Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[Driddle]

Actually, the header should have mentioned the barbarian and monk classes, too.

When it comes to designing a character, players are all about the choices. Options they get to pick as the character grows. Stuff to make the PC unique or special compared with other PCs.

At the top of the list are fighters, rogues and committed spellcasters (wizards, clerics). With fighters, you get to refine the character concept via feats and weapons picks. Rogues get the skills, obviously. And even though mages and holy spellcasters have access to - potentially - the same spells as the next guy, the PC concept can be refined by specializing toward certain spell packages.

Bards are almost as flexible when it comes to character-defining options, and rangers at least have two weapon specializations to pick from as well as their favored enemy focus. Animal companions and familiars are also ways to dress up certain classes so that the player can choose stuff.

But the paladin? Boring! The only major picks you get are which weapon he prefers and what color his mount is. Everything else is mapped out in his level progressions.

Ditto with monks -- "Gee, do I want to use my fist this time or a stick?" The exotic martial weapons just aren't much of a smorgasbord.

And then the lowly barbarian. Sheesh. He's left with not much more than how often he wants to rage in any particular setting.

The biggest choice to make when it comes to paladins, monks and barbarians is whether you want to play a paladin, monk or barbarian. After that, you got nothing.

I say drop 'em entirely from 4th edition, or make the classes more open-ended and option-friendly.

 

[Belen]

Each of those classes can differentiate via skills and feats taken. Just because they are more restrictive than other classes does not make them less fun to play.

In fact, those classes have flavor. You play them for RP reasons, not because you can have some KEWL! combo. Some of the greatest characters in my campaigns have used those classes to great effect.

If you're all about the crunch, then sure, you will not understand the value that those classes bring to the game.

The again, why play DnD if you just want crunch and "options." Computer games will give you that.

 

[billd91]

<snip>

But the paladin? Boring! The only major picks you get are which weapon he prefers and what color his mount is. Everything else is mapped out in his level progressions.

Ditto with monks -- "Gee, do I want to use my fist this time or a stick?" The exotic martial weapons just aren't much of a smorgasbord.

And then the lowly barbarian. Sheesh. He's left with not much more than how often he wants to rage in any particular setting.

The biggest choice to make when it comes to paladins, monks and barbarians is whether you want to play a paladin, monk or barbarian. After that, you got nothing.

I say drop 'em entirely from 4th edition, or make the classes more open-ended and option-friendly.

Actually, that's all about the options too. The Player's option to trade off broader development choices vs having some pretty sweet class benefits, particularly with the paladin. And I think you're missing out on a lot of the choices inherent in these classes too. Both monks and barbarians get a reasonable number of skill points and they all get feats (in fact, the monk gets plenty of choices now by picking the specific feats he gains as monk bonus feats).

 

[Umbran]

But the paladin? Boring!

To you, perhaps. But is that really a solid reason to take it away from the folks who happen to like it the way it is? The game is not only about options for which weapon you use. It's also about options for role-playing, and all three of those classes are rich in that respect.

Think about other gamers, too, not just your own personal tastes, please.

 

[Driddle]

... all three of those classes are rich in that respect.

And those would be what?

 

[Crothian]

Options are not what the game is about, at least not to me and the way we game. The game is about a lot of things and most of them have to do with character definitions and playing them. I've seen people with characters the looked identical on paper, yet were as different as night and day.

I guess it is about options, the options to play the character how one wants. If a class is restrictive to you then perhaps you just are not seeing the options it truely presents.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I disagree. I think the three classes you mentioned make perfectly good classes. The problem is that you are breaking it down into a game mechanics standpoint. Honestly, mechanics don't figure into my choice when I decide what I am going to play in a game. Character concept is the greatest OPTION in any game no matter what class you choose to play. Mechanics wise I believe the Paladin is superior to most and I'll point out why.

1) Immunity to Fear: If you haven't come to value this little ability then your DM has been going easy on you. Warrior classes have the weakest WILL save progression in the game. A nice little Fear spell cast on a Fighter will nicely deprive a party of their tank more often than not.

2) Immunity to Disease: As above. If you haven't had to deal with disease then your DM is going easy on you. Yellow Mold and Mummy Rot... these are things that can make any other class cringe with fear. Not a Paladin.

3) Detect Evil at Will:This ability has saved my character numerous times in the past. When looking into a darkened alley my Paladin could detect if and how many thieves were waiting for him. It doesn't rely on vision.

4) Lay on Hands: Even a single point of healing will stabilize a dying party member. Combine that as a touch attack with Smite Evil against a Vampire or Lich and you've got someone who can put some major hurtin' on a big bad undead guy.

5) Spell Resistance: Get that Paladin a Holy Sword and you've got someone who will be walking through spells left and right. Not that they were ever a problem because a Paladin also has a...

6) Charisma Save Bonus: Provided that you have a decent CHA you get a bonus to ALL saves. I shouldn't have to go into how great this is.

Yes... the class doesn't offer much in the way of options. Every Paladin has the same abilites as any other Paladin. But then again that is what PrCs are for. If you don't want to progress as a Paladin then pick a PrC.

In the end, playing a Paladin IS your greatest option. If you want all of those abilities in one nice little package then the Paladin is for you. If not, then exercise your option NOT to play a Paladin.

 

[Driddle]

"Hey, Bob, I see that your barbarian is going to hit 8th level. So's mine!"
"Cool. Whatcha gonna do for this level?"
"Oh, I don't know. I guess I'll buy off my illiteracy or something."
"Shoot! I wanted to do that..."

 

[Crothian]

"Hey, Bob, I see that your barbarian is going to hit 8th level. So's mine!"
"Cool. Whatcha gonna do for this level?"
"Oh, I don't know. I guess I'll buy off my illiteracy or something."
"Shoot! I wanted to do that..."

So, they both do it. Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

"Hey, Bob, I see that your barbarian is going to hit 8th level. So's mine!"
"Cool. Whatcha gonna do for this level?"
"Oh, I don't know. I guess I'll buy off my illiteracy or something."
"Shoot! I wanted to do that..."

8th level... that means that they've gained two more feats since they began the game. They've also gained two more attribute points... are they allocating them in the same stats? Are they both the same race? Did they take the same starting feats? Do they have the same background? A barbarian from a celtic background would certainly be different than one from a native american type of background.

Those are options. You just don't want to see them. :\