Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[Calico_Jack73]

I have no idea what you mean.

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).

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

That would be playing a Gestalt Fighter/Paladin. All of the Paladin's abilities coupled with the extra feats from the Fighter.

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

Rogues already do (after 10th level, anyway).

Green Ronin's fantastic Book of the Righteous had a Holy Warrior class that was customizable - like clerics, they chose two 'domains', although they got paladin-like abilities from them, not spells. For example, a holy warrior of the god of magic was able to detect magic instead of evil, had protection against certain spells, etc. Two of the domains were set up so that if you chose them, you would be a standard PHB paladin.

All in all, a great idea, and one that I plan on using if a player ever wants a paladin-type.

J

 

[mmadsen]

That would be playing a Gestalt Fighter/Paladin. All of the Paladin's abilities coupled with the extra feats from the Fighter.

No one's recommending that though.

The goal is to increase the flexibility of the Paladin class, not to power it up. The existing special abilities would be replaced with a list of Paladin-specific bonus feats.

 

[Endur]

Have you heard the phrase "Role-playing vs. Roll-playing". The game is all about the role your character chooses. Game play options matter very little in the greater scheme of things.

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.

<snipped>

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.

 

[mmadsen]

Yeah but we didn't need a Swashbuckler basic class either and we got that in the Complete Warrior.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

More seriously, I can see the point in adding a Swashbuckler class because (a) a Swashbuckler should have a good Ref, not a good Fort; (b) a Swashbuckler should not automatically be proficient with heavy armor and shields; and (c) the D&D rules need some wonky workarounds to give a lightly-armored swordsman a decent armor class.

 

[Driddle]

I didn't think of his posts as being abrasive so much as sounding like he was deliberately being dense ...

That's as directly insulting as if I had said you were being deliberately dense.
However, I accept your apology in advance.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

What happened? This thread was really bouncing along and making my day go by and it came to a screeching halt. Time to bump it back to the top.

 

[mmadsen]

Have you heard the phrase "Role-playing vs. Roll-playing". The game is all about the role your character chooses. Game play options matter very little in the greater scheme of things.

Then you wouldn't mind new, flexible Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk classes. Right?

 

[Driddle]

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....

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

You, sir, are a jeeeenius.

 

[Crothian]

You, sir, are a jeeeenius.

So, are you looking for options for these classes? Because they do exist in books outside the core ones.