Thoughts on STR paladins

[Anguirus]

You're playing the wrong game then. There is such a thing as roles in D&D 4e. A charisma-based paladin does not fulfil his role properly, IMO. That hurts everyone at the table, and is therefore a selfish behaviour.

Bwa? Charisma-dins are fine defenders.

 

[Victim]

CHA pallies have seemed mechanically effective in combat and social situations - although the one I've seen has been hilariously bad at physical skills. Having a few ranged powers certainly isn't a deal anyway - CHA pallies have problems controling with position and OA anyway, so shifting back to shoot isn't a huge deal for them. And there are often going to be enemies out of reach. It was pretty sweet when our pally Dailied a Deathlock Wight in the opening round with his ranged power - between him and the warlock the monster dropped before it could go, much less before it could res other undead.

But the sort of wimpy, physically unskilled character running around in full plate and getting into people's faces just seems weird to me. The problem is sort of exaggerated in our game since the Tiefling Paladin isn't going for HBO, so his STR is a mere 10.

 

[Gort]

CHA paladins also need some kind of feat similar to the "Intelligent Blademaster" feat that Swordmages are getting, that lets them use charisma for their basic attacks. It just seems silly that a guy who attacks with CHA every round suddenly forgets how to do that the moment his opponent lets his guard down.

I also think that CHA paladins are fine defenders - after all, their Divine Challenge does more damage when the monster attacks someone else.

 

[Runestar]

Lancelot was probably more of a fighter than a paladin anyways.

That said, I am interested to know if there are alternate ways of playing a paladin which does not necessarily conform to a defender role. I have always felt that the concept of a "role" should be nothing more than a guideline as to how a class may be played, not a straitjacket as to how it must be played.

 

[Ginnel]

You're playing the wrong game then. There is such a thing as roles in D&D 4e. A charisma-based paladin does not fulfil his role properly, IMO. That hurts everyone at the table, and is therefore a selfish behaviour.

But hey, by all means, don't conform.

What the?

it seems like you may be playing the wrong game some kind of Co-op online game might suit you better where balanced and optimised groups are needed, there is no win or lose in roleplaying games its all about the journey, I would kick the person from the group who tried to make someone play a role other than the one they wanted to (within the confines the DM has set as the campaign/game).

I really don't understand where this high horse attitude is coming from its never been present in any roleplaying game I've played in.

No ones criticised (out of character) the Sorceror for taking a utility spell no ones lambasted the healer for preparing speak with animals or for a healer to heal a favoured party member/animal companion before the rest of the party.
Sure comments can be thrown about in character but then that leads to interesting roleplaying, but to be all "no you must do this" out of character is just unbelievable to me.

That said, I am interested to know if there are alternate ways of playing a paladin which does not necessarily conform to a defender role. I have always felt that the concept of a "role" should be nothing more than a guideline as to how a class may be played, not a straitjacket as to how it must be played.

Absolutely If I had a group where a fighter class character expressed in game that he wanted to run about hitting things and a warlord and wizard wanted to be in the front line I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Kzach]

Absolutely If I had a group where a fighter class character expressed in game that he wanted to run about hitting things and a warlord and wizard wanted to be in the front line I wouldn't have a problem with it.

How very cuddly of you.

That ignores the fact that the system is balanced around roles being properly represented and played.

Everyone is welcome to play whatever game they want, that doesn't change the way the system is built.

 

[SSquirrel]

There are at least 2 workable versions of each class. One version of the Paladin is Str focused, the other is Cha focused. I've had a Cha focused Paladin in our game who works just fine in the defender role. There is no one true way to play anything in D&D, no matter how much you try and convince us otherwise

 

[Xath]

Please maintain a degree of civility. There is no such thing as a "badwrongfun" way to play the game.

 

[zillah]

How very cuddly of you.

That ignores the fact that the system is balanced around roles being properly represented and played.

Everyone is welcome to play whatever game they want, that doesn't change the way the system is built.

I think what the problem is that you don't realize one thing. The "system" you speak of is properly built to include a CHA paladin or a STR paladin. If you don't see that then thats not my problem or anyone elses, but its there. Please open a PHB and take a look for yourself.
There are CHA attack powers, CHA bonuses, and even more skills that have to do with CHA then STR.

Having said that, you can see this game all how you want, but don't try to force your opinion on other players. an INT paladin is mechanically wrong, but can still be a defender. How? INT/CON. multi wizard. you don't even have to multi into anything if you don't want. The con is enough for you to be a defender. you mark, you take hits, you survive. I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Kzach]

I think what the problem is that you don't realize one thing. The "system" you speak of is properly built to include a CHA paladin or a STR paladin. If you don't see that then thats not my problem or anyone elses, but its there. Please open a PHB and take a look for yourself.

Not if you believe the paladin isn't very well made or balanced.