NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6078484" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think my problem is the inflexibility of the older approach. You got exactly one interpretation of holy warrior and if you didn't like it, well you weren't one anymore. Ouch. It was the problem with the whole proscriptive design concept from the start. Everything was defined by what it wasn't. Yes, your 3e paladin has some "fight evil" powers, the most defining characteristic is that he can't do this or that or the other thing. I don't really agree that the 4e classes powers and features don't reinforce the RP either. Sure, you can come up with some fairly stretched logic that "oh, you're not brave, you're just foolish!" etc, but I can as easily play a 3e paladin as some <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> that's stuck with a curse! Neither one really makes a lot of sense. If you carry it too far then someone can always just denigrate ANY mechanics on that sort of basis. What's the point of "Your wizard isn't really a master of magic, he's just a lucky poser!" I mean those could be fun off-label character concepts, but they aren't a reasonable basis for criticism of the mechanics or flavor of a class.Yeah, right, those restrictions mean a lot. Really? First of all the Paladin can have all the magic he NEEDS, and exactly how many PCs have a whole lot more than that? You can have armor (can't use more than one of this), a shield (ditto), FOUR weapons, and 4 other items. Sorry, but I don't recall any character in any of my games approaching that, let alone a paladin being in danger of needing to give away anything non-trivial (and consumables aren't really defined, do potions count?). Given how expensive magic items are (except in 2e where costs aren't well defined) the treasure restrictions never seemed that onerous either. You can always keep most wealth in your items (and most PCs do so anyway in my experience). The other (RP) restrictions are the whole nut of the thing, sure they're a disadvantage if you trigger them, otherwise they don't do anything. The benefits of being a paladin in 1e for instance are VERY cool. The restrictions don't come close to balancing them out. It is just not really a great design.</blockquote>

Verification