The Cleric, The Paladin, and Multisysteming

[Scribble]

Walk into a bar...

BLOGY BLOG BLOG

New Blog about making the "sub" classes.

 

[Sunseeker]

Suppose that instead of just a superior base attack bonus, we offered the fighter—and none of the other core four classes—an option to enter a subsystem of combat-related abilities. This gives the fighter more of a distinct mechanical identity, and it also gives the fighter more choices of things to do each round.

Choices are pointless if they're not viable. Combat maneuvers are on the whole, not viable choices instead of simply hitting things.

Stances? Those are viable choices.

Maneuvers(like in Bo9S) are viable.

Simple combat maneuvers like trip and disarm? Not viable. Especially not as standard actions.

and fights on horseback

In 99.9% of all adventures I've taken place in, there has never been enough space to make mounted combat worthwhile. Your horse doesn't fit in a dungeon, it's a big, fat target, and yeah... Mounted combat is a cool feature that anyone should be able to train into, but it's a pretty suck class feature.

 

[Scribble]

I like the basic idea though, that each class has a set of "fundamentals" and sub classes are mixes of those fundamentals.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not crazy sold on it. A paladin isn't just a fighter/cleric. A druid is not just (or even?!) a rogue/cleric. A ranger is not just (or even?) a fighter/rogue. They should be able to do their own things, in their own unique ways, without defining themselves as handy labels for multiclass options. ESPECIALLY if players disagree with their multiball categories.

What can a paladin do for me that a fighter/cleric can't? Because I think there should be paladins, and they should be unique as a class rather than just combos of other classes.

But, the paladin is, to a certain degree, a combo of fighter and cleric. It shouldn't be JUST that, though. Otherwise, why make it its own class?

I guess I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that something archetypically powerful enough to have its own class (like a paladin, but not like a mystic theurge) is probably worth a unique expression of that archetype, not just a kludged together amalgam of other classes.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Choices are pointless if they're not viable. Combat maneuvers are on the whole, not viable choices instead of simply hitting things.

Stances? Those are viable choices.

Maneuvers(like in Bo9S) are viable.

Simple combat maneuvers like trip and disarm? Not viable. Especially not as standard actions.


In 99.9% of all adventures I've taken place in, there has never been enough space to make mounted combat worthwhile. Your horse doesn't fit in a dungeon, it's a big, fat target, and yeah... Mounted combat is a cool feature that anyone should be able to train into, but it's a pretty suck class feature.

Really? I would say we have had the option of doing mounted stuff probably about 20-30%. We have hada lot of non-dungeony adventures though. One of my last characters was a halfling druid that rode his wardog animal companion. Granted, only a medium instead of large, but the vast majority of that campaign involved no constricted access type things.

 

[Boarstorm]

Why does the poor Mystic Theurge get so much hate?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like the basic idea though, that each class has a set of "fundamentals" and sub classes are mixes of those fundamentals.

I'm ok with it if the fundamentals are properly identified and not the entire set of what a class can do. Otherwise, I think it will lead to the same kind of nitpicky trades that end up not doing much.



There should be a (flexible) base set of things that are inherent in being an adventurer--some skills, some basic access to weapons, etc. Then build the class fundamentals on top of that--fighter combat fundamentals enhance what is already there as an adventurer. Then you could have this:

• Fighter - adventurer + combat fundamentals
• Cleric - adventurer + divine magic fundamentals
• Paladin - adventurer + some combat and some divine magic fundamentals.

and make it work. That "+" is key. It means that "some combat" and "some divine magic" are not little bits forced to try to be a whole themselves, nor dipped into too heavily to make up for such a deficit.

I'd rather hybrids be built with more thought and synergy, but if the mix and match approach is taken, let's at least acknowledge that the hat, belt, and shoes don't always come in a package with the mix and match blouse and skirt.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why does the poor Mystic Theurge get so much hate?

Combination of no good name for the concept, not terribly popular, and somewhat harder to do. Who wouldn't want to sweep it under the rug, or make it hide outside when polite company is visiting?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What can a paladin do for me that a fighter/cleric can't? Because I think there should be paladins, and they should be unique as a class rather than just combos of other classes.

I agree, but the paladin having access to the some of the fighter subsystem and some of the cleric subsystem does not automatically mean the paladin will not gain abilities unique to the paladin. I can see where people are drawing these conclusions from the blog, but I don't think he meant any class would be just the combination of two other classes.

 

[Scribble]

I'm not crazy sold on it. A paladin isn't just a fighter/cleric. A druid is not just (or even?!) a rogue/cleric. A ranger is not just (or even?) a fighter/rogue. They should be able to do their own things, in their own unique ways, without defining themselves as handy labels for multiclass options. ESPECIALLY if players disagree with their multiball categories.

What can a paladin do for me that a fighter/cleric can't? Because I think there should be paladins, and they should be unique as a class rather than just combos of other classes.

But, the paladin is, to a certain degree, a combo of fighter and cleric. It shouldn't be JUST that, though. Otherwise, why make it its own class?

I guess I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that something archetypically powerful enough to have its own class (like a paladin, but not like a mystic theurge) is probably worth a unique expression of that archetype, not just a kludged together amalgam of other classes.

Well it's kind of back to closer to how things were to start with I'd say... Some classes are just sub classes.

I agree with you though... What the heck IS the difference between a paladin and a multiclass fighter/cleric?

Guess we'd have to see what the multiclass rules look like.