Frustrated by Party Composition

[mmu1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Frustrated by Party Composition

What's your point? Show me anything in the Class Description of the 3E Paladin that suggests he's an "idealised chivalrous knight".

He's devoted to the ideals of law and good. He has a mount.

Nothing to say he has to be part of a knightly order, wear plate armor, use a lance... he just has to champion law and good.

How is that out of line with a must-be-lawful wire-fu hero?

-Hyp.

How about instead of looking at the fluff in the class description, we look at the weapon and armor proficiencies, the skill list and the special abilities? And stop pretending that D&D's "assumed setting", which has been very well established over the years, doesn't exist.

Sure, you can shoehorn the Paladin into various roles he's not suited for, if you really want to... Doesn't change the fact that because of his extremely limited and straightforward abilities, there's only one thing the class is good at. It's perfectly clear what it was designed for, and you're just being disingenous.

 

[Squire James]

As has been noted, monks lose Evasion (and a lot of other things) if they're wearing armor, so the monk/paladin's AC should suffer greatly. Unless his Wis and Dex are extraordinarily high (like 18 for both), in which case you should expect this sort of nonesense (especially if he got more high scores in Strength and Charisma). Still, it's probably better to get 3 levels of Rogue and at least get the ability to wear light armor, +2d6 sneak attack, the first uncanny dodge ability, and scads of skill points to go with his evasion! Then use a bow and find a buddy with access to Greater Magic Weapon... quick before 3.5e nerfs him!

As for assassins, they can easily be non-evil (without house rules) as long as there is some point where they turned away from evil and stopped gaining levels as an assassin. Unlike some other classes, they do not lose their abilities if their alignment changes. This generally demands some contrived circumstances not under the player's control (since it is the DM who decides when alignment changes... the character can only roleplay their new alignment until the DM decides the change is warranted). It is an important check on the assassin's power that the DM doesn't let a PC advance in the class as a non-evil character (yes being evil is a disadvantage in D&D... the good guys AND bad guys are after you!).

 

[Monde]

Sure, you can shoehorn the Palading into various roles he's not suited for, if you really want to... Doesn't change the fact that because of his extremely limited and straightforward abilities, there's only one thing the class is good at. It's perfectly clear what it was designed for, and you're just being disingenous.

I couldn't agree more. Yes you can make a Paladin into just about whatever you want but it is plain to see what he was created to be.

 

[Artimoff]

Personaly, I believe that you made your bed, now you have to lie in it. Do you even use rulebooks?

Not forgetting that any paladin who multiclasses looses his paladin abilities ( a monk looses his monk abilities if he becomes a paladin, too), Did this "paladin" find a monistary to train in? What is the characters logic behind becoming a monk?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you even use rulebooks?

Not forgetting that any paladin who multiclasses looses his paladin abilities ( a monk looses his monk abilities if he becomes a paladin, too).

I find the combination of those two sentences amusing

Using the rulebooks, we can discover that neither a paladin nor a monk loses abilities for multiclassing. They simply can no longer advance in levels as a paladin (or monk).

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frustrated by Party Composition

How about instead of looking at the fluff in the class description, we look at the weapon and armor proficiencies, the skill list and the special abilities?

Huh? A fighter has the same weapon and armor proficiencies, Ride and Handle Animal. That doesn't every fighter has to wear full plate and carry a lance.

Knowledge (Religion) and Diplomacy don't make someone a Knight. A Bard has the same class skills.

Detect Evil and Turn Undead?

I've played a lightly-armored Paladin/Psychic Warrior based on Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar.

I've played a Paladin/Rogue/Watch Detective in an urban game. Loosely modelled on Benton Fraser from Due South, or the 'incorruptible cop in a bad city' archetype.

And stop pretending that D&D's "assumed setting", which has been very well established over the years, doesn't exist. ... It's perfectly clear what it was designed for, and you're just being disingenous.

There is a paladin stereotype, certainly. And a ranger, bard, barbarian, and rogue stereotype.

That doesn't mean you have to fit them.

-Hyp.

 

[mmu1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frustrated by Party Composition

I've played a lightly-armored Paladin/Psychic Warrior based on Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar.

I've played a Paladin/Rogue/Watch Detective in an urban game. Loosely modelled on Benton Fraser from Due South, or the 'incorruptible cop in a bad city' archetype.

There is a paladin stereotype, certainly. And a ranger, bard, barbarian, and rogue stereotype.

That doesn't mean you have to fit them.

-Hyp.

How silly of me... Of course, it's possible to play a Paladin as something other than what the core class is designed for if you multiclass. Can't believe I didn't think of that.

By the same logic, you can play a Fighter as a Wizard if you just choose not to buy into the stereotype. (and take several levels of some kind of spellcasting class)

Just because I played a very effective Barbarian/Rogue once doesn't mean Barbarians make great Tumblers and Rogues can tank if you just avoid stereotypes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frustrated by Party Composition

How silly of me... Of course, it's possible to play a Paladin as something other than what the core class is designed for if you multiclass. Can't believe I didn't think of that.

Given that the discussion was about multiclassing Paladins in the first place...?

Remember, my position from the start of this thread has been that the multiclassing system allows one to mix mechanics to represent a concept.

For the Herald, I particularly wanted bonded mount plus psionics. Paladin/Psychic Warrior did it for me. The Lawful Good and the Code of Conduct of the Paladin fitted the character. Chivalrous Knight Templar didn't. Fortunately, while a Paladin is required to be Lawful Good and follow the Code of Conduct, he is not required to be a Chivalrous Knight Templar.

For the detective, I particularly wanted the Detect Evil. Again, the Lawful Good alignment and the incorruptibility suited the character perfectly. He was devoted to Law, Justice, and Righteousness. Horses and lances had nothing to do with the character, but it doesn't matter. The horse is optional and doesn't kick in until 5th level, and lances are irrelevant.

As an unarmed champion of a Good Deity, I think a Paladin/Monk works just fine.

My whole point is that I don't look at it as "Barbarians are good tumblers because mmu1 once played a Barbarian/Rogue" - I see it as "I want a tank acrobat, so I'll take levels in Barbarian and Rogue to represent that".

-Hyp.

 

[tarchon]

Re: Re: Re: Frustrated by Party Composition

Uh-huh. Nothing strange whatsoever with combining an idealised chivalrous knight with a cartoonish wire-fu based martial artist.

Just because the class is misnamed a monk doesn't mean it has anything in common with monastic knight orders like the Templars...

Just FYI, the class is so named because it represents mythologized Chan Buddhist monks, not mythologized Templars. You thought "ki" was Middle High German for "holy spirit" or something?

Mechanically, I agree a paladin with a level of monk is not getting so much... or is he? Sure, when he's out whomping dragons with his +38 Holy Avenger, the level of monk is pretty useless. What the paladin can get from it though is covering a contingency.
We've all played the "tin can" right? You waddle along the trail at 20; you live in mortal fear of rust monsters, bodies of water, and large magnets; you're continually trying to explain to the DM how it is you eat, sleep, and deflower grateful virgins while wearing your +17 gothic adamantine plate armor of invulnerability. Fact is, sometimes you're caught with your steel pants down, and sometimes you need to get around without your 60 lbs of equipment. Then your damage is 1d3 subdual (1d3 normal only with a -4 to hit), and you draw AoOs, plus you have the AC of a giant marshmallow.
If however you took that level of monk, you're getting your usually respectable paladin's Wis bonus added to your AC, you fight as well as you do with a short sword, and you can even use Flurry of Blows or Stun if you need it. The +2 to every save isn't so shabby either, and that always counts. Sure, you're still not as good as you are normally, but a naked 9th level paladin/1st level monk way outclasses a naked 10th level paladin any day.