Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5939602" data-attributes="member: 48518">I have the impression that you start with mechanics, and then end up tagging the fluff as an afterthought.I think that any class design should be done opposite. Start with an idea, a concept, and then find a way to have it work mechanically.Paladins are holy warriors dedicated to a religious cause, ready to give their lives for that cause. A fighter is anyone trained in combat. A cleric is a priest. These are three different animals. Clerics train in religious ceremonies and the like. Paladins: not so.Your argument is like saying: ditch monks, just plug a non-weapon combat theme to a cleric and there you have it. That's not it. The purpose of the monk is different at the outset.If you can't see a difference between monk and cleric, or between paladin and fighter-cleric, then simply don't include those classes into your game. But really, these D&D archetypes have deep roots that go way back into real-world history - paladins for instance arguably originate from Lancelot and his quest for the holy grail. He's not a cleric by any stretch.Paladins are paladins and not fighter-clerics, just like a rogue is not a light-armored figther with stealth skills.</blockquote>