Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[hong]

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.

RIFTS GM ALERT! RIFTS GM ALERT!

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

This is a new week. Can you please think up a new cliche o' the week? ThaADVANCEnks!

 

[JoeBlank]

Come on, Driddle. This can be an intelligent debate about the fact that some classes have more options than others or it can turn into a big troll thread and get closed. If you honestly want to hear other viewpoints and opinions, listen a little and point out when someone says something with which you disagree.

The fact is that in the latest version of the game all characters have more options, via feats, skill points and ability score increases, than in previous versions. Some classes offer more in the way of options, but all allow for some degree of customization.

Otherwise, Calico Jack pretty much said what I was going to say.

 

[Driddle]

Come on, Driddle. This can be an intelligent debate about the fact that some classes have more options than others ...

Well? That's about it, isn't it?

Sure, the core character progression provides a feat and attribute bonus every so often - that's flexible. Yay.
And, yes, you can *choose* to play a barbarian, monk or paladin while the rest of the group is playing other classes - that's an option of sorts.

But by comparison to others, those classes by themselves don't offer ENOUGH. And I find that to be unbalanced. They should be improved for the next edition, in the same way the ranger was improved for v3.5.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

To me, Background and Concept have always been the greatest of options because they are limited only by what you come up with and what the DM will approve for his/her setting. Even when I played 1E and 2E when classes had NO mechanics options I still played characters of the same class that didn't remotely resemble each other. The mark of a true role-player is someone that can take a class with no mechanical options and still make it their own.

 

[Belen]

RIFTS GM ALERT! RIFTS GM ALERT!


This is a new week. Can you please think up a new cliche o' the week? ThaADVANCEnks!

Hong: You have used the hong stick on yourself too often. Obviously, these are two different weeks.

Just remember it's like getting rid of a band aid, a little local novacaine, a quick pull, and the crankiness will go away.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

But by comparison to others, those classes by themselves don't offer ENOUGH. And I find that to be unbalanced. They should be improved for the next edition, in the same way the ranger was improved for v3.5.

Yep... they added a WHOLE other fighting style. Now instead of every Ranger being a Drizzt knock off you can also play a Legolas knock off.

Do you by any chance classify yourself as a Hack-and-Slash type of player? It seems your definition of having options is the ability to maximize combat effectiveness. This is not a personal attack, just an observation on your remarks. Bonus feats and abilities chosen from a list don't equal more options to me but that is only my opinion.

As a suggestion if you want more options you might consider going back to playing 2E using the Skills & Powers book. Each class gave you character points to buy your class abilities with. You could buy increased hit dice and alternate abilities with the system and skip out on the "By the Book" abilities.

 

[Belen]

Well? That's about it, isn't it?

Sure, the core character progression provides a feat and attribute bonus every so often - that's flexible. Yay.
And, yes, you can *choose* to play a barbarian, monk or paladin while the rest of the group is playing other classes - that's an option of sorts.

But by comparison to others, those classes by themselves don't offer ENOUGH. And I find that to be unbalanced. They should be improved for the next edition, in the same way the ranger was improved for v3.5.

They offer a messload of playabilty and options. It sounds like you want to be able to cheese the rules in order to make the classes uber-KEWL powerful.

The entire point of playing them is they offer different flavor. If you want a general fighting class, then that is the FIGHTER. The entire point of the fighter is generalist warrior.

 

[Driddle]

Do you by any chance classify yourself as a Hack-and-Slash type of player? It seems your definition of having options is the ability to maximize combat effectiveness. This is not a personal attack, just an observation on your remarks. Bonus feats and abilities chosen from a list don't equal more options to me but that is only my opinion.

Actually, I'm puzzled by your assumption. Nowhere in my previous posts have I said anything about combat maximization. Choices of feats, skills, spells ... Nope. Nothing about being a better combat monster.

You realize, I hope, that there are a lot of things that a character can do with his feats/skills/spells than just kill monsters?

 

[Crothian]

But by comparison to others, those classes by themselves don't offer ENOUGH. And I find that to be unbalanced. They should be improved for the next edition, in the same way the ranger was improved for v3.5.

First off options and balance are not related. The existance of one has no bearing on the other. Now, if through the options of the other classes one could make a better Paladin, Barbarian, or Monk you would have an arguement.

If you want options for theses classes I suggest you pick up a book. There have been some great books written for these classes though it does seem the Monk has better options presented for it. Quint Monk and Beyond Monks are two great books. But the Paladin and Barbarian both do have some solid books aimed at them like the Path of series from FFG. The options are there for people who want them.

 

[mmadsen]

Come on, Driddle. This can be an intelligent debate about the fact that some classes have more options than others or it can turn into a big troll thread and get closed. If you honestly want to hear other viewpoints and opinions, listen a little and point out when someone says something with which you disagree.

I agree completely with JoeBlank that Driddle is being needlessly abrasive -- which has obfuscated his legitimate point that the Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk would be better classes (from a design point of view) if they were more flexible.