On Jan 24, 7:37 pm, Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:14:40 +0000 (UTC),
> mkkuh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
> >Jon thinks that explicit magical powers or feats would be a better
> >match to the conception than any spells at all. One complaint about
> >Charis is that with her very small number of spells per day (2
> >first, 2 second at 10th level) she invariably seems to have the wrong
> >spell, which doesn't feel paladinic. We'll go months without
> >seeing a devil, and suddenly run into a group of them: Bless Weapon
> >would actually help, but for months there has been no reason to carry
> >it. Mages and priests get enough spells that carrying a few "on spec"
> >is okay, but paladins don't. And it just seems wrong that a holy
> >warrior has to say "Sorry, can't help you: wasn't expecting these
> >devils." (Without Bless Weapon she is truly ineffectual against
> >devils, far and away the worst character in the party.)
----------------
An idea that's been bubbling away in the back of my mind is that
> paladins (and rangers) should get spontaneous casting rather than
> prepared spells.
-------------------
This has become so D&D-specific that I have not had anything to say,
althought it has been interesting. However, what you suggest here is
almost exactly what we did with Paladins in several campaigns in the
area during First Edition AD&D.
Except that we didn't call them spells. We, the group of GMs and
players who did this, had their god or gods invest them with what we
called qualities. At least one campaign is still running and using D&D
of some sort among the loose group of players who were involved. Some
of the qualities:
They could gain the trust and cooperation of virtually any good-aligned
being, although this did not mean that everyone would cede a Paladin
tactical command. This quality worked even if there was no reason for
the "target" to know that he or she was dealing with a Paladin, even if
the Paladin avoided identifying his or her self. The Paladin could had
to constantly beware using this power unjustly. It could be lost or
damped if the deity felt it had been.
Good-aligned NPCs (and, in some campaigns, PCs) had some chance of
becoming followers, working for the Paladin as long as the Paladin had
some holy project under way.
They could get better-than-normal trust and cooperation from a
neutal-aligned being in the same way but this was far less powerful and
reliable.
They just knew if they encountered people or other beings who were
truly deeply evil.
They increased the morale of their direct companions and followers just
by being in the vicinity. They increased the morale of their
co-religionist allies simply by being recognizable and visible or
audible.
They struck fear into the enemies of their deity.
They increased the puissance of any allied cleric's spells as long as
the paladin was active and in the vicinity. This meant a +1 to various
healing spells, etc.
Those qualities all started out as fairly minor but improved as the
character went up levels and their were other qualities as well. In
some campaigns, the Paladins of various deities had different
qualities.
In my current system, some gods have followers who resemble D&D
Paladins and we use modified versions of the same qualities.
> Of course this doesn't help with the problem that 1st and 2nd level
> spells just aren't a big deal for 10th level characters in 3.5.
>
-----------------------------------
An eleventh-level Paladin would have been really kick-ass in the First
Edition, either the way we ran it or, I think, the way it was written.
On the other hand, there is a cynicism about religion that makes it
tough to get people to take Paladins seriously in some campaigns.
Will in New Haven
--
If you take in a starving dog off the street, and feed him, and make
him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain
> --
> Erol K. Bayburt
> Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
