Talk:Pentewyn (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
Aside from the alignment, I fail to see any difference with the original Paladin: not a chaotic version of a class feature or even a mere rename to fit with the new theme. WOTC did a much better job with their Paladin of Freedom, if you ask me (although I still find their Paladin classes a bit lackluster). -HarrowedMind (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2013 (MST)
The biggest changes that I was thinking about were:
1) Focusing on INT over CHA would encourage different role-playing, such as playing a Pentewyn as a scholarly outcast instead of playing a Paladin as a "popular meat-head"
2) Allowing multi-classing would go along with a CG deity trusting their followers to find new ways of accomplishing their goals (while still being less powerful than if they focused more), whereas LG deities/followers would emphasize discipline and devotion to a specific path.
3) Allowing semi-spontaneous spellcasting would go along with CG deities wanting to give their followers more options in case of emergencies, but not to the point of encouraging the follower not to think at all about what they might need to do. Thus, the Pentewyns who don't think about the immediate future and what spells they might need will have fewer spells per day (due to the anti-game-breaking cost of "spontaneously" casting without the Epic feat) than the more thoughtful ones.
4) The spell list has been changed more than just switching Law vs. Chaos: a CG deity would care about freeing people from mystical control, so Break Enchantment goes from spell level 4 to spell level 1,
(At Level 6-13, they would have 1/day instead of 0
At level 14, they would have 2/day instead of 0
At level 15-17, they would have 2/day instead of 1
At level 18, they would have 3/day instead of 1
At level 19, they would have 3/day instead of 2)
whereas s/he would be averse to inflicting it (so Zone of Truth and Mark of Justice have been removed), as evil people who already believe that the world works only by the strong taking what they want from the weak should not be encouraged by seeing good people behave that way.
Power - 5/5 I give this class a
3 5 out of 5 because, while "semi-spontaneous" spell casting seemed like a cool idea for a trade off between cost vs. options, I don't see how one could get away with changing the level of a Divine spell. Would pentewyns not be able to cast "Break Enchantment" from a Cleric's scroll because of the conflicting levels? Or vice versa? Would "Pentewyn - Break Enchantment" have to be a completely different spell that "Everybody else - Break Enchantment" for the purposes of scrolls and the such?
I think that this is why WotC had their Paladin of Freedom get Break Enchantments as a weekly ability in addition to any prepared spells, so as to avoid the above issue. --SaturnUndead (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2013 (MST)
Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a
3 4 out of 5 because, while there were a lot of good ideas for how to incorporate the class, it didn't seem like they came naturally from an archetype idea beyond "not a paladin".
I also don't see why changing CHA to INT was necessary: beyond just "needing to change role-play," I never got the idea that LG deities were "rewarding" Paladin's for the ability to convince people "in spite of" logic, as you seemed to be implying. I always thought that CHA is a measure of one's personal expressive force, whereas INT and WIS are their personal receptive force, so making "Divine" powers based on INT instead factors like determination makes it seem like it's based primarily on education instead of personal power, which doesn't make as much sense to me for divine spell casting as it does for arcane. Never mind, not as important as I thought. --SaturnUndead (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2013 (MST)
- Taken care of. This was my first time, so I didn't realize that that part was manual. Also, to address your first point, what about all of the metamagic feats that change a spell's casting level? How are scrolls influenced by a Summon Monster IV being prepared as a 5th level Extended Summon Monster IV? -- VictorZsasz29292 (talk) 1945, 7 February 2013 (EST)