Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Axiomatic Unicorn" data-source="post: 106089" data-attributes="member: 1974">Yes, a gnoll paladin would be suboptimal.  But a gnoll is not a core race.  Rogue and Paladin are both core classes.Not that all class combinations are equal, wizard/sorcerer for example.I'll repeat myself as well, I don't have a problem with Paladin Orders that require a more stringent code.  I just don't see that the requirements you place on the are demanded by the PH anywhere.  Honestly, I don't see how your example addresses my knight in shining armor concern.  Your example WAS still a knight in shining armor.  Perhaps he was not a full Cavalier Lawful Stupid stereotype.  But he was still an "I challenge thee"  Knight in shining armor.  I find the idea that this attitude is a MUST to be depressing.  There is so much more roleplaying potential in the Paladin class that gets buried in these narrow stereotypes.And if you are think that being a paladin in one of my games would be easy, NOT AT ALL.  I just think I have a wider variety of what may make the paladin's duty challenging.  I am confident that I make it just as challenging as most anyone else.You say that paladins are supposed to be warrior types, not rogue types.  Of course you are correct.  The fighter class is also supposed to be a warrior type and not a rogue type.  But, to me, these comments greatly miss one of the fundamentals of 3E.  Characters are no longer defined by A SINGLE class, but rather the whole of their parts.  Just because the fighter is not a rogue type, does not mean a rogue with levels of fighter is not a rogue type.  By the exact same token, a rogue with levels of paladin is still a rogue.  Fighters and Paladins are not rogues, but characters are the sum of their parts.   Paladins are also not arcane spellcasters.  But a paladin sorcerer would gain all the abilities of both classes.  And yes, you have not crippled the rogue, you have simply made him fight with one hand behind his back.Allow me to tweak your alternative example:The paladin watched the heavily armored foe step blindly by and considered attacking him from behind, certain that he could destroy the threat to the city in one quick thrust.  But his honor would not allow it.  So instead...."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, But the foe's smashing blow rang true and darkness fell upon the paladin.  The foe, thinking the paladin killed, fled before the battle drew attention.  The paladin later recovered and healed himself, but the foe knew he was being hunted and could not be caught unaware again.  Within weeks the town was conquered and the people enslaved.  But, on the bright side, the paladin had his honor.  The surviving townsfolk recalled the ancient saying, 'Dear god, save us from dragons, demons and self-righteous paladins' "(Remember, bluff is a standard action that gives a bonus the NEXT time, the other guy gets a turn in between.)Oh, and I also never said that paladins are not concerned about HOW they win.  They are.  A paladin rogue will be more limited in action than a lawful good fighter rogue.  That does not mean that there is only one narrow path to victory that is allowed.</blockquote>

Verification