Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[Treebore]

You know w.... hmmm.... never mind.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

That's what a class is -- a game mechanic.

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.

I don't think Driddle is attacking the character concept of the Paladin class, the Barbarian class, or the Monk class; he's purely attacking the inflexible design of the Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk classes. (He's also not attacking the choice to take Paladin, Barbarian, or Monk as your character's class.)

Mechanics wise I believe the Paladin is superior to most and I'll point out why.

I think your list of Paladin powers is missing the point. This isn't an argument about whether a Paladin or a Fighter is a better adventurer or a more interesting character; it's a debate over how Paladins should be implemented within the game rules.

For instance, why can't the Paladin's special abilities be implemented as feats? Then the Paladin could have a bonus feat list, like the Fighter's, but with Paladin-specific feats, e.g.:

1) Immunity to Fear
2) Immunity to Disease
3) Detect Evil at Will
4) Lay on Hands
5) Spell Resistance
6) Charisma Save Bonus

 

[Calico_Jack73]

That's what a class is -- a game mechanic.

I don't think Driddle is attacking the character concept of the Paladin class, the Barbarian class, or the Monk class; he's purely attacking the inflexible design of the Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk classes. (He's also not attacking the choice to take Paladin, Barbarian, or Monk as your character's class.)

Geez mmadsen... that was my very first post. The discussion has kind of evolved since then.

 

[BSF]

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.

I know players that would disagree with you on the basis that they haven't been able to explore all the options that they see with these classes. But, of course there are people that also feel these classes are too "constricting". That's cool. Tell you what. Go get "Beyond Monks" for your monk expansion. Personally, I love the book. I like the Martial Artist because there is an appeal to playing an unarmed combatant that doesn't have a lot of the mystical features of a Monk. Also, it has some cool flavor. Hmm, I would suggest Call of Duty for a Paladin because that has some wonder flavor on how you can RP a paladin, but that isn't what you are looking for. I've never seen the limitations of a Barbarian, so I can't help you there either.

 

[tzor]

In general I disagree. It's not all about options. It might be about the illusion of options, but it's really not about options. The paladin has about as many options as any other class.

Let's take multiple classes. Aside from the normal alignment restrictions (the same ones that make Barbarian/Wizards impossible) the only real restriction on the paladin is that his paladinic levels must be contigious. While other classes can go ABABAB, he must go AAABBB. I can't see how that is a serious restriction to a character's options.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

So in other words you can take 10 levels of anything followed by 10 levels of paladin, or you can take 10 levels of paladin followed by anything, as long as it still falls within the normal alignment restrictions and have a 10/10 character with all the paladinic trimmings. It may not be as perfect as a 20th level paladin, but then again one can argue that for any X/Y over a X+Y character.

Likewise there is no official way to play a paladin. While they do not get virtual feats, or extra fighter feats, they get other abilities that most fighters and rangers would die to posess. They certanly can be built in a vareity of ways, from the high cha/dex fighter that can almost be ranger like to the high cha/str fighter that is more typical of the class.

Free multiclassing doesn't give options, but the illusion of options. Unless you are going for a specific PrC (in which case you don't have any options, you have to meet the prerequisites) most of the time wild changing of classes is not always you best option. Wasn't that the principle behind most of the Mystic Thaumaturge debates when it first came out? So the notion of options is merely that of an illusion. The real reason a paladin is not for everyone is that it requires the character to be lawful and good at the same time.

 

[Belen]

That's what a class is -- a game mechanic.

I don't think Driddle is attacking the character concept of the Paladin class, the Barbarian class, or the Monk class; he's purely attacking the inflexible design of the Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk classes. (He's also not attacking the choice to take Paladin, Barbarian, or Monk as your character's class.)

I think your list of Paladin powers is missing the point. This isn't an argument about whether a Paladin or a Fighter is a better adventurer or a more interesting character; it's a debate over how Paladins should be implemented within the game rules.

For instance, why can't the Paladin's special abilities be implemented as feats? Then the Paladin could have a bonus feat list, like the Fighter's, but with Paladin-specific feats, e.g.:

1) Immunity to Fear
2) Immunity to Disease
3) Detect Evil at Will
4) Lay on Hands
5) Spell Resistance
6) Charisma Save Bonus

But they already receive all those abilities. Therefore, to be fair, you'd need to add at least 6 more options to choose from or you nerf the class. Also, those abilities are worth more than feats!

And what you're all ignoring is that those classes can still multi-class in order to get different abilities.

It's not supposed to be easy. There are hundreds of ways to differentiate classes in 3.5 without messing with the special abilities.

You just cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[mmadsen]

For the "Knight in Shining Armor" they should also have made the Cavalier a core class like they did in 1E.

But we don't need another core class to represent the Cavalier; a Fighter who takes all mounted-combat feats is a cavalier.

 

[The Sigil]

ThaADVANCEnks!

Shouldn't that be "AdvaTHANKSnce"?

--The Sigil

 

[Calico_Jack73]

But we don't need another core class to represent the Cavalier; a Fighter who takes all mounted-combat feats is a cavalier.

Yeah but we didn't need a Swashbuckler basic class either and we got that in the Complete Warrior. The 1E Cavalier had some very potent abilities of their own in exchange for an increased cost of living due to their noble nature. Just like the Paladin, you trade in diversity for very specific abilities.

 

[mmadsen]

But they already receive all those abilities. Therefore, to be fair, you'd need to add at least 6 more options to choose from or you nerf the class.

I have no idea what you mean.

Also, those abilities are worth more than feats!

If you believe that, then naturally we'd have to either tone them down or increase their costs (in terms of prereqs, or by splitting them into multiple feats each, or whatever).

You just cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I don't see what cake "we" are trying to have and eat.