turning back the clock on paladins

[Simm]

I'm currently playing a cha based paladin in 4e. I had previously mentioned to my DM that I hadn't found the edition to be particularly compelling. At the last game he mentioned he might be turning the game back to 3.5.

This got me thinking, how would I convert a 4e paladin to 3.5. So far I am considering both PHBII's knight and ToB's crusader.

 

[Imban]

You should play a Crusader, but ask to use the Warblade mechanic for using and recovering powers. It doesn't really unbalance them, but it means you don't have to deal with getting random powers.

 

[keterys]

I actually thought the random powers was one of the compelling things about the crusader, making things more interesting.

So, yeah, I'd heartily suggest a crusader, but disagree on using the warblade's mechanic.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The best part about playing the Crusader was the recharging mechanic. The recharge took no actions, so if you took the feat that gave an extra granted maneuver, then you basically got a maneuver to use every round, without having to do anything to get them. The Crusader was a much better paladin than the 3.5 paladin, and while I like the warblade powers, I really like the crusaders recharge mechanic much better.

Sorry to hear that 4e wasn't to your tastes. Can I ask what it is that has turned you off?

 

[Simm]

In the campaign I played in before this one I played a Kobold Warblade so if I do take crusader I'll probably use it straight.

As for my opinion of 4e it was really that it doesn't feel organic enough to me, everything is too constructed. In the 3.x games I played and ran I always advocated starting at level 1, maybe one lucky swing would take you out but once you hit level 3 you felt like you had accomplished something. I'll probably hit 3 next session but I've never so far I feel my character hasn't grown.

The specific problem in this campaign is that the DM is trying to break away from his usual narrative style towards a more sandboxy game and switch over to 4e. So far we've found that 4e really wasn't designed to support the level of backgroung action required for a sandbox. Economics, logistics and NPCs are particularly to blame here.

 

[Simm]

Also, this caharacter is a half elf, and quite frankly I don't look forward to playing one in 3. Ideas?

 

[rowport]

Also, this caharacter is a half elf, and quite frankly I don't look forward to playing one in 3. Ideas?

Frankly, in 3.5e, I would suggest either using Human stats (likely better mechanically for paladin) or Elf stats and calling him a Half-Elf. Done.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Also, this caharacter is a half elf, and quite frankly I don't look forward to playing one in 3. Ideas?

Talk to your GM to see if he'll let you change it to human with elven blood.
Mechanically identical to human but might look slightly different.

 

[Mad Hamish]

As for my opinion of 4e it was really that it doesn't feel organic enough to me, everything is too constructed. In the 3.x games I played and ran I always advocated starting at level 1, maybe one lucky swing would take you out but once you hit level 3 you felt like you had accomplished something. I'll probably hit 3 next session but I've never so far I feel my character hasn't grown.

o.k.
It sounds like you're judging the character on 1st and 2nd level out of 30 and that's really somewhat impatient.
Personally I suspect that you'll start to notice the character growing in another level or two.

The specific problem in this campaign is that the DM is trying to break away from his usual narrative style towards a more sandboxy game and switch over to 4e. So far we've found that 4e really wasn't designed to support the level of backgroung action required for a sandbox. Economics, logistics and NPCs are particularly to blame here.

I'm not sure that there's really that much more behind the world in 3.x than there is in 4.x for economics etc.
For the vast majority of NPCs I don't see there being a difference between 3.x and 4, you talk to the merchant, you investigate the noble whatever.

 

[Darkwolf71]

o.k.
It sounds like you're judging the character on 1st and 2nd level out of 30 and that's really somewhat impatient.
Personally I suspect that you'll start to notice the character growing in another level or two.




I'm not sure that there's really that much more behind the world in 3.x than there is in 4.x for economics etc.
For the vast majority of NPCs I don't see there being a difference between 3.x and 4, you talk to the merchant, you investigate the noble whatever.

Why can't people just accept that 4e is not the perfect game that all will love unanimously?