Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[Belen]

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.

This is what happens when you swallow the wrong pill.

 

[mmadsen]

Huh? How could that compliment be interpreted as rude?!

Calling someone a genius -- pardon, jeeeeenius -- for stating something so simple could easily be interpreted as mean-spirited sarcasm.

I withheld judgment on what you really meant, because I wasn't sure if you were trolling or if you were oblivious, but I thought someone should point out that your comments are not unambiguously respectful.

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.)

Thank you. I think.

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.

I think you should recognize the nature of the medium. We can't see your body language or hear your tone of voice.

 

[Voadam]

In early 3.0 the Diablo D&D supplement had variant core classes including a barbarian and a paladin variant. At each level they gained a power from a list of class appropriate powers that were staggered by minimum class level to choose the power. It allowed for multiple paladins of the same level to develop in different ways but still feel like they were paladins. Ditto for the barbarians and amazon classes. For example the paladin had buffing, holy aura type, and healing powers to choose from. The barbarian had melee weapon, bashing and shamanic eat the heart of your enemy powers while the amazons had missile fire, dodging and missile fire magic options.

Unfortunately the powers were poorly developed and balanced. It was a great idea but suffered in its actual execution.

Concept wise paladins and barbarians can be designed as more flexible classes and I think they would be better base classes for it.

 

[Crothian]

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

But they aren't there and unless you can get Wizards to release a 3.75 version its not going to happen. So, we are left with going outside the core books for answers.

And the core books failed in many places, not just options. I'm just curious if you have a point other then to complain about it?

 

[Driddle]

I think you should recognize the nature of the medium. We can't see your body language or hear your tone of voice.

re the nature of the medium: It saddens me that lacking any other visual cues, the default interpretation should be so negative. I thought EN World was supposed to be a pretty nice place. Benefit of the doubt and all that rot. It would be a dark day indeed if this board becomes like the rest of the Internet -- shoot first and clarify later.

I must retire now and dwell on this. I think a prayer is in order...

((And I'll bet a shiny new dime that *someone* is going to slam me for what they think is sarcasm by way of my prayer comment.))

 

[mmadsen]

But they aren't there and unless you can get Wizards to release a 3.75 version its not going to happen. So, we are left with going outside the core books for answers.

And the core books failed in many places, not just options. I'm just curious if you have a point other then to complain about it?

The question is, should those classes be more flexible? Why is a philosophical discussion "complaining"? And if the "core books failed in many place," is it somehow wrong to discuss just one of those failures (or imperfections, to use a less loaded term)?

 

[Rel]

I say drop 'em entirely from 4th edition, or make the classes more open-ended and option-friendly.

You can't do that.







Actually, I agree with you from a personal standpoint. I have lots of players who have flocked to play Paladins, Monks and Barbarians but I'd rather have seen the Paladin gain "Lesser Holy Power" (and then have a short list to choose from) at a given level rather than simply "Turn Undead" or "Immune to Disease".

 

[Crothian]

The question is, should those classes be more flexible? Why is a philosophical discussion "complaining"? And if the "core books failed in many place," is it somehow wrong to discuss just one of those failures (or imperfections, to use a less loaded term)?

I see it as complaining because there is no solution being looked for. It has not been a discussion about options, it has been a statement that never went anywhere really. If a discussion was the goial here they it was very well disguised.

 

[drnuncheon]

re the nature of the medium: It saddens me that lacking any other visual cues, the default interpretation should be so negative.

To be honest, Driddle, this thread has been negative from the first post - it's all about negativity: "I don't like this" and "that is boring" and "we should get rid of this other thing". When you put out an attitude like that, people who like what you're talking about tend to feel offended, like you're putting them down.

If your first post had instead gone something like this:

"One of the things I like about 3rd edition is the wide variety of options you have for making characters. Some of the classes, though, seem too narrow - the paladin for instance doesn't have nearly the customizability of, say, the fighter. Has anyone done anything to change this?"

...well, I'll bet you would have had a very different thread. At least you would have avoided the long roll-vs-role digression.

Another part of the problem is that there was no guidance in your original post, nothing to say what you were looking for. Did you want a solution? Suggestions on how to make them more flexible? Gary Gygax to post and say you're right? If you provide a direction for the thread, it'll go more smoothly.

 

[Psiblade]

I am definitely one that believes that the paladin and barbarian should be more flexible. The current set of rules almost lock you into a particular fighting path and ethos for these classes. In order to be effective, a paladin must remain a knight in shining armor. All paladins have the same set of spells and class abilities. I have seen the majority of paladins played exactly the same way regarding Alignment, Ethos (holier than thou), etc. If you have seen one paladin, you have seen most of them. :\ I think a well played paladin is an asset to any group. I would like to see more mechanical and ethical options to increase diversity in the types of paladins availible. I favor the religious warriors from Book of the Righteous etc. for this reason.

-Psiblade