安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
The kind of Paladin that consorts with hags and other nasty Fei creatures.
That would be awesome.
You just said the same exact thing as if I didn't understand it without actually addressing anything I said. ONE D&D always stated that you can play the game any way you want. It's like on page one or something. So with that being the case the Paladin didn't need to be rewritten.
The oath thing is dumb and again only makes sense IF you tie it back to a divine being because uh that whole thing about Holy insert spell name here, Divine insert spell name here, Holy Avengers, etc. So either remove it all and start over with a new power source that doesn't have connections to divinity OR keep it and Paladins are granted their powers from divine beings. Period. OR create a subset of the Paladin that has no ties to divinity and derives their power from a new source and associated spells (and spell names heh) i.e. nature, elements, etc. so if it's an oath for an example that better involve something like a ritual to either nature itself or a powerful enough being that can grant such powers or same with one of the elemental planes.
But oath of vengeance, etc. is stupid because anyone can do that.
The core rules of D&D are a generic template for fantasy roleplaying, not the specific way in which those core rules must be implemented in a specific setting, such as Forgotten Realms (or whatever campaign setting you created).
As such, the rules are written in a 'generic template' sort of way. They aren't adapted to any specific setting. This is why Paladin's now have Oaths, to accommodate every kind of Paladin that anyone has come up with over the years.
Originally, there was only one kind of Paladin. The Lawful Good Holy Knight kind. And then there were anti-paladins (basically Blackguards and Oathbreakers, but in true D&D fashion they went with the most weirdly generic term they could think of, thus "anti-paladin").
And from there, year after year, people just started creating more and more types of "Paladin", until you finally get to 5th edition and they just rework the generic template for Paladins into a class that derives it's powers from taking an Oath.
If YOU want that Oath to be strictly an Oath to a god, then there's no reason you can't do that in your campaigns.
This is how D&D is - the DM adapts the core material and customizes it to suit the campaign they are running. The core rules are meant to be as broad and generalized as possible because YOU are not the only one playing the game. DM's all over the world will take the basic templates and use them to construct a conceptualization of the Paladin that suits THEIR world and setting, completely different from yours. Maybe in their world, there are no gods at all, but there are Paladins who take up Oaths to defend a Holy Virtue, which is kind of like a moral code but it physically manifests itself as magical power or something. Maybe in yet another world, Paladins don't just devote themselves to a particular god, but must devote themselves to a very specific temple or order within the world.
The possibilities are there, and that is the point. The PHB can only provide templates for you to customize the particular Paladins in your campaign setting, and that is why we have the Oaths now, so that DM's can more easily adapt this source material into their campaigns.
It works great.
He believes that all Paladins, across every game of D&D played in the world, by anyone, must adhere to his own particular conception of what a Paladin is, thus he constantly protests against the game being flexible enough to contain many different interpretations.
It's different interpretations that people like this hate. The very idea that someone might do something a little differently than the way they do it.
Conformity IS the point with people like this.
You are the one that seems to be missing the point and while I'd like to say it's intentional because that would at least imply you're on the level of understanding, you actually don't seem to get it.
He isn't someone who believes that everyone should play the same, in fact, if you actually read he stated that the books, i.e. Players and DMs guide start out saying you can play anyway you want. So therefore since he clearly did in fact state that.... it makes your comment completely ignorant and a ridiculous attempt at slander over something that you clearly do not understand.
What I took from it is that he is someone that sees oaths as promises and promises as something absolutely anyone can make. Your argument that you keep making is absolutely irrelevant because you're still harping on the promise that no one cares about. What some of us do care about is the strength of the origin of the powers of a Paladin. Deities are beings that would have the means to grant powers impactful enough to warrant a class dedicated to themselves.... and to therefore bestow an array of powers to their dedicated follower. Someone who makes a promise does not unless it is to a deity or something as powerful, as 8ball stated, as nature or perhaps extremely powerful beings of an elemental plane.
But this is your modus operandi, to continuously beat people over the head with the same thing over and over and over again hoping that somehow your point will be driven home no matter how nonsensical it is despite inserting walls of text that have nothing to do with the actual point.
So to sum up not only did 8 give you the problem statement, he also gave you solutions that would still make the Paladin inclusive. So why don't you cut the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and stop trying to cover up your own lack of understanding by slandering others.
Ahh.. this hits home. About 5e in general. It's a "watered down" system compared to 3.5e for instance and Paladin is just one such consequence of the decisions they made. I know, there will be a lot of "balance" folks coming at me saying 3.5e was imbalanced and allowed for the extremes, and.. they'd be right. But lore and role-play have little to do with balance and on that department I find 3.5e miles ahead.
To me 5e was a big step down in how they simplified (aka dumbed down losing the essence in the process) many mechanics, classes, races, role-play in general. A lot of their universe lore events of 5e also didn't make me happy at all. As a consequence we have watered down spell casters, watered down divinities and so on. 5e is a paradise for the average, a great vehicle for "you are just another nobody" type of campaigns. However this type of thing was never the one I came looking for in DnD - or fantasy for that matter. If I want to be just another nobody, I might as well step out the door any time.
You know. This was very very well stated and actually made me think for a bit. This describes EXACTLY what it's like right now. Don't get me wrong I love 5e for the way it streamlined a lot of the rules but you wouldn't be wrong that when it comes to the lore, class choices, etc. where tbf is where 3.5 shines, 5e feels very much like 'a paradise for the average' which is probably why so many here defend it so fervently.
It's the playground where for those who don't want to take their imagination to become the hero (which is odd considering they do this in social media all the time where they portray themselves to be something they are not) but instead want the hero to look like themselves and how they see the world. Which would be fine if it wasn't for the sake that they are instead instilling that on everyone else as well and then trying to use our own argument that the core rules state you can be whatever you want but then if that's the case then the change isn't warranted. See how that works both ways?
Eventually they are going to realize that most of us don't play D&D to play in a safe environment where everyone looks like us as players, thinks like us as players, and follows the same set of rules that humanity does irl. To make it worse they pick and choose what is acceptable irl while choosing to look at other things through rose colored lenses even though these things don't actually exist in the real world. So the ideal for them is that all races are accessible, nothing has an inherent ideals that could make them perceived as evil because their all basically cookie cutter humans, all things have the free will to choose anything such as religion, etc., all things have to have varying body types so that it molds to our sense of what is acceptable rather than us having to conform to play said race that may not have varying body types, skin colors, etc., all classes be molded to allow whoever wants to play it even if it means watering down the rules and lore so that we can be more comfortable.
It completely flies in the face of what fantasy and D&D are about. Diversity doesn't stop at skin color. It means you accept the possibility that things can be different from you, thoughts can be different from yours, that there could be things that completely fly in the face of everything you are comfortable with. And the fun is in the challenge of how you choose to address these people, ideas, situations, etc.
So fun fact.
Eberron as a D&D setting exist.
There are no Gods in Eberron.
Paladins exist in Eberron, as do Clerics.......
The core rulebook is based around working with all Settings not just Forgotten Realms..
Sure, if you want to have 0 input on your character progression and just focus on playing charades with your amateur theater group and compete on who has the edgiest backstory.
I want my character to kinda do X.
5e: Take this feat or class option then.
3.5e: Here's a flowchart you need to follow
Pandarius is actually a bot that just spouts the same thing over and over.
Paladins suck now other than in mechanics because WotC tried to remove the things that make Paladins such as lore and where their power comes from but left their basic class abilities alone because they haven't figured out what else to do hahah because it requires allowing people to both hold themselves to a divine being or not but to not means you need another source because they can't get past that whole holy thing heh.
Their core power source is dumb (oaths ffs) unless you actually take a deity and subscribe to alignment to make your oath as anything else completely invalidates anything with the words 'holy', 'divine', 'good and evil', etc. so basically a good portion of their spells, some of the most sought after relics and weapons because holy, etc.
AND the more glaring issue is what has been said many times before anything else is just a stupid promise that anyone can make. It's like anyone can say 'Shazam' and poof superhero powers. wtf. No that's not how this works. Vengeance is not enough to grant a powerset and more importantly not one that is powerful enough to grant a powerset consisting of divine powers unless YOU GUESSED IT they are tied to a divine being.
Apparently, as is wont of you, you completely ignored the part where I linked to the Paladin class page on D&D beyond and quoted the relevant parts that showed that this aspect of the Paladin is still intact and hasn't changed at all.
Let me do it again for you since you're such a slow learner:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/paladin
Also, I want to quote this specific part of your reply again:
Because I find it hilarious that what you just described is essentially the Cleric.
Also, take a college level graduate course in math.
Fun fact. The Silver Flame is a religion. Another fun fact it's tied to alignment. They are so much steeped in good and evil in fact that if you take it away it doesn't work.