Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JRRNeiklot" data-source="post: 4459937" data-attributes="member: 717">No, you just told them that they can't be OPENLY evil and still go adventuring with the paladin.Nope.&nbsp; You can play a holy knight though.&nbsp; The very definition of paladin refers to a European culture.2e and 3e screwed this up royally.&nbsp; In 1e, the ranger had a whole host of opponents his &quot;favored enemy&quot; worked upon.&nbsp; What campaign doesn't include at least a few giant class creatures?&nbsp; Kobolds, orcs, goblins, giants, xvarts, trolls, bugbears, hobgoblins, flinds, gnolls, ogres, quagrillions, ettin, gibberlings, grimlock, just to name a few?&nbsp; The ranger's bonus used to caome into play quite often, but 2e screwed it up.Yep, that happened in the old days too.&nbsp; And it was solved by simply having the player play another character for that time frame, perhaps one of his henchmen.&nbsp; What happens when a character has a sick relative and they want to sit by him for a few weeks?&nbsp; Or if he wants to make a magic item?&nbsp; I don't see this as a problem at all.&nbsp; The dm can either hand wave it&nbsp; - &quot;6 months go by....&quot;&nbsp; or the player can run another character for a few sessions.I agree, demons narrows the focus of the class, the simple answer is, if there's not going to be a few demons to fight, don't play a knight of the chalice.It USED to make sense, when the rogue was the scout, the locksmith, trapfinder, the thief.&nbsp; But not any more, since he's basically a ninja.&nbsp; The entire problem lies in making the rogue a front line combatant, expecting him to be comparable to the fighter in combat.&nbsp; Sure, if your schtick is combat and you take that away, you feel robbed (pun intended), but that shouldn't be the rogue's focal point anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JRRNeiklot, post: 4459937, member: 717"] No, you just told them that they can't be OPENLY evil and still go adventuring with the paladin. Nope. You can play a holy knight though. The very definition of paladin refers to a European culture. 2e and 3e screwed this up royally. In 1e, the ranger had a whole host of opponents his "favored enemy" worked upon. What campaign doesn't include at least a few giant class creatures? Kobolds, orcs, goblins, giants, xvarts, trolls, bugbears, hobgoblins, flinds, gnolls, ogres, quagrillions, ettin, gibberlings, grimlock, just to name a few? The ranger's bonus used to caome into play quite often, but 2e screwed it up. Yep, that happened in the old days too. And it was solved by simply having the player play another character for that time frame, perhaps one of his henchmen. What happens when a character has a sick relative and they want to sit by him for a few weeks? Or if he wants to make a magic item? I don't see this as a problem at all. The dm can either hand wave it - "6 months go by...." or the player can run another character for a few sessions. I agree, demons narrows the focus of the class, the simple answer is, if there's not going to be a few demons to fight, don't play a knight of the chalice. It USED to make sense, when the rogue was the scout, the locksmith, trapfinder, the thief. But not any more, since he's basically a ninja. The entire problem lies in making the rogue a front line combatant, expecting him to be comparable to the fighter in combat. Sure, if your schtick is combat and you take that away, you feel robbed (pun intended), but that shouldn't be the rogue's focal point anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification