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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6193681" data-attributes="member: 42582">Because only the fighter is fated to wield it?Or to come at it another way, why do the gods only answer the prayers of clerics and paladins, but not fighters and rogues? Whatever explains that, (mutatis mutandis) explains the sword.When you say "traditionally", I think maybe you mean "in 3E".In Gygax's AD&D each class has a list of the magic items it can use - some of this is set out in the item tables themselves, and some in class descriptions (eg look at the illusionist or ranger class descriptions). Not all wands, for instance, cast spells, and even when they do you don't necessarily need the spell on your list to use the wand (my memory tells me this is true of the Wand of Missiles and Wand of Fireballs).I'm not saying that we should go back to that. Maybe the 3E approach is better - or the 4e approach, in which anyone can use a scroll but implements (wands, staves, symbols etc) require proficiency. But neither is particularly traditional.Again, if you look at AD&D the paladin is basically identical in archetype to the cleric - heavy armour, decent hp, decent range of weapons. - both are holy warriors. The differences depend upon mechanical minutiae - slightly different attack tables (although the effect of these is somewhat diluted by the cleric's more generous XP progression), the paladin having +2 to save on the fighter table compared to the cleric using the (generally superior) cleric table, the paladin's turning being a bit weaker (especially once XP costs are factored in), cleric healing via spells whereas the paladin heals via a distinct class ability.Stripped of these mechanical minutiae - eg translated into a free-descriptor game - the AD&D cleric and the AD&D paladin are the same character. It's mechanics, not archetype, that distinguish them.Subsequent editions have introduced more differences - 2nd ed AD&D specialty priests aren't all holy warriors, for instance, and 3E clerics have a much-increased spell selection which pushes them in some ways closer to the magician than the holy warrior in archetype. But then 4e really reverts to AD&D - the difference between cleric and paladin is almost purely mechanical (many characters could be viably built as either a STR cleric or a STR paladin, depending what aspect of the character the build is meant to emphasise).I don't object to paladins being a distinct class from clerics, but I think the designers need to be aware that this is primarily about showcasing mechanical variation rather than archetypical variation. (Some people will always read strong story differences into the mechanical differences - eg they will see a major difference between a cleric's spells and a monk or paladin's magical class features - but I don't think the designers can take it for granted that mechanical differences will carry this sort of story baggage with them.)I don't think I agree with this. Or at least the stealth bit - I've got no very strong view on spells, but my default preference is for a spell-less ranger a la 4e or AD&D up to 7th level.But as far as stealth and ranged combat are concerned, I think the two go together. It's inherent in the idea of attacking from a difference that you try to take advantage of cover, superior terrain, deception as to where the attack is coming from, etc.</blockquote>

Verification