Who on earth designed the Paladin of Cuiraécen? Unless the table is incorrectly written, it seems that you get four or five abilities at 1st-level (nearly half of all the class abilities except bonus feats). This creates a huge problem for people cherry-picking the class. The multi-classing restriction is worthless if you consider that you’re getting nearly half the class as a simple one-level prestige-class for CG clerics of Cuiraéecen.
Maybe it ist still a 3.0 version of the paladin…
That is what I was thinking. Some of the abilities clearly need to be rolled back to 2nd or 3rd to make it less cherry-pickable. (All paladins have that problem anyway, but currently it’s far too tempting to only take one level in.)
The one who initially designed the variant is me; now that I review it I feel I was mistaken in some of my choices, but there is one thing we have to keep in mind here: we cannot change everything not argued against in the polls.
Sure, my present self would disperse his abilities from level 1 up to level 3, but that’s it. Cherry picking won’t be nullified, just reduced, since anyone could supposedly take 4 levels as a paladin of Cuiraécen and still be better off than many other characters (skald, anyone?).
A better built might be:
lvl 1 Aura of Good, detect evil, smite evil 1/day
lvl 2 Divine Grace, lay on hands
lvl 3 Aura of Courage, divine health
Please refrain from such phrasing as: “Who on earth […]?” I know it was mostly my mistake, but I find vexing how nobody seemed to care so far (and left my foolish self thinking everything was OK).
I agree. Sanctioned or not, there is no reason why a paladin of Cuiraécen should get its paladin abilities earlier than the standard (Haelyn) paladin.
I would rather applaud your hard work than scald you for minor mistakes. I have been following this project for years without making much contributions and think you’ve all done a great job.
I think these sorts of things can and will happen and are not really problematic as we (as a community) are willing to take a pragmatic approach towards it…
Well, apologies for sounding harsh, but I’ve only had a copy of the rules for a year or two and I’ve only been a regular here in the last couple of months. I like the concept, don’t get me wrong, but it is rather too front-heavy.
It is a “variant” after all.
So that must be kept in mind.
The variant paladin of Nesirie suffers from the opposite problem - too little power.
And as has been pointed out there was a long discussion of the the paladins and variant ones way back in the day - and there were polls too.
Yup stole my thunder (he he he Stormlord…thunder…) I don’t use the Variants..heck a paladin that can freely multiclass as a fighter is pretty scary in and of itself!!
For those who haven’t gotten the knack of using the “search” feature yet,
Here is a list of threads that have some discussion on paladins (too see how things got where they are now). Sorry I didn’t insert thread subjects but I was trying to do this quickly so people could access them without having to wait too long
[http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2613&highlight=paladins](http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2613&highlight=paladins)
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2510&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2379&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2308&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2271&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2178&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2247&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2227&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2209&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2198&highlight=paladins
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1204&highlight=paladins
I agree that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that we should really not aim to change every little detail of an already sanctioned part of the brcs.
However, there is a world of difference between one paladin being slightly overpowered and another underpowered because of different abilities, which will remain open to debate, on the one hand, and two Paladins that are almost exactly the same at lower level one of which receives its abilities earlier than the other, on the other hand….
Even with all our reading and editing there are likely to be things we will miss and will discover at a later point; in this case we forgot to convert the Cuiraécen Paladin from 3.0 to 3.5, no big deal.
When these small mistakes are discovered after publishing it would ordinarily be resolved in the errata. Seeing that this community has not published anything yet, and has a wiki in which these small mistakes can repaired with relatively small effort and transaction cost, why not repair it?
I understand that it took a lot of work to get these chapters sanctioned and all can see you have done a truly magnificent job, but do not let that withhold you from editing these small blemishes.
Why not start a poll and change the Cuiraécen Paladin to fit 3.5 when a certain “quorum” of support is reached. If you have more than 20 agreeing to this minor change, it will have as much legitimacy as the sanctioned document.
I agree…
Anyway Paladins are Pretige Classes in my BR campaign, which makes more sense to me. Though I don’t use Noble class either. Its governed through Noble Feats.
Indeed, do tell!
I liked Noble BRCS class very much, but I couldn’t agree that to be Noble Wizard one would have to multiclass.
Beeing a Noble comes from recognition (born or granted), same goes for a Barbarian class (I use various Savage Feats).
So all Class abilities from BRCS are converted to Noble Feats, as well as some other new Feats that deal with reputation, diplomacy, administration, and leadership…
It is realy a Feat chain, where Noble (General Feat) is required.
I plan to post 'em under my House Rules someday soon…
This was not a case of not making the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 - since the variant paladins did not exist in the playtest document.
When these small mistakes are discovered after publishing it would ordinarily be resolved in the errata. Seeing that this community has not published anything yet, and has a wiki in which these small mistakes can repaired with relatively small effort and transaction cost, why not repair it?
I understand that it took a lot of work to get these chapters sanctioned and all can see you have done a truly magnificent job, but do not let that withhold you from editing these small blemishes.
Why not start a poll and change the Cuiraécen Paladin to fit 3.5 when a certain “quorum” of support is reached. If you have more than 20 agreeing to this minor change, it will have as much legitimacy as the sanctioned document.
I don’t have a problem with making editorials and the like - I just did not want to re-open up everything in Chap 1 and 2 for more discussion everytime someone “recently” discovers the BRCS. It is really counterproductive IMO.
Now having said that - I don’t see how “revisiting” the “variant” paladins of Cuiraecen (and Nesiree - snce that one was deem too weak). But let’s try not to “backtrack” too much in the process.
In other words, only blatant problems (i.e. the variant paladins, which I do agree are a serious issue) are ever going to be thought over; otherwise, alea jacta est.
My suggestion and correction as to the paladin of Cuiraécen is simple; I’ll be providing a new “version” of the paladin of Nesirie tomorrow or so, if possible. 
I didn’t mean “ever”.
I mean let’s try to finish it up and then there will be some sort of standard that people can use - most of the “basic” agreements/consensus have been done via the polls and discussion previously performed (chap 1 and 2 with a lot of the ones in Ch 5 and 6 done also). Those are what I do not want to revisit.
When everything is done (oh about the time that 4th ed or the new WotC DI (digitial initiative) is understood ) then everything can (and should be) looked at again to make sure it all fits coherently. There will be things that will be decided in the future that will cause things that had already been decided to be backfit to follow them.
I do have problems with
[ul]
[li]How long ago some of these issues were decided
[/li][li]How many people participated in the voting, many of these polls involve between twenty and thirty people, current voting on poll issues these days seems to get 100 or so voters, and although the numbers don’t change much past 30 respondants, there is a sampling issue here
[/li][/ul]
However, I also agree that there is nothing to be gained from revisiting sanctioned chapters without very good cause while
[ul]
[li]There are still unsanctioned chapters
[/li][li]We are now so close to a rules revision (are they still saying 2008?) that we’re going to have to visit this stuff again before too long, so what’s the point of doing it now.
[/li][/ul]
Finally, I think that any game system and setting is evolving (hopefully by improving content and refining it rather than overturning old content) and that some openness to change is good. That’s why the wiki is so good for us.
You are right of course; moving forward remains the main concern…
I agree…
Lets have one finished rulebook, than we can revise it if neccessary…