Well you can tell how often I play Paladins
Me to I had to look that up.
Do you have any class? The class discussion thread (Paladins and Warlocks and Clerics, OH MY!!
Me to I had to look that up.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
The benefits of class are that they make excellent themed packages that allow a concept to be synergistically built around. A point based system always suffers the flaw of either alot of trap options or super optimized options or near meaningless choices, or some combination of these things.
I dislike them for an entirely different reason. Because a full level 1-20 class progression of a PC is a much better fit for any specific concept than some weird multiclassing mismatch that doesn't get abilities in a smooth progressive and sensible manner.
Hussar
Legend
Or, folks could just let go of their preconceived notions and accept that paladin=Oath bound warrior of various flavors, same as Fighter=any non-magical fighty type or whatnot. Classes are broad, archetypes (or whatever, as each class has a class specific term for it) are narrow.
Kinda sorta. I mean, paladin was a sub-class of fighter, druid was subclass of cleric. So on and so forth. And, you didn't start as a base class and then move into a sub-class. You started as the sub-class. The class/subclass was just a way of organizing the classes. I mean, class/subclasses shared virtually no mechanics. They might have different Hit Dice (1e Rangers used d8), different XP tables, different casting progression, completely different spell lists, so on and so forth.
Now, Kit as Background, sure, I can totally see that. Heck, Primeval Thule expanded on Backgrounds to make them closer to 2e style kits where your background granted certain abilities based on character level.
But, really, no, I'm not seeing the similarities between 3e -> 4e -> 5e here as far as how class/subclass (by whatever moniker) works in 5e. 5e subclasses are pretty much full classes bolted onto the basic chassis of the base class. Sure, you could add a prestige class in 3e, but, it wasn't required or even expected. Sure, you got a path in 4e, but, these were far later - 11th and 21st level? 10th and 20th? - in the character's career. You were a Class first with a Path added on far later on down the road.
5e is the first edition to make class the least important part of your character. Your subclass is going to define that character far, far more than your class ever will.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
nope. Not only is this “badwrongfun” nonsense, it’s simply false. There is no reason to not play 5e (or most editions of) dnd just because you don’t care about the lore of the classes beyond potential inspiration.
Again, no. You’re confusing what is good about classes to you, with the game as a whole. Class systems are beneficial because they make chargen easy and satisfying for most players, they help to keep even fairly similarly themed characters distinct in play, and they are easier to get within a fair and enjoyable bandwidth of power balance than point based games, without losing out on mechanical distinctiveness and everyone having unique cool things.
Hussar
Legend
Personally, my beef with point based systems is that they tend to result in cookie cutter characters. At least, that's been my experience with them. In a game that features combat, for example, everyone wants that good combat score. Then everyone wants that other thing that's going to come up in play. Then that other thing. On and on. So, you wind up with characters that, sure, there are some differences, but, the differences are largely cosmetic. Everyone has the same suite of base skills and maybe they bought off a few extras at the costs of this or that disadvantage, typically chosen where the chance of that disadvantage actually coming up in game is next to zero.
ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
I like classes and I like class lore. However, I don't like holding classes to a party role so I have played warlock scouts and cleric tanks that have no healing spells. The point is that I actually think the lore is what makes a class a class and the ability to pick and choose subclasses, spells, feats, proficiencies, and stats gives you the ability to play it in any role you want.
Most importantly, I feel the PLAYER Character is owned by the Player to include the lore. If a warlock wants to play a "The Great Old One" patron saying that in the backstory the pact was made in inadvertently by reading the seal of expectance willingly but not know what it did... I am fine with that as back story even know its a player avoiding consequence of lore. I don't see this as the player cheating, I see it as the player defining how they want to play there character and upfront saying I want to be a warlock but I don't want to be controlled by a diety/Patron like I am a GM NPC playing the "warlock patron story" again... HOWEVER, they have to do this in the world of the GM so if they make this there backstory then say "I also want to muti-class paladin for smite that recharges on a short rest", the GM is in perfect right to say, "No. Atleast unless you can convince me of a back story reason your character would want this AND we play it out in game in place of the standard warlock patron complication. If you do so I will give you a chance depending on your effort and it will happen at the moment I call for the role. You can't hold leveling your current class to jump in as X level of the new class nor can you accept and complete the task to start gaining it after more levels of this class so you can get hat perfect 4 level interval and maximize your ASI/feats." The first class and writing your backstory within it is out of game player controlled, but moving forward, gaining levels, and mutil-classing are part of the story played in the GMs world under the GMs rule. So if the GM does not allow the Warlock/Cleric/Paladin/Druid multi-classes because of deity conflicts.... that's the GMs right. If the GM allows it with extenuating difficult or even easy circumstances … that's the GMs right. The same thing with Warforged, player says its a prototype with out a brain... ok, GM says it can't cast spells that do Psychic damage and because of the prototype changes healing spells are half as effective acting as thought the warforged has resistance to healing magic.
That's my take any way.
Most importantly, I feel the PLAYER Character is owned by the Player to include the lore. If a warlock wants to play a "The Great Old One" patron saying that in the backstory the pact was made in inadvertently by reading the seal of expectance willingly but not know what it did... I am fine with that as back story even know its a player avoiding consequence of lore. I don't see this as the player cheating, I see it as the player defining how they want to play there character and upfront saying I want to be a warlock but I don't want to be controlled by a diety/Patron like I am a GM NPC playing the "warlock patron story" again... HOWEVER, they have to do this in the world of the GM so if they make this there backstory then say "I also want to muti-class paladin for smite that recharges on a short rest", the GM is in perfect right to say, "No. Atleast unless you can convince me of a back story reason your character would want this AND we play it out in game in place of the standard warlock patron complication. If you do so I will give you a chance depending on your effort and it will happen at the moment I call for the role. You can't hold leveling your current class to jump in as X level of the new class nor can you accept and complete the task to start gaining it after more levels of this class so you can get hat perfect 4 level interval and maximize your ASI/feats." The first class and writing your backstory within it is out of game player controlled, but moving forward, gaining levels, and mutil-classing are part of the story played in the GMs world under the GMs rule. So if the GM does not allow the Warlock/Cleric/Paladin/Druid multi-classes because of deity conflicts.... that's the GMs right. If the GM allows it with extenuating difficult or even easy circumstances … that's the GMs right. The same thing with Warforged, player says its a prototype with out a brain... ok, GM says it can't cast spells that do Psychic damage and because of the prototype changes healing spells are half as effective acting as thought the warforged has resistance to healing magic.
That's my take any way.
My way everyone can be happy but you dont seem to want that.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Yes I see them as simplified generally less flexible 4e builds...
Hussar
Legend
Well, everyone that agrees with you is happy, of course. The rest of us who don't mind seeing paladin being the base class are obviously being thrown under the bus, but, hey, that's okay so long as you're happy, right?
I mean, I'm not allowed to play a paladin, unless it conforms to a single concept of paladin. I'm allowed to play a "divine warrior", gee thanks. My way, they're ALL paladins and everyone gets to play one.
Why do you get to tell everyone else what a class means?
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
A rose by any other name...
Are you really objecting to calling it divine warrior vs paladin?
Similar Threads
