Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8575175" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Dude..... the 1e* Paladin was a terror. Compare to the 1e Fighter (who was also quite good).The Paladin got all the good stuff of the fighter- the saves, the ability to get higher con hit points, the percentile strength, the use of any weapons or shields or armor, and unlike the Ranger, the same multi-attack progression.&nbsp; But ... in addition, the Paladin also:1. Could eventually use cleric spells.2. Could get that sweet war horse.3. Could turn undead.4. Had a continuous protection from evil (!!!). (Seriously, this was massive ...)5. Could cure any kind of disease (and was also immune to it).6. Could cure hit points (again, big deal in 1e).7. Had +2 on all saves.8. Could detect evil at will. And, of course, the Holy Sword benefit (in addition to all the other awesome benefits, could dispel magic). Have you met a Paladin without a Holy Sword. Yeah, me neither.The Paladin's benefits were crazy good. But this was part of the ... interesting design philosophy behind 1e. First, to restrict the number of &quot;awesome&quot; characters by making the ability requirements crazy high (17 charisma????) ... which just meant that the average Paladin player was a cheater .... <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=":)" />Second, by requiring &quot;cool&quot; classes to have restriction so that people would have to suffer to play them. Which probably reached its apotheosis with the UA Barbarian. *Note that I am dealing with pre-UA 1e, because things got weird with the Paladin-as-Cavalier subclass.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8575175, member: 7023840"] Dude..... the [B]1e*[/B] Paladin was a terror. Compare to the 1e Fighter (who was also quite good). The Paladin got all the good stuff of the fighter- the saves, the ability to get higher con hit points, the percentile strength, the use of any weapons or shields or armor, [I]and unlike the Ranger, the same multi-attack progression[/I]. But ... in addition, the Paladin also: 1. Could eventually use cleric spells. 2. Could get that sweet war horse. 3. Could turn undead. 4. Had a [I]continuous protection from evil (!!!). (Seriously, this was massive ...)[/I] 5. Could cure any kind of disease (and was also immune to it). 6. Could cure hit points (again, big deal in 1e). 7. Had +2 on all saves. 8. Could detect evil at will. And, of course, the Holy Sword benefit (in addition to all the other awesome benefits, could dispel magic). Have you met a Paladin without a Holy Sword. Yeah, me neither. The Paladin's benefits were crazy good. But this was part of the ... interesting design philosophy behind 1e. First, to restrict the number of "awesome" characters by making the ability requirements crazy high (17 charisma????) ... which just meant that the average Paladin player was a cheater .... :) Second, by requiring "cool" classes to have restriction so that people would have to suffer to play them. Which probably reached its apotheosis with the UA Barbarian. *Note that I am dealing with pre-UA 1e, because things got weird with the Paladin-as-Cavalier subclass. [/QUOTE]

Verification