I suppose I could use the Paladin spell list, but I'm
>somewhat tempted to make the list vary by god (model using something
>like the Expert class -- pick, say, 6 skills as class skills, no more
>than one of which may be an exclusive skill). Alternatively, use
>another class's spell list, as deemed appropriate to the god (God of
>Magic would probably use Wizard skill list, God of Assassin's the Rogue
>skill list, etc.), possibly with a few skill added (Knowledge(Religion)
>being an obvious one).
2+int seems fair. I suggest using the clerics list without spell craft and such
and adding a physical fighter skills. In other words: Make it similar to the
paladin but make sure you don't focus on one alignment or outlook.
Keith Davies
>>Hi All,
>>
>>I'm considering replacing the Paladin base class with something more
>>generic. Paladin will probably still be available as a prestige
>>class. Right now I'm still at the ideas stage, with a fair amount of
>>room for adjustment.
>
> I once made blackgaurd into a base class along with paladin. Although
> making them both into prcs would make sense. But it is kinda silly to
> have one extreme as a prc and not the other. I see where you are
> coming from. Although in D&D holy means good and unholy means evil. So
> I would suggest an name more along the lines of "Warrior Priest" or
> "Champion."
I don't differentiate, personally, because I'm using allegiances rather
than alignments (didn't want to complicate things). Point taken,
though.
I don't want to use Champion (thought of it originally but decided it
wasn't a good fit because it implies that the character is powerful
enough to be a champion... which he isn't, at low level).
>>Each Holy Warrior must have a single patron god, be of a suitable
>>alignment for that patron god (I haven't decided if that means 'same
>>alignment' or 'within one alignment step'), and remain true to the
>>god's dogma and ethos.
>
> Sounds good. I would suggest within one step. I don't think being a
> "half-priest" should have tougher prereqs than a full Cleric.
The idea was that this class is actually more tightly tied to the god
(I'm not sure how that works on in implementation, mind).
>>At first level, the bonus feat he would normally receive is spent on
>>(probably) Extra Domain, to give him access to a single domain. This
>>feat will never give him access to the spells, but the domain power
>>will be available. Because he cannot channel divine power (yet),
>>domain powers that use channeling will not work yet.
>
> I strongly reccomend against giving domains to a noncaster, paladins
> don't even get them. I suggest treating turning/rebuking as a cleric
> but at the same level as a paladin.
Clerics IMC don't automatically turn/rebuke (as described below). I
wanted the Champions
>>At third level the character will gain the ability to channel divine
>>power (takes the place of Turn Undead IMC; Turn Undead is a specific
>>way divine power may be channeled); his channeling level is that of a
>>cleric two levels lower.
>
> Alright, fair enough.
>
>>The Paladin's Mount class feature is gone, replace with a 'Divine
>>Companion' feat. Not all gods will provide a Divine Companion, and
>>the Companion will vary from god to god -- in some cases it may still
>>be a mount, in others an animal companion, in yet others it might be
>>an Outsider. A particular god may offer more than one type of
>>Companion.
>
> Ok. So more like familiars or perhaps the blackgaurds ability. Seems
> alright.
Pretty much, though it varies by god (and might not always be
available).
>>Multiclassing will still be allowed, as long as the multiclass is a
>>reasonable fit for the god's ethos and dogma. Multiclassing as Cleric
>>is almost always reasonable (there are a couple points described
>>below), other classes may be reasonable based on the god. For
>>instance, it's likely fine for a Holy Warrior of the God of Assassins
>>to multiclass as Rogue freely. Similarly for the God of Magic and the
>>Wizard class.
>
> Alright. Fair enough.
>
>>When multiclassing as a Cleric it may be tempting to select different
>>domains in the two classes. Each class is treated separately for the
>>purpose of level-based effects, unless the same domain is chosen in
>>both classes, in which case the class levels stack. For instance, the
>>Magic domain gives the character the ability to trigger certain items
>>as a Wizard of one-half his level; if a Holy Warrior/Cleric takes this
>>domain in both classes the class levels will stack.
>
> I recomend against them getting domains in the first place to avoid
> this kind of problem all together.
>
>>Things I'm not sure about:
>>
>>Divine Grace. Should this still be a class feature? Should I make it
>>a limited feat? Should it be dropped altogether, or included in the
>>Paladin prestige class only (which is what I'm tempted to do).
>
> I would do it with the Paladin prc method. Or if you do give it to
> this class don't call it Divine Grace.. remember Divine means good in
> D&D and you are making an any alignment class.
It probably will go in the 'god-specific prestige class'. As mentioned
above, I don't differentiate between 'holy' and 'unholy', it just a
matter of who it's holy *to*.
>>Domain spells. Right now a Holy Warrior taking a domain gains only
>>the domain power (domains where the power is '+1 caster level' suck
>>for this, but I think they suck *anyway* and am working on changing
>>the domain powers to somethinger better). They don't gain spells or
>>any other benefit of the domain because they don't cast spells. I am
>>considering softening this a bit -- the spells in chosen domains count
>>as 'on the character's spell list' for the purpose of using magic
>>items. A Holy Warrior with the Destruction domain can't cast
>>/shatter/, but may use a wand of /shatter/
>
> I recomend against this. If you must do this then I suggest LOTS of play
> testing.
>
>>'Holy Warrior Feats'. At this point they are defined as being the
>>list of divine feats. It might be an idea to constrain these by the
>>god; some divine feats might not be available to Holy Warriors of all
>>gods. There are other feats that make sense to add the list
>>(particularly Skill Focus).
>
> This is interesting. Just remember to either give all gods the same
> amount of "crunch" or do it by how powerful the deity is. Things have
> to be fair or if they aren't they have to make sense. Just remember if
> you make weak gods have less cool stuff players probably won't select
> them very often.
I usually aim for 'make sense' more than 'fair'. I don't honestly
expect to find a lot of paladins of the god of childbirth.
>>Holy Warrior skills. I expect Holy Warriors will get 2+Int mod skill
>>points per level. I'm not sure exactly what the list of skills should
>>be. To start I suppose I could use the Paladin spell list, but I'm
>>somewhat tempted to make the list vary by god (model using something
>>like the Expert class -- pick, say, 6 skills as class skills, no more
>>than one of which may be an exclusive skill). Alternatively, use
>>another class's spell list, as deemed appropriate to the god (God of
>>Magic would probably use Wizard skill list, God of Assassin's the
>>Rogue skill list, etc.), possibly with a few skill added
>>(Knowledge(Religion) being an obvious one).
>
> 2+int seems fair. I suggest using the clerics list without spell craft
> and such and adding a physical fighter skills. In other words: Make it
> similar to the paladin but make sure you don't focus on one alignment
> or outlook.
That's probably pretty close to what I'm going to do.
Jeff Heikkinen
> Holy Warrior is actually more closely based on the Fighter class than
> the Paladin. At its core, Holy Warrior *is* a Fighter who receives
> Divine feats (as described in Dof) rather than combat-based feats. A
> Holy Warrior gains no spellcasting ability through this class.
>
> Each Holy Warrior must have a single patron god, be of a suitable
> alignment for that patron god (I haven't decided if that means 'same
> alignment' or 'within one alignment step'), and remain true to the god's
> dogma and ethos.
This sounds very much like the approach taken in Green Ronin's Book of
the Righteous. I have it but haven't read it over, so I can't comment
much further.
Keith Davies
It's not far off (I do have that book). The holy warrior is set up to
be either a base class or a prestige class; the book outlines prereqs if
it's made a prestige class (achivable by fourth level -- alignment
always good, but leaning toward that of good; BAB +3; 5 ranks in
Knowledge(Religion); able to cast 1st-level divine spells; must be
active member of church in good standing). Considered an optional rule,
the class is presented as a base class.
Looks like: Paladin HD, BAB, saves (good Fort), spells per level (looks
the same; haven't checked). Looks like only the special abilities and
spells available change.
Each holy warrior selects two 'holy warrior' domains (they're balanced a
little higher than cleric domains). From each, they get two abilitiest
at first level and one at second level (four + two altogether). At each
level divisible by three, they get a Gift of God (usually a spell-like
ability, varying from church to church; usable 1/week).
For instance, the Paladin is a Holy Warrior with the Champion domain
(/detect evil/ @ will, /lay on hands/, Smite Evil[2nd level]) and the
Guardian domain (Divine Grace, Divine Health, Aura of Courage[2nd
level]); the Gift of God, obviously, is /remove disease/
The spells available vary from church to church as well; it doesn't look
as simple as 'use the spells of the god's domains', it looks like each
gets a unique (though probably overlapping) spell list.
The Holy Warrior still receives a special mount or companion. Each has
a Code of Conduct.
The Holy Warrior I'm thinking of using drops all spellcasting abilities
and special abilities of the Paladin and replaces them with Divine
feats, as a Fighter's feats. If all 'standard' feats (that is, the ones
in the PHB and DoF) are balanced against each other then this *should*
lead to a class more or less balanced with the core classes, assuming
the ability to channel and use some domain powers is reasonably balanced
against the requirements made on the character... in most cases I
suspect a fighter of equivalent level would be able to defeat a Holy
Warrior in a straight up fight without too much trouble (assuming the
divine feats don't directly apply -- an evil fighter versus a good-based
Holy Warrior with lots of smite).
One thing I did notice is that with the way I'm adjudicating /lay on
hands/ it's possible for a 20th-level Holy Warrior to do a disgusting
amount of healing (Extra Turning 10x for HW feats, +6x for normal level
progression, +2x for human == 18, x4 for Extra Turning, =72 channelings
per day, plus 3+6(Cha18+4=22) from Cha is 81 channelings available per
day. Since /lay on hands/ IMC heals hit points equal to one day's
healing per point of Cha mod, that means this guy can do about 486 days'
healing. Per day.
That's a *lot* of healing -- if he were just healing himself he could
restore some 9720 points of damage per day. Oddly enough, this doesn't
bother me too much; this guy's obviously big on healing, and not much
else. He'd be fairly hard to kill if he had the opportunity to heal
himself, and would make a really handy guy to have when adventuring, but
at that point (20th level) I expect most parties will have more healing
available than they have an immediate need for. OTOH, I might want to
revisit how I work /lay on hands/; it wasn't bad when the number of
channelings available was so limited, but this guy could blow it out of
proportion. OTOH, I suppose a limit on the number of Extra Turnings
that could be taken wouldn't be entirely unreasonable either. Must
think on this.
Keith Davies
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
> One thing I did notice is that with the way I'm adjudicating /lay on
> hands/ it's possible for a 20th-level Holy Warrior to do a disgusting
> amount of healing (Extra Turning 10x for HW feats, +6x for normal level
> progression, +2x for human == 18, x4 for Extra Turning, =72 channelings
> per day, plus 3+6(Cha18+4=22) from Cha is 81 channelings available per
> day. Since /lay on hands/ IMC heals hit points equal to one day's
> healing per point of Cha mod, that means this guy can do about 486 days'
> healing. Per day.
>
> That's a *lot* of healing -- if he were just healing himself he could
> restore some 9720 points of damage per day. Oddly enough, this doesn't
> bother me too much; this guy's obviously big on healing, and not much
> else. He'd be fairly hard to kill if he had the opportunity to heal
> himself, and would make a really handy guy to have when adventuring, but
> at that point (20th level) I expect most parties will have more healing
> available than they have an immediate need for. OTOH, I might want to
> revisit how I work /lay on hands/; it wasn't bad when the number of
> channelings available was so limited, but this guy could blow it out of
> proportion. OTOH, I suppose a limit on the number of Extra Turnings
> that could be taken wouldn't be entirely unreasonable either. Must
> think on this.
Hrm. I suppose that if I were to say that Extra Turning *isn't* a
divine feat (which seems a little odd to me) that brings it back down to
8*4 = 32, plus 9 = 41, times 6 = 246 days healing per day -- about chops
it in half. It's still 4920 points of healing at 20th level, though.
Now, if I were to change /lay on hands/ so it wasn't based on turning
the whole thing goes away, but that interferes with what I was going to
do with the Healing domain. OTOH, I'm not sure I'd want even a cleric
to be able to do this much healing in one day, so maybe it still needs
to be changed.
This is an extreme case, though; I'm not sure how often it'd come up. I
suspect that most Holy Warriors would go after a range of abilities
rather than 'one, a whole lot'.
Stephenls
> I once made blackgaurd into a base class along with paladin. Although making
> them both into prcs would make sense. But it is kinda silly to have one extreme
> as a prc and not the other. I see where you are coming from. Although in D&D
> holy means good and unholy means evil. So I would suggest an name more along
> the lines of "Warrior Priest" or "Champion."
Not really. It illustrates one of the differences between good and
evil. Good creates from the ground up; evil takes what already exists
and turns it to evil's use.
Or, one of the theoretical differences between good and evil. The D&D
alignment system may or may not support that particular philosophical
observation.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"That was the funnest coma ever." -Willow
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>Wolfie wrote:
>
>> I once made blackgaurd into a base class along with paladin. Although making
>> them both into prcs would make sense. But it is kinda silly to have one extreme
>> as a prc and not the other. I see where you are coming from. Although in D&D
>> holy means good and unholy means evil. So I would suggest an name more along
>> the lines of "Warrior Priest" or "Champion."
>
>Not really. It illustrates one of the differences between good and
>evil. Good creates from the ground up; evil takes what already exists
>and turns it to evil's use.
No no no, that's the difference between chaos and law. (Chaos creates
and destroys, Law puts to use that which was created.)
--
When in doubt, RTFM.
Stephenls
> No no no, that's the difference between chaos and law. (Chaos creates
> and destroys, Law puts to use that which was created.)
As I said, the D&D alignment system etc. etc..
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>First Prophet of Kaos wrote:
>
>> No no no, that's the difference between chaos and law. (Chaos creates
>> and destroys, Law puts to use that which was created.)
>
>As I said, the D&D alignment system etc. etc..
Actually, that's not in the D&D alignment system either. It's an
extrapolation from both Moorcock and Mickey Zucker Reichart (who may
have been inspired by Moorcock, not sure.)
David Alex Lamb
Wolfie <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>Things I'm not sure about:
>>
>>Divine Grace. Should this still be a class feature? Should I make it a
>>limited feat? Should it be dropped altogether, or included in the
>>Paladin prestige class only (which is what I'm tempted to do).
>
>I would do it with the Paladin prc method. Or if you do give it to this class
>don't call it Divine Grace.. remember Divine means good in D&D and you are
>making an any alignment class.
Really? In other contexts "divine" just means "of or related to a god".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Wolfie
>class
>>don't call it Divine Grace.. remember Divine means good in D&D and you are
>>making an any alignment class.
>
>Really? In other contexts "divine" just means "of or related to a god".
>--
>"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
>http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
>
Yeah, I am wrong on that one. I was thinking "sacred" or "holy".