Paladin--Core class?

[ConcreteBuddha]

I like this thread. Keep going. But keep it clean...


http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28729

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Paladin - core class - yes.

 

[Theuderic]

I agree keep the paladin core class

 

[Piratecat]

Normally, threads opened on the same subject as a closed thread are also closed, and the new thread's originator is beaten with a stack of 2e splatbooks.

This is a little different, though, because the old thread was closed by request. There was disagreement in that thread regarding a paladin's moral code, but (from what I saw) people were staying mostly polite even when they didn't agree. I'll leave this thread open, so please show respect for the opinions of the other members.

Thanks!

 

[Nifft]

How about a Poll?

Paladin:
1) Core Class!
2) PrC!
3) Make equivalent to Blackguard / Holy Liberator, so all PrCs or all Core Classes.
4) Bah! Weak do-gooders! Ban Paladins!

-- Nifft

PS: Personally, I'd vote for #2 -- Paladin as PrC.

 

[Sammael99]

How about a Poll?

Paladin:
1) Core Class!
2) PrC!
3) Make equivalent to Blackguard / Holy Liberator, so all PrCs or all Core Classes.
4) Bah! Weak do-gooders! Ban Paladins!

-- Nifft

PS: Personally, I'd vote for #2 -- Paladin as PrC.

I'd vote #2 as well. I think a lot of the issues people have with the Paladin is that it's a specific concept handled by a generic rules system. Hence a discrepancy that can lead to trouble...

 

[Theuderic]

A poll is an excellent idea.

 

[johnsemlak]

I said this on the previous thread, but I'll say it again.

I think making teh Paladin a PrC is not a bad idea game design wise, but I think it's far to popular a class to be a prestige class. It is a specific concept, but a very popular one.

Personally, I think having core classes based on more specific concepts is good, PrC's shouldn't be the only way to make characters more specific. Consider all the different areas of specialization for a wizard. In effect, there are around 10+ wizard subclasses.

 

[Umbran]

I think a lot of the issues people have with the Paladin is that it's a specific concept handled by a generic rules system. Hence a discrepancy that can lead to trouble...

I personally think the real issue people have with the paladin is that they're assuming they're working with a generic rules system, when they aren't. 3E is flexible, yes. But it's not generic.

 

[Endur]

Paladin = core

I agree that Paladin should be a core class.

If you want to make it a PrC, that's fine; but then you should get rid of Specialist Wizards, Cleric Domains, Rangers, Druids, Monks, and Bards. All of those classes could also be PrCs.

A Druid would be a nature PrC for clerics.

Clerics would get their Domains from PrCs.

Wizards would get their Specializations from PrCs.

A Ranger would be a PrC for Rogue/Fighters with a nature twist.

A Monk would be a PrC for Rogue/Fighters with a oriental twist.

Bards would be a PrC for Rogue/Sorcerors.

Paladin would be a PrC for Cleric/Fighters.

That would leave the PHB with the four core classes: Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard and two variant classes, Barbarian and Sorceror.

The nature of Barbarians and Sorcerors is such that they don't make good prestige classes. i.e. The Sorceror develops his spells without training. The Barbarian grows up in the wild. Although you could certainly create a special prestige class to replace the current Barbarian and Sorceror classes.

Tom