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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5939951" data-attributes="member: 54877">You are going a bridge too far here. This is not the position being held, at least not by most of us. You say that the point in having multiple ways to do the same archetype is that you'll get slightly different things that way. It will be a better fit, or you want need to use all your customization options to do the core thing, and so forth. Whatever the reason, the mechanical representation of that archetype is at least a bit different, yes?  Well, alright then. It actually needs to be different, and different enough to warrant taking up a slot. Now granted, "enough" is the largely subjective thing here, and runs into the issues of convenience, tradition, and so forth. A paladin class has a bigger claim here, than say, the assassin.  So if there are, for examples, classes for fighter, paladin, and cleric--and then multiclasses between them--and then perhaps some themes that poach a bit, such as maybe "cavalier" or "knight" or "templar"--there needs to be something hanging on that paladin class that works well with the central bit of the archetype (by itself or combined with some of those other things), that is "different enough" from a fighter/cleric or a guardian cleric or a templar fighter to make the paladin class not totally redundant. It doesn't need to be huge, but it needs to be there. If it isn't there, then either the paladin class should be dropped as a bad fit for 5E OR the fighter and/or cleric should be tweaked a bit to leave more room for the paladin class to fit OR they need to rethink this whole theme thing, if they are gonna mash the paladin in there anyway. Otherwise, the "paladin" is a mere marketing sop, which is rather insulting, when you think about it.</blockquote>

Verification