Search results

I’ve taken Mearls' Cleric list and worked on what I think would be an inclusive version of the Paladin. Core 1. The Paladin is a well armed and armoured warrior 2. The Paladin is sworn to a divine calling 3. While they embody their calling, the Paladin receives divine blessings 4. Divine...

I'm feeling cautiously optimistic, but then again I've always felt this way in the lead up to the new edition. Going by past experience I'm concerned that too many sacred cows will be sacrificed in the name of progress, and that the option of refining mechanics will be jettisoned in preference...

So how do you engage a foe? You can't attack because you're not adjacent, so you move up. The foe doesn't like the odds and so retreats. You can't attack because you're not adjacent... Sounds like the charge action will combine a move and attack, and the retreat may draw the dreaded AoO...

If you make it fighter only, how do you deal with the situation where the barbarian guards a 10' wide corridor and the orc wants to run past them and attack the wizard. Because if the barbarian can't exert some influence on the adjacent space around them the wizard is going to get attacked...

I think at its core the Paladin is about being a paragon of chivalry. The very best of the Knights of the Round Table such as like Arthur, Lancelot & Galahad being the prime examples. Although I think the concept could branch out to include the dashing musketeer or honourable samarai. I don't...

You've got a point about sneak attack, and I admit that it has always ever so slightly unsettled my thinking that the fighter was denied an ability to dish out mighty damage if they managed to catch someone unaware and deliver a vicious hack to the back of the neck, as example. To me, balance is...

But what has that to do with them in combat when their opponent drops their guard? If the fighter is quick enough to take advantage & run them through, surely the Paladin isn't a slouch in this department? I could well imagine a frenzied Barbarian would hack a bit more if the opponent began to...

When I was last playing a high AC character in 3E I would not uncommonly provoke AoOs. I'd do it to clear a path for allies to follow or to take a flanking position. A high AC & good HPs are strengths to be exploited, and the free basic attack is not always enough deterrent.

Personally I really really want to see the Paladin move away from the glowing divine light back to the threat that makes much better sense - the weapon in their hand that they're trying to kill people with. AoO, OA or whatever mechanic should imo take the form of a universal combat feature, as...

So what about the Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and even Cleric? Basically what about the other melee characters??

But there is going to have to be a compromise in the core. The extreme 'no AoO' versus 'must have AoO' (or equivalents) are divisive viewpoints that don't fit under a unifying edition brand. Conciliation is the only real option. I'm not concerned about the exact mechanics, all I care about is...

Not to mention it would fail to sell the 5E class to would be paladin players.

I don't think that argument holds as much weight. Classes are part of the picture as the DM & group collectively build a campaign world, but, it is when a player decides to play a class that that class gets strong representation in the campaign world. In my experience when I've tinkered with...

It's a question of which master to serve - the group of players who expect the LG Paladin, or the other group. And I for one don't think the one class can serve both groups because the Paladin had until 4E a very narrow focus. My solution would be to have say the Paladin and the Cavalier, for...

See I disagree strongly here. A Paladin must be a paragon of chivalry and LG backs that up 100% It's part of the appeal of the class. Opening up the Paladin concept such as what happened in 4E was a step backwards. Story-wise there was little space between the Paladin and the Cleric. In short...

I wonder how many people in this thread are actual players of Paladin characters rather than the DMs of? To me the players should have by far the loudest voice of what the Paladin class is all about. DM world-builders should take a back seat because at the end of the day they are not the key...

I'm a 2E kind of guy, I'd like a base 18 cap, 19/17 for the Demi-Humans, and up to 25 for all them magic items and wishes I dish out.

Also stat increases don't have to be hard tied to level increase. To illustrate, PCs go adventuring for reasons such as to increase wealth (via treasure), prowess (via experience), and fame (via reputation of success), etc... Make stat increases another reason. E.g. Enough feats of strength...

The thing is D&D doesn't have space for fractions, and frankly I wouldn't want them cluttering the character sheet. You have a 16, or a 17, nothing in between.

You could control the randomness by choosing which stat to try to increase. Rolling 4d6dl to increase your 17 to 18 only has about 1% chance of success, whereas rolling to increase a 10 has a 60% chance of success. There's the question of original stat generation - independent of the above...