Technik4 said:
Well, I think this is a problem of all the non-basic classes. Look at the Monk, Ranger, Druid, Paladin, and Barbarian. Each one has many class abilities, but unless you are playing a specific character each of those abilities may not apply.
Yes,but all of the class abilities fit a particular archetype

. Not every wizard will want a familiar, but a familiar is appropriate to the archetype. The ranger has a muddled archetype... and the archetypes that are muddled into that are better represented with other character classes.
For the monk, actually, I have similar issues, but I want an unarmed master martial artist, and there aren't really any other classes that do it quite as well, so I'm still thinking about that one.
Perhaps if you tried one of your own tricks and renamed him Bounty Hunter you wouldn't have such a problem with it? It seems to be at least as widespread a class as Paladin, and quite a bit broader in terms of style of characters which can be created.
The bounty hunter idea is very nice, but again, only covers parts of the ranger archetype - it doesn't jive very well with the wild empathy, animal companion, evasion, and druid-lite spell list. The ranger is still trying to be several things at once.
On the other hand, I like the idea of a bounty hunter. I may make a PrC with the non-magical, non-nature-y aspects of the ranger.
Paladin seems to be a far worse offender than ranger (in terms of having a cohesive group of abilities). Why can a paladin remove disease but not curses?
I believe the original idea was that it was part of the lay on hands thing, but there isn't a really good reason for the bio-only aspect of it. I find this idea intriguing

. I may put together an alternate package, so that
remove disease applies to more different things as the paladin goes up in level. The ability to
break enchantment on a reasonably regular basis might tempt some to the higher levels of paladin.
All paladins are already cookie-cut to such a particular cast that it makes the act of making one different exhausting.
Again,however, I am not interested in how restrictive an archetype is compared to how muddled it is. The ranger doesn't really know what it is - the paladin knows EXACTLY what it is.
And the archetype the paladin is filling in my campaign (Spirit of the Community) makes the cookie cutter approach look pretty righteous

.
Overall I think paladin's still peter out too early (gaining only smiting and disease removal at higher levels) and for all their holiness and devotion to a code they don't have abilities which accurately reflect it.
Agreed

. But I'm not really working on the paladin here.
I'm calling it berserker. I think the flavor for this class sucks, which is why I rewrote it (my berserker has the same stats as the barbarian, but is described as a warrior who develops his primal instincts and "animal self" to become a frightening warrior, rather than his skill with a weapon).
The sorceror would be better served getting a treatment like the druid, minus the wilderness stuff. She needs her own spell list, her own custom mid-high level ability (which reinforces her bloodline and spellcasting), basically her own shtick, to stop being such a simulacrum of the wizard.
This is the same setting that has my alternate sorcerer that you gave such good commentary on

.