Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[irdeggman]

I think that the cleric is acually the class with the weakest balance as far as choices and progressoin benefits go.

The "only" choices a cleric character gets is at 1st level when his domains are chosen. If playing a a cleric of a specific deity then he can choose 2 from 4 or 5 choices and that is all. The only thing that a cleric character gains when progressing in levels is more spells and a greater number of spells. He doesn't even get to choose the spells he gains - he automatically knows all of the ones on his list (including his domain spells). This is not an argument over whether or not the cleric is the most powerful class only an issue on level gained abilities.

All of the other classes (except for sorcerer) gain something special as they progress in levels. Sorcerers do get to choose what spells they know and can replace some learned ones with other ones (a 3.5 change to the class).

When they did 3.5 they rewrote the ranger to balance it out over the 20-level progression and not give him everything at 1st level. Nothing, however was done with the cleric. In fact it was the one class that had absoutley nothing changed. This comes into play when introducing prestigue classes. What does a cleric give up by changing? If it is a prestige class with a spellcaster level increase (i.e., +1 to existing spellcaster level) then it is not really all that much since the benefit of turning undead drops off after gaining 5th level or so which is the one thing he loses. A wizard on the other hand gives up his bonus feats, which can be a real penalty.

 

[Psiblade]

I am not as sure about the turning dropping off after level 5. A recent LG encounter was with 7 spectres, 3 dread wraiths, 3 greater shadows, and 2 morags. I was very, very happy to a heavy duty turning cleric along for the ride. Clerics can very from primary healers / turners to destruction/ strength engines of destruction. I have even adventured with a few archer clerics in various campaigns. I have seen a large variation in clerics as compared to paladins / barbarians.

-Psiblade

 

[Driddle]

To be honest, Driddle, this thread has been negative from the first post - it's all about negativity: "I don't like this" and "that is boring" and "we should get rid of this other thing". When you put out an attitude like that, people who like what you're talking about tend to feel offended, like you're putting them down.

???
And that would justify responding in an equally negative manner, just because they imagined an attack of sacred they liked?

I don't buy it.

People often say "I don't like this or that" for no better reason than to complain, and we don't dogpile on them unless we're feeling particularly vicious ourselves that day. Let's not blame the grumbler; it's far better to walk away in silence than to contribute to negative undertow.

Another part of the problem is that there was no guidance in your original post, nothing to say what you were looking for. Did you want a solution? Suggestions on how to make them more flexible? Gary Gygax to post and say you're right? If you provide a direction for the thread, it'll go more smoothly.

And yet the responses came anyway from angry people telling me I was wrong wrong wrong. No guidance offered either, eh?

I said what I meant and I meant what I said, and a few people here were able to put aside defensive emotional assumptions to respond without undue venom. If even a couple of people were able to NOT respond with anger, then perhaps the alleged negativity is someone else's problem from the git-go.

 

[Driddle]

I am definitely one that believes that the paladin and barbarian should be more flexible. The current set of rules almost lock you into a particular fighting path and ethos for these classes. ...

(Vindication, thy name in Psiblade!)
Nicely put. Eloquent, even.

Nyah-nyah-nyah to the rest of you!

 

[Driddle]

Clerics can vary from primary healers / turners to destruction/ strength engines of destruction. I have even adventured with a few archer clerics in various campaigns. I have seen a large variation in clerics as compared to paladins / barbarians.

Yeah, but I can appreciate irdeggman's point: You get to pick your domains and you get to pick your spells from day to day - that's it. Everything else is a given. (And let's face it, most adventuring parties are going to expect the cleric to heal heal heal anyway, so is it really that flexible?)

Still, though, those two domains are a bit more of a choice than the paladin's mount.

 

[drnuncheon]

People often say "I don't like this or that" for no better reason than to complain, and we don't dogpile on them unless we're feeling particularly vicious ourselves that day. Let's not blame the grumbler; it's far better to walk away in silence than to contribute to negative undertow.

Given that, and the fact that you seem to be ignoring the positive contributions made to this thread - why are you still posting?

If you want to grumble, feel free - but don't get upset when others grumble back. They're only exercising the same rights you've got.

J

 

[Azazyll]

To all those who bitch about roleplaying:

We've heard you. We know how to roleplay. Acting high and mighty and pretending that you are superior gamers is getting old. Yes, I love RPGs, no I don't ever play computer RPGs, I like roleplaying, I act in character, I take hits in the stats to play cool characters yadayadayada. Allright, we all agree the game needs roleplaying. But if all you wanted to do was roleplay, go write a book with your friends. We have dice and rules in the game too. It's a combination of roleplaying and hack and slash with dice. That's why it's so fun, it combines both, and the roleplaying encourages the rules to go certain ways, and the rules encourage the roleplaying to go in certain ways, and both are more creative and enjoyable for it. No one side is inherently superior to the other. The dynamic mix is what makes the game so fun. When I pick up a new book and look at the crunch and the fluff, I like to see how they interact, what things I wouldn't have thought of, what I would change, and what COOL NEW IDEAS I get from the way they decided to represent the rules.

For instance, I hate the barbarian's fluff. As if all barbaric peoples are raging speedy damage absorption engines. I'd rather they called it the rager, allowed the lawful alignment, and put something in there about religious zealots, which the class can just as easily represent. A flagellent who mortifies his flesh, building up an immunity to pain and the ability to fly into ecstatic abandon while receiving visions of his deity.

I would never have come up with that without the rules being there. It has nothing to do with the background. I would of course tweak the rules, it doesn't fit perfectly. But the rules inspired me, the mechanics, and promoted good roleplaying.

 

[BSF]

re the nature of the medium: It saddens me that lacking any other visual cues, the default interpretation should be so negative. I thought EN World was supposed to be a pretty nice place. Benefit of the doubt and all that rot. It would be a dark day indeed if this board becomes like the rest of the Internet -- shoot first and clarify later.

I must retire now and dwell on this. I think a prayer is in order...

((And I'll bet a shiny new dime that *someone* is going to slam me for what they think is sarcasm by way of my prayer comment.))

My default interpretation is not negative. Actually, I often enjoy reading your posts. However, there is something about your posts in this thread that grates on me in a manner that is, apparently, contrary to what you intend. I'm not sure what it is, nor am I going to spend too much time looking for it. If you say that you are not trying to be inflamatory, I will keep that in mind. Back on topic ...

Classes are inherently limited. You are pointing out that there are not many options available to make Paladins, Barbarians and Monks different from each other. I understand some of what you are saying, but I am not entirely sure I agree that we need a "Fix" from WotC. One of the strengths of the D20 license, and the OGL, is that third party publishers can provide this flexibility.

If you want to argue that the classes are too limited, I can accept that. But, only as a blanket statement. As an example, take a Rogue. If you want a character that has oodles of social skills, a Rogue is one of the best builds. But, what if I want somebody with oodles of social skills, without any magic, without trapfinding, and without sneak attack? What options do I have? Just ignore the trapfinding and the sneak attack and use Rogue? Well, that would work. It's not quite what I am looking for, but it would be closer than the Bard because I get more skills and I don't have magic. Should WotC create a list of alternate abilities for the Rogue so I can get what I want?

What if I want to have a fighter type that is quick and dextrous? Sounds kind of like a swashbuckler. Complete Warrior has one, that sorta works, but it isn't Core. Should WotC also break it down so I can purchase different saves and scrap Armor proficiencies for a static AC bonus?

Neither of these scenarios is theoretical. I have had players that were looking for these types of builds. Fortunately, there are thrid party options out there that I can refer to. Or, I can do the work myself. Or, I can go back to a pure point-buy system like HERO. (Or, I can wait for the Sigil to finish Buy the Numbers.) I like the class system because it is relatively easy for a newcomer to understand. There is still a lot of room for customization in each character. There is now room for expansion on those concepts with add-on books, either from WotC or from somebody else.

Sure, giving a few more options on whether you want a Paladin's Mount, or if you want to have some other ability, might be nice. But, I am not convinced that I want to see it as part of the Core rules. Not because I am against it, but because those options increase the size of the books and make it more expensive and more difficult for a beginner to understand.

 

[Driddle]

you seem to be ignoring the positive contributions made to this thread ...

You didn't read my message closely enough then. It's right above us: "I said what I meant and I meant what I said, and a few people here were able to put aside defensive emotional assumptions to respond without undue venom."

I acknowledged positive contributions. Heck, I praised those people!

Did I offend you in a previous life or something? Please ... Let's go back to how barbarians, paladins and monks lack flexibility compared with other classes.

 

[Wormwood]

I honestly hope 4e incorporates a "Generic Classes" model (frex: a better balanced version of the one presented in Unearthed Arcana).

Two or three bases classes as a framework, and an a la carte menu of class abilities*

That way I could customize *my* Paladin, Barbarian or Ranger without having to perform DM rules surgery.

*For the ecologically minded, this is the part where you would recycle that 'kewl powerz' joke. Better be quick, it's starting to reek.