Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[wocky]

I fail to see how rogues are much more customizable. Sure, you can pick their skills, but they have so many skill points to spend (assuming a rogue with an intelligence bonus) that you end up maxing most rogue skills. Skills like search, disable device, use magic device and tumble are "must buys"... not much choice there.

I do agree in that I'd love to be able to customize all classes through feats (or a similar mechanic) as you can customize a fighter... but I think that all classes are lacking there, not just Paladins, Barbarians and Monks. (Regarding magic users, I don't think that picking spells is enough customization. A Fireball is a Fireball... a Spontaneously-cast thematized holy ice-fireball is something else.)

 

[Driddle]

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.

One tends to believe he is being reasonable when he doesn't agree with the other guy. A mob majority tends to support that perspective.

I didn't mean for this to become a discussion about the message itself, but now you've taken it in that direction. So...

My initial message was only "abrasive" in that I have a flippant manner of expressing what I see as the value of certain classes. I suggested they be improved or be allowed to die. I assaulted no one.

In my second message, I asked a question for clarification.

In my third message, I posted an imaginary discussion between two imaginary players with imaginary barbarians (who are presumably pretty much the same on paper).

I still don't see any "abrasive" problems in my other messages here, either.

Perhaps you're mistaking my position with the angry responses it elicited?

Back to topic: Yes, from a DESIGN point of view.

 

[hong]

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

I think I liked it better when you were ranting. You still made no sense at all, but at least it was funny.

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]

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?

Of course I realize it. It is just that the classes you named are all warrior classes. Their focus is on combat. You didn't mention any spellcasting classes. Let's face it, a generalist wizard is pretty much the same as any other generalist wizard. The vast majority of 1st level generalist wizards take Sleep, Magic Missile, and Mage Armor. They all fill the same niche.

For the warrior classes Feats are generally used to make them better warriors. My hat is off to you if you take non-combat feats when you play a warrior type. You mentioned that the Fighter has more options but that is only because they have all of those bonus feats. Guess what, those feats have to be selected from the Fighter's Bonus Feat list and they are ALL combat based feats.

Your arguement about those warrior classes is why I asked if you were a Hack-and-Slash player. The only thing the Fighter has over those other classes are the Fighter's Bonus COMBAT Feats.

 

[Belen]

One tends to believe he is being reasonable when he doesn't agree with the other guy. A mob majority tends to support that perspective.

I didn't mean for this to become a discussion about the message itself, but now you've taken it in that direction. So...

My initial message was only "abrasive" in that I have a flippant manner of expressing what I see as the value of certain classes. I suggested they be improved or be allowed to die. I assaulted no one.

In my second message, I asked a question for clarification.

In my third message, I posted an imaginary discussion between two imaginary players with imaginary barbarians (who are presumably pretty much the same on paper).

I still don't see any "abrasive" problems in my other messages here, either.

Perhaps you're mistaking my position with the angry responses it elicited?

Back to topic: Yes, from a DESIGN point of view.

From a design point of view, then you would play the fighter.

You play the other classes in order to game specilized abilities. If you want more customization, then you would go with a different class. No one said that you could not play your fighter as a barb, you just do not get the DR etc.

The "option" is to gain special abilities in trade for the customization that comes with feats etc.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

If you want real customization and real options look at the Generic Classes rules in Unearthed Arcana. You have the Warrior, Expert, and Spellcaster. That's it! You get an increased number of feats that you choose your class abilities from. If you want a warrior who can detect traps like a rogue, go for it. If you want a spellcaster that can cast healing spells and still sling Fireballs it can handle it too. You can't create ALL of the core classes with the system (the Monk and the Druid have abilities that aren't replicated) but it offers the absolutley most customizable characters in the game.

 

[Driddle]

It is just that the classes you named are all warrior classes. Their focus is on combat. You didn't mention any spellcasting classes. ...

Yes. Yes, I did:

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.

Perhaps you believe I intended to focus on combat because some of those options are, indeed, combat related. However, I'm looking at the bigger picture for each class, whether that involves combat or not.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I still don't see any "abrasive" problems in my other messages here, either.

Actually you've got to realize that you are pointing out several classes that ought to be dropped or revamped. Many people here think of some of those classes as their favorites (The Paladin is mine) and will be moved to defend them from your critique. I don't know if that qualifies as abrasive but I think it does qualify you for playing the devil's advocate for getting people stirred up. Whenever you negatively critique something that people feel strongly about you should expect this result. The same would happen if I went to a Star Trek forum and started dissing Captain Kirk.

 

[Driddle]

You play the other classes in order to game specilized abilities. If you want more customization, then you would go with a different class. No one said that you could not play your fighter as a barb, you just do not get the DR etc.

The "option" is to gain special abilities in trade for the customization that comes with feats etc.

(Thank you.)

Yeah, I can see that (the special abilities angle). You've got a good point - in that sense, playing one of those classes means you've made the one big choice that you don't want to get any more choices.

But it's the lack of options within the individual class track that I think could use some tweeking.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Yes. Yes, I did:

Oops...