they said at the start of early access, that most players want to play the lawful good choices in the game. I think the main reason they are holding off on the including the paladin class is the fact they knew based on that data, that once the paladin class is added more will buy the game. So to have a big influx of players at the end of early access, will make them see a more feature complete game. And judging from the player base comments on youtube and other places on the internet, you can see the demand for it.
Based on my time in early access, Larian's engine seems to struggle with some aspects of the 5E ruleset, for example how with every paladin attack that connects you have the option to spend a spell slot for a smite attack. I just feel the engine struggles with giving you this kind of contextual option outside of the standard turn-based frame. Another example is how reactions are supposed to work in 5E, especially opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks are supposed to be a deliberate decision from the player to spend their reaction, but in BG3 they always happen at the first occasion without any input from the player. I believe this mechanical weakness of their engine (which is just modified from DOS2 to accommodate the 5E ruleset) is a big reason behind the delay in offering paladin as a class beyond the "majority of players will default to lawful good" talking point.
Brings back memories of the old 60s western tv series paladin, Have Gun Will Travel, starring Richard Boone. "Have Gun Will Travel reads the card of a man. A knight without armor in a savage land."
I love the challenge of playing a paladin and I especially like the oaths. I hope they include some of the oaths from the other books outside of the Player's Handbook. Thanks for the video as always!
ah, my favorite class by far. I love playing Paladin, beying the one that helps others be better, having that shield raised high, sucking up the blow from enemies and monsters while the rest of the party tries to kill them all... Oathbreaker Paladin would be my favorite one, I hope they add it, i love playing a fallen hero or a death knight .
I always enjoyed playing, at first, as a characteristically lawful Paladin. It makes it all the better when his views of LG are challenged, and whether he maintains his faith through these challenges. Dorn Il-khan has always been my inspiration as how far a Paladin/Blackguard can stray from the path.
When I started my adventure with D&D I didn't understand paladins. By the time I did, paladins changed to variation of magical warrior - a fighter but cooler. I heard stories about paladin players who ruined the joy of others, and of dms who devoted their life to making paladins fall. And of players who didn't understood why a paladin is getting mad when they start treasure hunting in the marketplace. The problem is that most people don't have what it takes to be a well-roleplayed paladin. Just like the commenter under this video who says he loves paladins and in the same sentence expresses the wish for oathbreaker to be implemented. I mean, do you want to play as paladin or as a dark knight? In AD&D paladins had stat requirements: Strength--12; Constitution--9; Wisdom--13; and Charisma--17. What many people see is: why do paladins have required wisdom 13 while clerics have 9? Especially when paladins always never use wisdom? They fail to see that paladins are supposed to be paragons of virtues, inspiring knights who can rule their kingdoms wisely - like king Arthur. And wisdom 13 isn't there because it offers some mechanical advantage but to convey that sometimes you'll have to make a difficult choice and you will need that to make a right decision when you encounter it. Without that 13 wisdom you wouldn't be able (roleplaying-wise) to make a decision king Solomon made when asked which woman should be granted the right to take a child. Without wisdom, they would instead opt for randomness or cutting the child in half. Of course people tend to forget that - there are "can I lift that" checks but wisdom is what a player either has or doesn't. Roleplaying 18 strength is easy, "can I lift that boulder? yes/no". But when encountering a difficult situation it's not enough to have high wisdom as character - you also must have it as a player. And if you, as a player, don't have it, the only choice you have is to play as lawful-stupid (as many people of old did) or the easy new-age paladin (because too many people couldn't play the old-school paladin). Nowadays, paladins are more of magical warriors with a minor, easy to fulfil oaths. They mostly won't be capable of coming up with a wise choice that enables you to make a decision that doesn't make you fall, is virtuous and inspiring - something king Solomon was capable of, a decision that made him be remembered for thousands of years. That's why paladin class doesn't make me feel anything positive - as it is, it's just another class, with (maybe) some limitations, that people like to play because it's a cooler warrior. I don't look forward to it, because I don't like them getting butchered by unskilled players and developers who likely wouldn't be able to represent them appropriately. And I don't want to play as one because I wouldn't be up to a task to be a first-grade paladin and I don't want to be a second-grade paladin.
Paladin in one of my favorite classes! =) As ya talk about translating paladin restrictions to video game I recall not knowing what I was doing as a kid on Baldur's Gate wanting a character's helm I killed him became fallen paladin reloaded to withdraw my mistake. Interesting listening to your video it seems like they got rido needing wisdom for paladin's spellcasting and just made Charisma more useful for paladin to not just be for paladin abilities but also for spellcasting.
I recall back in the '80 I started with a paladin. I was so bad at it, that the DM forced me to change my character to a ranger, after I missed a dexterity roll of 30 (on a d20) and slipped on wet rocks and hit my head, and ended up with total memory loss. :D
I'm so excited for this game. I've held off playing the early access but paladin and Druid are the two classes I was waiting for the most. While I love me a classic Oath of Devotion lawful good paladin I've also always really enjoyed the flavor and theme of a more neutral good Oath of the Ancients paladin. I'm intrigued to see how Larian implements it. While I love the Oath playing it has always come off feeling a bit more lackluster to what I envisioned it being in my head so I think it will really come down to how they portray the Oath abilities in game.
I think Clerics, Warlocks and maybe Druids could have some "don't do this or there will be consequences" sort of deal. Not necessarily losing your powers but something comes after you for not playing by their rules.
@@spellandshield My brother is into dnd and he started to play BG3, then he got me into BG3, and now I play dnd with my brother and his friends which are now becoming my friends. In the current campaign, I'm a wood elf Tempest cleric who worships Silvanus. Coincidentally, we are doing Descent Into Avernus.
Paladins are really good in 5e, been waiting for them to show up in BG3 since early access came out, hopefully soon! I'll probably do a Dragonborn Paladin once the full game is out
I really want the Paladin, but getting it in the full release wouldnt be a dealbreaker. The Oath thing is more or less pretty open for interpretation. The Tadpoles could also seal our powers inside even if we dont follow the oath.
I definitely understand why they're (likely) keeping paladins for the full release. They seem like they'd be pretty hard to integrate into the existing story because of the oath system you mentioned. Hope Larian delivers!
Hopefully they're working on a system to keep the Paladin true to his path, in some way. Really one of the few classes that needs a rigid alignment of some sort.
I wonder how people would have responded back in the ‘80s and ‘90s if you had told them that eventually there’d be Tiefling Paladins walking around in the world. 😅
Paladin was always the easiest pick for me in DND. Martial class (so strong early game), high Charisma (so shrewd negotiator) and good disposition. It's very hard for me to play a villain, i almost always end up lawful good. Although, IMHO Pillars of Eternity made the Paladins the best. Several subclasses, not locked to be good Samaritan, ranging from cold ruthless mercenaries to kind protectors of innocent. I don't know what paladins are like in 5 edition but sure hope they are close to PoE way.
it's very strange - when making the computing game with rules, they make choices and your alignment would change based on your choices - while paladins would basically cripple that agency. it would change the dynamic from "do what you want and we'll calculate the consequences" into "these are your restrictions and bending your oath too long will break it and you'll lose your class features and spells" which could be a fun game but in DnD with a GM the rules are flexible - a game built with set code is not. finding the balance would be really hard
I'm so hyped for this. I always turn my human characters into paladins, it just feels so right. That being said I actually despise what the new paladin class represents lore and morality wise. I would have preferred to keep the old dumb lawful-stupid paladins over the current system where you can basically be a paladin and a willfully vile person. I think Oath of the Ancients paladin is actually what rangers are supposed to be, and this misplaced archetype is what caused the ranger class to be quite lacking in 5th edition to the point that it had to be reworked several times. The rest of the Paladin Oaths are just evil, which a paladin classically should have never been.
This is why I rarely create a Paladin. I don't have much respect for them because of their "lawful stupid" nature, except the paladin character in the movie D&D Honor Among Thieves, I don't see him as lawful stupid, I see him as "lawful badass".
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm just surprised that Larian's taken so long to add Paladins to BG3. Great stuff as usual.
they said at the start of early access, that most players want to play the lawful good choices in the game. I think the main reason they are holding off on the including the paladin class is the fact they knew based on that data, that once the paladin class is added more will buy the game. So to have a big influx of players at the end of early access, will make them see a more feature complete game. And judging from the player base comments on youtube and other places on the internet, you can see the demand for it.
Based on my time in early access, Larian's engine seems to struggle with some aspects of the 5E ruleset, for example how with every paladin attack that connects you have the option to spend a spell slot for a smite attack. I just feel the engine struggles with giving you this kind of contextual option outside of the standard turn-based frame. Another example is how reactions are supposed to work in 5E, especially opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks are supposed to be a deliberate decision from the player to spend their reaction, but in BG3 they always happen at the first occasion without any input from the player.
I believe this mechanical weakness of their engine (which is just modified from DOS2 to accommodate the 5E ruleset) is a big reason behind the delay in offering paladin as a class beyond the "majority of players will default to lawful good" talking point.
They’re trying to leave a reason for us to play act1 for the 100,000,000th time 😆
Brings back memories of the old 60s western tv series paladin, Have Gun Will Travel, starring Richard Boone.
"Have Gun Will Travel reads the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land."
This is the class I have been waiting to play
I love the challenge of playing a paladin and I especially like the oaths. I hope they include some of the oaths from the other books outside of the Player's Handbook. Thanks for the video as always!
ah, my favorite class by far. I love playing Paladin, beying the one that helps others be better, having that shield raised high, sucking up the blow from enemies and monsters while the rest of the party tries to kill them all... Oathbreaker Paladin would be my favorite one, I hope they add it, i love playing a fallen hero or a death knight .
I always enjoyed playing, at first, as a characteristically lawful Paladin. It makes it all the better when his views of LG are challenged, and whether he maintains his faith through these challenges. Dorn Il-khan has always been my inspiration as how far a Paladin/Blackguard can stray from the path.
When I started my adventure with D&D I didn't understand paladins. By the time I did, paladins changed to variation of magical warrior - a fighter but cooler.
I heard stories about paladin players who ruined the joy of others, and of dms who devoted their life to making paladins fall. And of players who didn't understood why a paladin is getting mad when they start treasure hunting in the marketplace. The problem is that most people don't have what it takes to be a well-roleplayed paladin. Just like the commenter under this video who says he loves paladins and in the same sentence expresses the wish for oathbreaker to be implemented. I mean, do you want to play as paladin or as a dark knight?
In AD&D paladins had stat requirements: Strength--12; Constitution--9; Wisdom--13; and Charisma--17. What many people see is: why do paladins have required wisdom 13 while clerics have 9? Especially when paladins always never use wisdom?
They fail to see that paladins are supposed to be paragons of virtues, inspiring knights who can rule their kingdoms wisely - like king Arthur. And wisdom 13 isn't there because it offers some mechanical advantage but to convey that sometimes you'll have to make a difficult choice and you will need that to make a right decision when you encounter it.
Without that 13 wisdom you wouldn't be able (roleplaying-wise) to make a decision king Solomon made when asked which woman should be granted the right to take a child. Without wisdom, they would instead opt for randomness or cutting the child in half. Of course people tend to forget that - there are "can I lift that" checks but wisdom is what a player either has or doesn't.
Roleplaying 18 strength is easy, "can I lift that boulder? yes/no". But when encountering a difficult situation it's not enough to have high wisdom as character - you also must have it as a player. And if you, as a player, don't have it, the only choice you have is to play as lawful-stupid (as many people of old did) or the easy new-age paladin (because too many people couldn't play the old-school paladin). Nowadays, paladins are more of magical warriors with a minor, easy to fulfil oaths.
They mostly won't be capable of coming up with a wise choice that enables you to make a decision that doesn't make you fall, is virtuous and inspiring - something king Solomon was capable of, a decision that made him be remembered for thousands of years.
That's why paladin class doesn't make me feel anything positive - as it is, it's just another class, with (maybe) some limitations, that people like to play because it's a cooler warrior. I don't look forward to it, because I don't like them getting butchered by unskilled players and developers who likely wouldn't be able to represent them appropriately. And I don't want to play as one because I wouldn't be up to a task to be a first-grade paladin and I don't want to be a second-grade paladin.
Paladin in one of my favorite classes! =) As ya talk about translating paladin restrictions to video game I recall not knowing what I was doing as a kid on Baldur's Gate wanting a character's helm I killed him became fallen paladin reloaded to withdraw my mistake. Interesting listening to your video it seems like they got rido needing wisdom for paladin's spellcasting and just made Charisma more useful for paladin to not just be for paladin abilities but also for spellcasting.
I recall back in the '80 I started with a paladin. I was so bad at it, that the DM forced me to change my character to a ranger, after I missed a dexterity roll of 30 (on a d20) and slipped on wet rocks and hit my head, and ended up with total memory loss. :D
I'm so excited for this game. I've held off playing the early access but paladin and Druid are the two classes I was waiting for the most. While I love me a classic Oath of Devotion lawful good paladin I've also always really enjoyed the flavor and theme of a more neutral good Oath of the Ancients paladin. I'm intrigued to see how Larian implements it. While I love the Oath playing it has always come off feeling a bit more lackluster to what I envisioned it being in my head so I think it will really come down to how they portray the Oath abilities in game.
I think Clerics, Warlocks and maybe Druids could have some "don't do this or there will be consequences" sort of deal. Not necessarily losing your powers but something comes after you for not playing by their rules.
Thank you for your video! I never even heard of paladin until BG3. I'm quite new to dnd. :)
No? How did you come to BG3 without a DnD background?
@@spellandshield My brother is into dnd and he started to play BG3, then he got me into BG3, and now I play dnd with my brother and his friends which are now becoming my friends. In the current campaign, I'm a wood elf Tempest cleric who worships Silvanus. Coincidentally, we are doing Descent Into Avernus.
@@Suzanne_sf Cool.
Paladins are really good in 5e, been waiting for them to show up in BG3 since early access came out, hopefully soon! I'll probably do a Dragonborn Paladin once the full game is out
I play palidins a lot. I will definitely try it in BG3. Hopefully in patch 9.
I really want the Paladin, but getting it in the full release wouldnt be a dealbreaker. The Oath thing is more or less pretty open for interpretation. The Tadpoles could also seal our powers inside even if we dont follow the oath.
I definitely understand why they're (likely) keeping paladins for the full release. They seem like they'd be pretty hard to integrate into the existing story because of the oath system you mentioned. Hope Larian delivers!
Can't believe the paladin isn't available on early access yet. DX
Is Larian going to add an alignment system??
Probably not. WotC did their utmost to get rid of the alignment system.
It looks like alignment is on its way out.
Hopefully they're working on a system to keep the Paladin true to his path, in some way. Really one of the few classes that needs a rigid alignment of some sort.
@@fringer6 agreed Paladin without alignment does not sound as great =(
Still very much torn between sorc and paladin (oath of vengeance) for first playthrough. I hope we'll be able to test them in EA :)
I wonder how people would have responded back in the ‘80s and ‘90s if you had told them that eventually there’d be Tiefling Paladins walking around in the world. 😅
Vengeance would be my style lol
What about the oathbreaker ? this "oath" is also in player handbook too I believe.
No, it is found in the Dungoen Master's Guide
@@spellandshield Welp. it's in BG3.
I really hope for a monk. But more options are more fun.
Yep
How will the divine smite work in bg3 will it cost an action point and spell slot and will it just buff your next attack or is it an actual attck
The tree hugger paladin,
The knight of the round table paladin,
The inquisitor paladin (Or the holy version of globlin slayer).
Paladin was always the easiest pick for me in DND. Martial class (so strong early game), high Charisma (so shrewd negotiator) and good disposition. It's very hard for me to play a villain, i almost always end up lawful good. Although, IMHO Pillars of Eternity made the Paladins the best. Several subclasses, not locked to be good Samaritan, ranging from cold ruthless mercenaries to kind protectors of innocent. I don't know what paladins are like in 5 edition but sure hope they are close to PoE way.
I describe them in the video.
it's very strange - when making the computing game with rules, they make choices and your alignment would change based on your choices - while paladins would basically cripple that agency. it would change the dynamic from "do what you want and we'll calculate the consequences" into "these are your restrictions and bending your oath too long will break it and you'll lose your class features and spells" which could be a fun game but in DnD with a GM the rules are flexible - a game built with set code is not. finding the balance would be really hard
I'm so hyped for this. I always turn my human characters into paladins, it just feels so right.
That being said I actually despise what the new paladin class represents lore and morality wise. I would have preferred to keep the old dumb lawful-stupid paladins over the current system where you can basically be a paladin and a willfully vile person.
I think Oath of the Ancients paladin is actually what rangers are supposed to be, and this misplaced archetype is what caused the ranger class to be quite lacking in 5th edition to the point that it had to be reworked several times.
The rest of the Paladin Oaths are just evil, which a paladin classically should have never been.
This is why I rarely create a Paladin. I don't have much respect for them because of their "lawful stupid" nature, except the paladin character in the movie D&D Honor Among Thieves, I don't see him as lawful stupid, I see him as "lawful badass".