Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 1025556" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Great stuff everyone!<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=":)" /> I like the Fighter as is, and as MMU1 mentioned, my games are *not* the ordinary!<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 said, I like the paladin as is, though I am considering adding in a bonus feat at every four levels; Currently, I actually use multiclassing and prestige classes to shape different paladin characters. I have found for example, that having characters start as a Fighter, and advance for several levels up to say, 10th level, before hearing the "call" to become Paladins. That tends to work out quite well, with a very martial paladin, though it takes a long time and a lot of work to get the character going though. I also like the idea of as I think Umbran explained it--using the right tool for the job. That's very good.<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=":)" /> I'm actually conservative in making any drastic changes to the game, or to base classes. I have a tendency to let the base classes run as they are written. With prestige classes, I feel like that there is more latitude, as well as campaign justification and utility in designing specific specializations. I agree, not all Paladins are going to fit the Knight archetype. I can also see the merits in simply having a Lawful Good Fighter. I also use Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral Fighter/Clerics a lot in my campaigns. A Fighter (12) or (14) or (16) with Cleric (8), (6) or (4) tends to not only provide all the necessary combat feats, (1 character, +7 Bonus Fighter Feats (minimum) and (4) general feats; that's for a 12th level Fighter/8th level Cleric. Obviously, the more cleric levels add more spells and fewer feats, and the actual mix is an interesting process of balancing martial skills with divine spell-casting. Gee, I actually usually use Fighter/Clerics as most of my knight-templar type characters, though I also have several prestige classes of knight-templars.Heh. I suppose I'm just thinking out loud with you all though. It's not like I am trying to start some kind of revolution or something.<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=":)" /> It comes to mind that Christine, who plays Bronwyn in my campaign, is a straight classed Human Paladin, and she doesn't have any problems in combat. I suppose it is simply a difference of merely looking at the character type from a different perspective vis a vis feats and such. I like to think out loud though.<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=":)" />Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

Verification