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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5862514" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think you're right on this point. Not so sure I agree with you here. Fighter and Cleric are both pretty broad archetypes, and so encompass a lot of different similar kinds of combos. And there's nothing wrong with a paladin who is kind of a fighter/cleric, either, IMO. They should have their own thing (smites and whatnot), but I don't see why they have to be very different, or even how your dwarf paladin was really all that different a dwarf cleric (or warlord or fighter or...) that did the same thing. I mean, it sounds like you had fun, which is the main thing, but it's not clear to me how paladin powers not being the same as cleric spells helped you have fun. Well, divine magic clearly is. And cleric spells like removing disease, healing wounds, removing curses, calling divine fire, protecting your allies, etc. are all part of that pool of abilities.But I think I'm generally on board with your broader point. I don't necessarily need "Vancian paladins." I think there are other mechanical ways to represent that. I'd even expand it -- not every spellcaster needs to be Vancian. Warlocks are a great example: I love their entirely at-will arsenal. Psionics are another. Paladins can be, too.I do think that a paladin needs to be able to accomplish some of what a cleric can accomplish via the cleric's divine magic, and the simplest way to do that is probably just to give them a few cleric spells. But I am all for exploring alternate mechanical ways to exemplify classes. About the only class I think might NEED to be Vancian -- at least for the sake of the sacred cow if nothing else -- is the wizard.</blockquote>

Verification