Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 106248" data-attributes="member: 529">&nbsp; Gnolls aren't a core race, agreed.&nbsp; That's why I gave all those other examples of sub-optimal decisions, which are all core examples.&nbsp; But we agree, not all combinations are equal.I agree with this statement.&nbsp; You may have misunderstood me.&nbsp; Think of the &quot;no sneak attacks on unaware opponents&quot; restriction as my personal interpretation of the &quot;dishonorable&quot; part of the Code for my campaign.&nbsp; There is nothing in the PHB to directly restrict sneak attacks by paladins in any way.&nbsp; Some DMs will do so, because they will perceive it as dishonorable and a gross violation.&nbsp; That's my POV, and I'm applying it to all orders of paladins IMC, even though it will probably not be an issue in actual gameplay.&nbsp; I doubt I'll have any rogue/paladins.Sorry, I guess I didn't understand the question.&nbsp; I do see all paladins as &quot;knights in shining armor&quot; as far as behavior is concerned.&nbsp; The Code of Conduct backs that belief up.&nbsp;&nbsp; By its nature, it's a restrictive class.&nbsp; What you find depressing, I find challenging.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with disagreeing on something that subjective.And I wasn't implying anything, except maybe that playing a rogue/paladin in your campaign would be easier than playing the same character in my game.&nbsp; Probably a gnoll paladin would be easier to play in my game than yours.&nbsp; Anyhow,&nbsp; I doubt playing any character in your game would be easy, since you're a card-carrying member of B.A.D.D.&nbsp; My players certainly haven't had an easy time lately.&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=":)" />I agree with this sentiment for all classes except the paladin.Another underlying principle of 3E is that roleplaying restrictions should not be used to balance game mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp; The paladin does just that.&nbsp; &nbsp; Paladins are special because they have such strict roleplaying restrictions that balance their game mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp; A rogue character with levels of paladin would consider himself&nbsp; primarily a paladin, regardless of his skill set.&nbsp; Answering the call of being a paladin defines a character.&nbsp; The paladin class is much more than a skill set.Nonsense.&nbsp; He still has plenty of options to use sneak attack, and has plenty of use of the other rogue abilities and skills.&nbsp;&nbsp; Btw, isn't &quot;crippled &quot; the same as &quot;fight with one hand behind his back.&quot;?&nbsp; Or is my sarcasm detector broke? <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=":)" />The same argument could be made regarding other classes.&nbsp; If I think that a paladin/wizard who casts a chaotic spell&nbsp; (And I'm not saying I feel that way) has acted dishonorably then there will be repercussions.&nbsp; This doesn't cripple the wizard class.&nbsp; And even if it did, the player made the choice to play such a character, not me.&nbsp; You can choose to play a wizard with an Intelligence of 9, btw, or play a sorcerer with the Quicken Spell feat, but I don't recommend it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The freedom of choice extends to the freedom to make bad choices.&nbsp; Caveat Player.&nbsp; Have I weakened paladin/rogues IMC?&nbsp; Yeah, a little.&nbsp; But I can do that IMC.&nbsp; And I haven't stepped outside of the core rules to do so.Oh I know how it works.&nbsp; I envisioned the paladin as readying a Bluff action when attacked, then sneak attacking before the black knight on the 2nd round because of his higher Dex.&nbsp; Not important though. The point I was trying to make is that a rogue/paladin can behave like a traditional paladin and still use sneak attack, and that I haven't crippled that class combination or tied anyone's hands.&nbsp; Despite that statement, it's clear from the scenario you wrote that you (and many others) favor more of a &quot;the end justifies the means (as long as it's not evil means)&quot; approach to playing a paladin, and I favor an approach that is more of &quot;the way you fight is as important as whether you win&quot; approach.&nbsp; I put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than most seem to.&nbsp;&nbsp; The cool thing is that we're both right.&nbsp; The vagueness of the Code allows both interpretations.&nbsp; The un-cool thing is when the player of a paladin and the DM have a misunderstanding over something like this.&nbsp; It's clear that communication is key.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gargoyle, post: 106248, member: 529"] [B][/b] Gnolls aren't a core race, agreed. That's why I gave all those other examples of sub-optimal decisions, which are all core examples. But we agree, not all combinations are equal. [b][/b] I agree with this statement. You may have misunderstood me. Think of the "no sneak attacks on unaware opponents" restriction as my personal interpretation of the "dishonorable" part of the Code for my campaign. There is nothing in the PHB to directly restrict sneak attacks by paladins in any way. Some DMs will do so, because they will perceive it as dishonorable and a gross violation. That's my POV, and I'm applying it to all orders of paladins IMC, even though it will probably not be an issue in actual gameplay. I doubt I'll have any rogue/paladins. [b][/b] Sorry, I guess I didn't understand the question. I [b]do[/b] see all paladins as "knights in shining armor" as far as behavior is concerned. The Code of Conduct backs that belief up. By its nature, it's a restrictive class. What you find depressing, I find challenging. Nothing wrong with disagreeing on something that subjective. And I wasn't implying anything, except maybe that playing a rogue/paladin in your campaign would be easier than playing the same character in my game. Probably a gnoll paladin would be easier to play in my game than yours. Anyhow, I doubt playing any character in your game would be easy, since you're a card-carrying member of B.A.D.D. My players certainly haven't had an easy time lately. :) [b][/b] I agree with this sentiment for all classes except the paladin. Another underlying principle of 3E is that roleplaying restrictions should not be used to balance game mechanics. The paladin does just that. Paladins are special because they have such strict roleplaying restrictions that balance their game mechanics. A rogue character with levels of paladin would consider himself primarily a paladin, regardless of his skill set. Answering the call of being a paladin defines a character. The paladin class is much more than a skill set. [b][/b] Nonsense. He still has plenty of options to use sneak attack, and has plenty of use of the other rogue abilities and skills. Btw, isn't "crippled " the same as "fight with one hand behind his back."? Or is my sarcasm detector broke? :) The same argument could be made regarding other classes. If I think that a paladin/wizard who casts a chaotic spell (And I'm not saying I feel that way) has acted dishonorably then there will be repercussions. This doesn't cripple the wizard class. And even if it did, the player made the choice to play such a character, not me. You can choose to play a wizard with an Intelligence of 9, btw, or play a sorcerer with the Quicken Spell feat, but I don't recommend it. The freedom of choice extends to the freedom to make bad choices. Caveat Player. Have I weakened paladin/rogues IMC? Yeah, a little. But I can do that IMC. And I haven't stepped outside of the core rules to do so. [b][/b] Oh I know how it works. I envisioned the paladin as readying a Bluff action when attacked, then sneak attacking before the black knight on the 2nd round because of his higher Dex. Not important though. The point I was trying to make is that a rogue/paladin can behave like a traditional paladin and still use sneak attack, and that I haven't crippled that class combination or tied anyone's hands. Despite that statement, it's clear from the scenario you wrote that you (and many others) favor more of a "the end justifies the means (as long as it's not evil means)" approach to playing a paladin, and I favor an approach that is more of "the way you fight is as important as whether you win" approach. I put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than most seem to. The cool thing is that we're both right. The vagueness of the Code allows both interpretations. The un-cool thing is when the player of a paladin and the DM have a misunderstanding over something like this. It's clear that communication is key. [/QUOTE]

Verification