Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anguirus" data-source="post: 5862457" data-attributes="member: 41413">In the most recent Rule-of-Three this passage jumped out and shocked me:Emphasis mine.I don't disagree with the larger point.  Classes often must share mechanics because of the metaphysics of the game.  Basic example: all classes can swing a weapon and attack.  All classes use skills.  Clerics and wizards cast spells; they always have and they always will, and we want the spells to feel different but there's no reason to force the system to be different simply to emphasize arcane vs. divine.However, I feel that in the specific case of clerics and paladins, this idea is WRONG, and it is upsetting to me that 5E paladins will, apparently, be spellcasters.In 1E, 2E, and the beginning of 3E, magic in the game took one of three forms.  One form was "whatever the DM damn well said it was," in order to create effects that were necessary to the story.  One form, a very rare one indeed, was "special unique things some monsters and classes can do." The other form was spellcasting.The paladin was designed as a warrior, a knight if you will, that was imbued with divine magic and used it against his enemies.  The class design is basically,-Take the fighter.-Tack on weaker turn undead-Tack on weak cleric spellcasting from a restricted spell list.-Tack on a few extra abilities that, themselves, are based on spells.-Throw in strict ability and alignment requirements.The end result was an elite, magical version of the fighter.  He was based on legendary Christian knights from sagas and their modern antecedents.  Such knights didn't wave their arms and cast spells, but that was just how magic worked back then, in the game.The paladin wound its way through to third edition with, frankly, cosmetic changes only.  However, third edition (3.5 really) began to teach us something wonderful.For characters, magic is not the same thing as spellcasting!And so we met the warlock, who had weaker "spells" that were cast all the time, giving a more willful, fantastic feel.  The psion had a new way to cast spells, subdividing a character's total magical energy instead of using slots.  That was only the start, as we met Incarnum, Binding, Truenaming, and Nine Swords magic before the edition had run its course.The Fourth Edition paladin was a new beast.  While he still ran about with a sword in one hand and a holy symbol in the other, and, yes, had to "Channel Divinity" along with the cleric (but eventually all divine classes), it became possible to create a paladin who could just hack and slash and SMITE his way through battle, or a paladin who just funneled destructive energy into his foes and beneficial into his friends, or a mix-and-match.My first 4E character was a dwarf paladin who dumped Charisma.  Bad idea?  Probably.  But he wasn't one for flash, and he sure as heck didn't rub his holy symbol, wave his arms, yell nonsense, and then check off a spell for the day.So what's my point?  After all in 4E all characters were "spellcasters" right?  Yes, but in 4E, for the very first time, I saw a paladin who could not, EVER, be mistaken for a fighter/cleric.The paladin does not deserve to exist if it can be mistaken for a fighter/cleric.It is not a coincidence that that dwarf was the first paladin I ever bothered to play.Spells aren't part of the paladin archetype.And that's why this passage upset me.  It's a giant step backward for no reason.  We have known for ten years that the magic of player characters does not have to take the form of spells.The paladin should be a divine warrior.  It should be a good warrior (but not quite as good as the fighter) even before any divine help.  It should heal its allies with its pure touch, and be healed in turn by its own righteousness.  It should be able to pierce the lies and deceptions of evil.   And it should empower its weapons with holiness and smite the undeserving.It shouldn't get a bunch of weak cleric spells at level 4, etc.  It shouldn't even get turn undead.  That's a cleric "thing."  A paladin shouldn't turn undead, it should DESTROY undead, smiting a ghoul so hard that twenty of his ghoul friends burst into flames and, somewhere, Orcus feels an inexplicable pain in his left temple.Clerics, especially fighter/clerics, have UNAVOIDABLE thematic overlap with paladins.  It therefore behooves the dev team to minimize their MECHANICAL overlap, which is not necessary for gameplay and weakens the essential identities of both classes.  (Just imagine if they finally stopped trying to stick clerics with maces.  Try to tell the difference then!)At the very least, I think paladin spellcasting needs to be OPTIONAL.  I'll be sad if its the default option--and it clearly will be--but if it can be removed modularly and replaced with something cool, ok.Frankly I think the very idea of going back to paladins being a little of fighter, a little of cleric, with unique frills stuck on top, is telling of an unfortunate design philosophy that seems to invariably err on the side of 3rd edition.  I LOVE 3rd edition, it's maybe the most fantastic game I've ever played, but the designers need to separate the reasons for its success from just "things that happened to be in 3rd edition."  There is no reason to turn back the clock on the paladin.  Apply the lessons you have learned in all the years of successful class and game design that happened after the 3rd edition Player's Handbook.And so help me if the ranger got turned back into "fighter + druid - armor + two-weapon fighting" I'll REALLY go off on a tear!</blockquote>

Verification