Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[Liolel]

Paladin diversfication

Theirs options for making a paladin, different from other paladins that can be found as an optional rule in the dmg. This option let a paladin choose what mount they gain from a wider variaty. Thats not the only place to look for options though.

There are 7 core races, not all of which are optimal for a paladin but all of which can make the experince of a somewhat paladin different from the racial attributes to the backround of these races different cultures (Which can change from world to world offering even more divesity).

Like others said the 7 feats (8 if your a human) you get over the 20 levels can really diversify your paladin. The only reason that they wouldn't is if all you care about is making the most effective character and then its your own choice not to make an intresting paladins.

Roleplaying is the real key to an intresting paladin, does your paladin see that the greater good comes from killing evil, or helping the needy. Whatever god your paladin follows if he follows one at all is another huge divesfication point. The paladin would probally try to follow their god's dogma which can vary vastly even among only LG, NG, and LN dietys.

I play a paladin and I fail to see a lack of options or find the class borining from such a lack you are implying.

 

[Mercule]

The problem with the Paladin is that it is a fairly narrow archetype. Really, it's a magnification of the "knight in shining armor" schtick. I'd love to see Paladin turned into a 10 level PrC (the 15 level PrCs in UA only served to convince me that PrCs should never be more than 10 levels).

The problem with the Barbarian is that in encroached on the Ranger's schtick (wilderness fighter). I'm not entirely sure why the Barbarian even exists, other than someone decided a bit of pandering to 1E UA fanboys might sell a few books. They could have upped the hit die on the 3E Ranger, gotten rid of the absurd TWF inherency, and made a few other tweaks to add a bit more continuity to the Ranger through the editions. That would have negated any place for the Barbarian and they wouldn't have had to shoe-horn the Ranger into a wilderninja. A raging "Berserker" could have been easily added as a core PrC.

The Monk fills a role that no other class fills. Of course, a pseudo-asthetic, rididly disciplined, master of unarmed combat doesn't have a place in every setting. For those that it works in, it's fun, though.

Edit: That said, though, I don't see that any of these classes restrict you mechanically any more than the others. Really, the only reason I can think for ditching the classes is for RP reasons.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Honestly... D&D or any class based game system isn't the best for creating options for your character. The fact that your character is nailed down into a CLASS deprives a player of options from the get go. The primary game that comes to my mind as far as providing the maximum options is GURPS. They've got books upon books with advantages, disadvantages, and quirks for you to customize the hell out of your character.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

If you want options for the Monk or Barbarian, pick up Unearthed Arcana. There are a good number of options for both classes that would allow you to have a whole slew of possible ways to go.

I concur with those who point out that if you're not into the options that certain classes provide, don't take those classes. You could be a pretty good unarmed fighter by taking just fighter levels, or a pretty good Lawful Good Fighter just by choosing that alignment and taking feats that support it (maybe taking a level of cleric to access certain feats).

Also, unique characters come from the story behind the character as much as from the abilities. Never forget that.

 

[billd91]

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.

I didn't think of his posts as being abrasive so much as sounding like he was deliberately being dense given some of the posts already in the thread that had answered his point.

But the point I'm making about all of this is that there are different levels of options in play. You can take a class that has more flexibility in the long run or a class that has more tailored powers. That's an option that the player makes based on what he wants to play and in no way implies that the classes are deficient or unbalanced. They are different in how they present choices to the player. That's all.

But BelenUmeria has a very good point about approaching your character. You can play someone from a barbarian culture without being a barbarian class. You can also play a barbarian class without being from a barbarian culture. Basically, think up the character concept you want to play and then figure out what crunchy bits get you there. I wanted to play a dwarven berserker, but one from the standard dwarven culture and that means they aren't particularly barbaric. So I took the barbarian class and bought literacy. He's not technically a barbarian in the sense that he's from a barbarian-style culture, but that's what his class is.
Had I wanted to play a barbarian with a lot of choices about how I wanted to develop a style of fighting, I'd have made a fighter.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

If all Wizards take the same spells, then they're obviously not being offered meaningful choices to make -- a few key spells are the "right" ones to take. As a mechanic though, choosing a handful of spells (or feats, or skills) from a long list is a great way to customize characters -- as long as the choice is meaningful, and a few choices aren't clearly superior to the rest.

(That's why game balance is so important -- at least to the gaming portion of a roleplaying game. Without it, there's one "right answer" and no interesting choice to make.)

 

[Calico_Jack73]

The problem with the Barbarian is that in encroached on the Ranger's schtick (wilderness fighter). I'm not entirely sure why the Barbarian even exists, other than someone decided a bit of pandering to 1E UA fanboys might sell a few books.

If they were pandering to us 1E UA fanboys then they'd have given the Ranger 2d8 HP for first level and given them a mix of Wizard and Druid spells.

I totally agree with your comment about the Paladin. For the "Knight in Shining Armor" they should also have made the Cavalier a core class like they did in 1E. The Cavalier, not the Paladin, was supposed to represent the knightly ideal. My view of the Paladin is a warrior chosen by a higher power. He need not necessarily be born of high birth. Heck, he could have been the child of some poor woodsman living out in the wilds. Then again I've been told many times that my view is wrong but I'll stick to it until the end. My players also seem to like the flexibility that my view gives them.

 

[Belen]

(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.

Whereas I see the standard feats and skills allowing those specific classes to diversify. A barb can take the sunder feat chain etc. They can also have a variety of skills.

You have to think about it in this way. What are those special abilities worth? If you turn DR into a feat, then more classes with get it and the ability will not be as special. Also, DR is better than a lot of feats. Turning those special abilities into feat chains are more restrictive because then the classes would have to take a set number of feats etc in order to gain those abilities rather than getting them as class progression.

If that is the case, then everyone would play a fighter in order to get those abilities with all the extra feats.

Those classes gain those special abilities as a freebie for taking those levels. They sacrifice some customization to get non-standard abilities. Why? Because a fighter cannot recreate them, thus they are unique from standard warriors.

Finally, they can still customize with normal feats granted at certain levels in order to make Paladin A differ from B.

However, a LG fighter will never be a Paly and nor should they.

 

[BSF]

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.
<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.
<snip>
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.

Huh, that's the best you can come up with for characterization? It's funny, I have one PC that was a Paladin and was one of the more interesting characters I ever saw in a game. Actually, the last campaign I ran had 7 players. We had quite a degree of classes, including a monk, barbarian and paladin. Those three were much more memorable and interesting than the ranger/rogue and the bard. Go figure.

If you want an interesting character in my games, you would do well to focus on the character first. You know, things like personality, goals, the driving motivations of the character. No matter how much crunch you have, your character will be boring without these things. I have a player that has played two different clerics, of two completely different gods. I try to encourage this player to RolePlay the character, but I still can't tell the difference between the last cleric he played and the current cleric he is playing. Heck, I made it all about options in his case. I asked him to design a new god for his needs and a whole religion to suit him - still can't tell the difference. It's a pity because I sometimes forget that his character even exists.

A piece of paper with a bunch of words and numbers is not a character. It's a piece of paper. No matter how many choices you have, or how few, there will be no life in your character if you don't put in personality and motivation. Crunch might allow you to make some interesting mechanics based on that characterization, but it does not replace characterization.

 

[Carrion]

advocate

I think I understand where this subject originally was heading before it became a cheese vs. rp event:

Paladins, Barbarians, monks and (why not?) rogues should have flexable 'class features' instead of static ones.

One of the option books did something like this with the barbarian by adding totems (UA i think...)

For example: Paladins of a Sun Deity could cast Daylight or Searing Light 1/week instead of Remove Disease.

Rogues could choose a fighter feat instead of the extra +1d6 of sneak attack.

Barbarians, well, the barbarian doesnt have alot to really work with without changing their dynamic too much, but the totems are pretty customizable.

Its pretty easy for a DM to make a list of swappable class-features for each class to reflect the flavor of the campaign.

For example: I run a Egyptian setting campaign, Fighters dont wear heavy armor(No heavy armor class feature) in this setting so i made up a feat called Chosen Weapon that can only be gained by a fighter at 1st level. Chosen Weapon works just like Weapon Focus except that it also works as Weapon Specialization upon gaining 4th level.

I hope this is what the subject was about, if not then im confused. :\