Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 106049" data-attributes="member: 529">Yes, you have selected a sub-optimal class combination, at least IMC.&nbsp; Paladins, and the Code, were designed to be warrior-types, not rogues.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is not a bad thing, and even if it is, it's inevitable that some combinations are going to be harder to play than others.&nbsp; &nbsp; Just like some race/class combinations are more difficult.&nbsp; For instance, if I were to play a gnoll paladin in your game, I would be at a disadvantage, hmm?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; For a less extreme example, suppose I choose to play an elf fighter in heavy armor, or a half-orc paladin in a campaign where any hint of orcish blood is reviled?&nbsp; Or a single classed fighter with feats that enhance his unarmed combat ability, saving throws, and skill focus?&nbsp; What about a wizard with average Intelligence?&nbsp; None of those choices are good examples of min/maxing, and all have repercussions.&nbsp; But they are all valid choices.&nbsp; As far as the &quot;knight in shining armor&quot; archetype not being applicable, I disagree.&nbsp;&nbsp; Consider the following alternative:&quot;The paladin stepped from the shadows, and locked eyes with his heavily armored foe.&nbsp; 'Your dawn has come.&nbsp; Surrender or be destroyed by the light of Pelor'. The dark knight's grin could almost be seen beneath his skull visor as he charged his leather-clad foe.&nbsp; His blackened great sword swung into a great arc and sliced into the side of the paladin.&nbsp; Wincing in pain for only an instant, the noble warrior faltered, apparently in fear.&nbsp; The black knight saw his chance and raised his blade for a mighty blow.&nbsp; But the paladin was not as wounded as the evil one believed, and certainly not afraid.&nbsp; With stunning speed and precision, his holy rapier lunged upwards, and drove into the blackguard's exposed side, and onwards through his corrupted heart.&nbsp; Sweating and panting, his leathers soaked with the blood of his evil foe, the paladin sat and prayed thanks to Pelor as his wound closed.&quot;He used Bluff to feint, and then sneak attacked.&nbsp; Yeah, he took some damage and could have died.&nbsp; In the earlier example, he used Hide and sneak attacked an unaware, flat-footed opponent.&nbsp; Shining armor?&nbsp; Not really, but that stereotype has less to do with appearance than it does with behavior.The way I limit sneak attacks for rogue/paladins in my game, which hasn't come up yet btw, it doesn't cripple the class combination, it makes it more challenging, which is just what I want.&nbsp; I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I'll say it again:&nbsp; Paladins aren't merely concerned with winning.&nbsp; How they win is important.&nbsp; That's my take on it, anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gargoyle, post: 106049, member: 529"] Yes, you have selected a sub-optimal class combination, at least IMC. Paladins, and the Code, were designed to be warrior-types, not rogues. This is not a bad thing, and even if it is, it's inevitable that some combinations are going to be harder to play than others. Just like some race/class combinations are more difficult. For instance, if I were to play a gnoll paladin in your game, I would be at a disadvantage, hmm? :) For a less extreme example, suppose I choose to play an elf fighter in heavy armor, or a half-orc paladin in a campaign where any hint of orcish blood is reviled? Or a single classed fighter with feats that enhance his unarmed combat ability, saving throws, and skill focus? What about a wizard with average Intelligence? None of those choices are good examples of min/maxing, and all have repercussions. But they are all valid choices. As far as the "knight in shining armor" archetype not being applicable, I disagree. Consider the following alternative: "The paladin stepped from the shadows, and locked eyes with his heavily armored foe. 'Your dawn has come. Surrender or be destroyed by the light of Pelor'. The dark knight's grin could almost be seen beneath his skull visor as he charged his leather-clad foe. His blackened great sword swung into a great arc and sliced into the side of the paladin. Wincing in pain for only an instant, the noble warrior faltered, apparently in fear. The black knight saw his chance and raised his blade for a mighty blow. But the paladin was not as wounded as the evil one believed, and certainly not afraid. With stunning speed and precision, his holy rapier lunged upwards, and drove into the blackguard's exposed side, and onwards through his corrupted heart. Sweating and panting, his leathers soaked with the blood of his evil foe, the paladin sat and prayed thanks to Pelor as his wound closed." He used Bluff to feint, and then sneak attacked. Yeah, he took some damage and could have died. In the earlier example, he used Hide and sneak attacked an unaware, flat-footed opponent. Shining armor? Not really, but that stereotype has less to do with appearance than it does with behavior. The way I limit sneak attacks for rogue/paladins in my game, which hasn't come up yet btw, it doesn't cripple the class combination, it makes it more challenging, which is just what I want. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I'll say it again: Paladins aren't merely concerned with winning. How they win is important. That's my take on it, anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification