Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6078108" data-attributes="member: 336">How is this any different than any other edition?  In every edition of D&D the Paladin is most effective in melee combat.  Since in 4e alignment doesn't define the paladin, those parts of his theme that are baked into the class are part of his class writeup.  I've already posted those above.  So if a PALADIN player does not want to play the class as defined by its general theme is it any surprise that we would not be as effective?The mechanics support the class writeup.  So if the class writeup says that a Paladin is valiant, when a player does things that "look" valiant in combat he is better at it.  If he decides to spend his time skulking in shadows and shooting arrows, then maybe the player should have not chosen the Paladin Class.  He should have worked with the DM to choose something that more closely approximated what he wanted to play.  In other words after reading the class writeup the player purposely decided to play against type, and he's complaining that he's not effective.The argument seems rather redundant in light of the actual "rules" restrictions that the Paladin had in previous editions.  No bows, alignment, "nebulous code", etc.If you don't like the flavor of the Paladin, then work with the DM and see if he agrees with your vision of the cowardly, selfish paladin.  You might get lucky and get what you want.  How is that an indictment on the game system, that did not exist before?  In previous editions the limitations were worse.  Try to play a cowardly, self-serving paladin in those editions and the DM might just decide that you are short for your powers, or the world.  Try to use a bow, you're not even proficient with them, and the class prohibits them.I fail to see any coherency to this argument.</blockquote>

Verification