Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[Belen]

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.

Uh...dude...the swashbuckler has good Fort, bad Ref and Will. They get some minor bonus to Reflex saves, but they are not that great. It is a decent class, but I almost think a Fighter/ Rogue or Ranger/ Rogue multi would make a far better swashbuckler.

 

[Driddle]

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

And that wouldn't be necessary if they had more in-class options to begin with.

[edited: reword to avoid 'balance' because it implies something I don't intend here.]

 

[mmadsen]

Uh...dude...the swashbuckler has good Fort, bad Ref and Will.

I know. It should have good Ref, bad Fort and Will. I was listing the (mechanical) reasons for a Swashbuckler class, not explaining what they actually did (which did not impress me):

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.

 

[mmadsen]

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

I think his real goal -- well, besides getting people riled up -- is to argue that the core classes should be more flexible, not to get help making them more flexible. It's a theoretical argument, not a pragmatic one.

 

[Crothian]

And that wouldn't be necessary if they were better balanced for options to begin with.

Balanced foir options? What does that mean? None of the classes are balanced for optioned against each other. Look at the poor cleric. They get to choose two domains and that's it. The Ranger though gets to choose a fighting style and favored enimeis. So, therefore the Ranger is better then the cleric.

 

[Jeb McDonald]

I really enjoy playing the paladin class. If the campaign will be an outdoor-sy one, I can use feats for mounted combat. Divine feats for fighting undead. Power attack/cleave for use against the hordes of orcs and goblins.
In particular, I enjoy playing the paladin for the honor of it. There is something quite satisfying about being able to protect the party as it retreats or performing the heroic deed to save the citizen in distress. As you can imagine, my paladin PCs often lead short, but glorious, lives. I enjoy playing them, however.

 

[Driddle]

I think his real goal ... is to argue that the core classes should be more flexible, not to get help making them more flexible. It's a theoretical argument, not a pragmatic one.

Jeeeeenius No. 2!

 

[mmadsen]

Jeeeeenius No. 2!

If your goal is not to appear condescending and rude, I suggest you rethink your rhetorical style.

 

[Crothian]

Jeeeeenius No. 2!

So, you are only looking for people to agree with you and not for solutions? And why are options so important?

 

[Driddle]

If your goal is not to appear condescending and rude, I suggest you rethink your rhetorical style.

Huh? How could that compliment be interpreted as rude?!
You CORRECTLY interpreted my goal. I was giving you kudos for seeing through the nonsense in this thread and coming up with the Point of it all. You, sir, are a jeeeenius in the same manner that Carrion was before you. (Thus, the "No. 2" suffix.)

There's no reason to infer otherwise unless you're already expecting hidden meaning.

Calm down, people! - all of you! You're looking for emotional pettiness where there should be none. Sheesh.