Why I Love D&D 3.5: Less Player Whining

[Pants]

My objection to Pokemounts isnt that you would have to TREAT them as something silly... rather that it further pushes the paladin toward some sort of hybrid spellcaster and away from the "noble knight" that is, in my not so humble opinion, the basis of the class. I mean... is there a class in the game as is that sumulates the Knights Templar? The Knights of the Round Table? The peers of Charlemagne?

I don't know, paladins have had spellcasting abilities for several editions now. Whether they were originally supposed to be hybrid, pseudo spellcasters is irrelevant, the fact is, over the course of years, they have become hybrid, pseudo-spellcasters.

Besides, I don't recall ever hearing of Knights Templar casting spells and turning undead...

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Besides, I don't recall ever hearing of Knights Templar casting spells and turning undead...

Well, they did have regular congress with demons (I believe that was one of the charges laid against them...), so obviously they were gestalt blackguards/conjurers.

Brad

 

[Henry]

Just plain Blackguards, actually, who have congress with demons or undead things as part of the class.

 

[RodneyThompson]

[blink]
But sometimes you need to cross-reference two quotes to indisputably solve something...!

That is exactly the reason I say "wait until a break." If it requires cross-referencing, it's too complex an issue to be solved quickly and, as such, must wait.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it gets to the point where the rules-lawyering slows down the game and breaks the mood.

 

[Psion]

I don't know, paladins have had spellcasting abilities for several editions now.

Spellcasting modeling miraculous things that a "holy knight" might be expected to do, like vanquishing evil and warding of the touch of evil. Summoning creatures out of thin air not being one of them.

 

[The_Universe]

Here's an example - in my Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil campaign, one guy is playing a warlock who has the spider climb invocation. He's always trying to walk on the ceiling as a way to shoot down into melee, and thus avoid the cover bonus that a creature gets from whatever PC it's in melee with. Since the average ceiling is about 10 feet tall, and standing up there puts his head at mid-back level of the Medium size creatures on the floor, I never give it to him.

Doesn't spider climb require the use of hands *and* feet in order to function? So, he can't attack while spiderclimbing, anyway - double whammy!

 

[BryonD]

A nicely written example to be sure... but with the rules as written there was already a way to simulate that... or Gandalf calling the "lord of all horses".

However in 3.5 there is no way to simulate Lancelot... or the Paladin from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions... (a major influence on the original paladin class) except by having the Paladin buy a normal warhorse.

I'd agreed that called mounts miss the point of classic paladins. But part of the problem in the debate is that the "I choose you"/pokemount claims mischaracterize the 3.5 rules just as badly.

Klaus example fits 3.5, but not Galahad (I don't see Lancelot as a Paladin).

Pokemount fits neither Klaus example nor Galahad. It doesn't fit the debate and just muddies the discussion.

I like called mounts but I IMMEDIATELY house ruled that it is optional. (Psion may recall that I even went so far as to incorrectly refer to it as an option at one point).
Quite simply, it should be an option. WotC keeps trumpeting "options not restrictions" and then drops the ball on something obvious like this.
The paladin is not supposed to be only a knight of the round table class. If a player wants to play a classic holy knight, then give them a full time horse with all the advantages and limitations it brings. If their character concept fits more with Klaus example or some other non-knightly holy warrior, then by all means, go with it. And if calling a mount fits that idea, then why crush the option?

WotC didn't do anything wrong by making called mounts.
But then they screwed up by making it a restriction that may frequently not fit, rather than an added gaming option.

 

[Vigilance]

Gandalf was a wizard... or so it is alleged.



Look, something that Vig and I heartily agree on vis a vis knightly figures.

I thought we agreed that my take on knights was singularly brilliant... except for that whole ELH thing

Chuck

 

[Hypersmurf]

If it requires cross-referencing, it's too complex an issue to be solved quickly and, as such, must wait.

Well, if you spend enough time in the Rules forum, you may already be familiar with the solution - it's just a matter of bringing the relevant sections to the DM's attention

But fair enough.

-Hyp.

 

[Vigilance]

I don't know, paladins have had spellcasting abilities for several editions now. Whether they were originally supposed to be hybrid, pseudo spellcasters is irrelevant, the fact is, over the course of years, they have become hybrid, pseudo-spellcasters.

Besides, I don't recall ever hearing of Knights Templar casting spells and turning undead...

Sure Paladins have always had spells (though it was much harder in 1E)... but my point is by bringing up their slow progression towards some sort of hybrid cleric is only to point out that the class as it now stands resembels nothing from fantasy fiction.

The Paladin has been removed so far from its archetypal base as to be unrecognizable.

I can see Conan in the Barbarian class. I can even still see Fafred in there.

I can see Odysseus and the Grey Mouser and Hans Shadowspawn in the Rogue.

I can see the Hospitlars in the Cleric.

I can even (vaguely) see Aragorn and Robin Hood in the Ranger.

I dont see anything except some weird Forgotten Realms take in the current Paladin. To assert that all noble knights from fiction "didnt have very many levels of Paladin" (meaning 4 or less I suppose) is a little silly.

Lancelot is clearly the inspiration of the Paladin, along with the knight from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions. I even believe that Lancelot is the basis for the "ex-Paladin"- where you lose your religious gifts and become a mere fighter.

Lancelot even atones and regains his status as a Paladin.

D&D classes are supposed to be archetypes.

If not archetypes of legend, myth and fantasy fiction... then of what?

And in case anyone thinks Im hijacking the thread with my personal rant, I think this point is exactly in keeping with the thread. The change to the paladin away from its true archetypal base was done for what reason?

To stop whining (the original point of praise in the thread).

Not all moves made to satisfy whining rules lawyers are good imo.

Chuck