Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gryph" data-source="post: 5939549" data-attributes="member: 98071">Paladin as an archteype matches up very well to the Arthurian knights of the Grail cycle, Galahad, Percival, etc. The older mechanics for losing Paladinhood and becoming a fighter when you transgress were very evocative of the Lancelot and Gwenivere story.&nbsp;Later editions that have moved Paladin towards a generic &quot;Diety's Warrior&quot; are more of a generic D&amp;Dism. &nbsp;I think if you try to broaden the concept of niche classes like Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Assassin you create the very problems that spawn this kind of thread. A broad definition of Paladin is going to overlap with Fighter and Cleric and then players will rightly question whether it needs to exist as a separate class. &nbsp;I believe the niche classes are better game design if they appeal to a smaller pool of the player base looking for a well defined play experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gryph, post: 5939549, member: 98071"] Paladin as an archteype matches up very well to the Arthurian knights of the Grail cycle, Galahad, Percival, etc. The older mechanics for losing Paladinhood and becoming a fighter when you transgress were very evocative of the Lancelot and Gwenivere story. Later editions that have moved Paladin towards a generic "Diety's Warrior" are more of a generic D&Dism. I think if you try to broaden the concept of niche classes like Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Assassin you create the very problems that spawn this kind of thread. A broad definition of Paladin is going to overlap with Fighter and Cleric and then players will rightly question whether it needs to exist as a separate class. I believe the niche classes are better game design if they appeal to a smaller pool of the player base looking for a well defined play experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification