Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[mmadsen]

You didn't read my message closely enough then.

If people keep misreading your message, rethink your rhetoric.

 

[mmadsen]

I honestly hope 4e incorporates a "Generic Classes" model (frex: a better balanced version of the one presented in Unearthed Arcana): Two or three bases classes as a framework, and an a la carte menu of class abilities.

In this case, I think we can "have our cake and eat it too" -- by having generic classes (e.g., Warrior) and very specific subclasses (e.g. Cavalier). The generic class could list class skills and class feats, and the subclass would list exactly which ones match that character concept.

 

[BSF]

For instance, I hate the barbarian's fluff. As if all barbaric peoples are raging speedy damage absorption engines. I'd rather they called it the rager, allowed the lawful alignment, and put something in there about religious zealots, which the class can just as easily represent. A flagellent who mortifies his flesh, building up an immunity to pain and the ability to fly into ecstatic abandon while receiving visions of his deity.

I would never have come up with that without the rules being there. It has nothing to do with the background. I would of course tweak the rules, it doesn't fit perfectly. But the rules inspired me, the mechanics, and promoted good roleplaying.

I would love to see you play something like that in my current campaign! Sounds like a cool character concept and it would work pretty easily with some of my house rules. But yeah, I can see where some additional changes would need to be made. I would groove all over that. Maybe the trap sense would be better replaced with something else.

But, is it advisable for WotC to try to toolkit each class to accomodate every possible character combo? I'm not entirely sure. How complicated would each class become? How large would the classes section of the book become? Would it be worth it? Maybe, but maybe not.

 

[Ranger REG]

I would like to see more mechanical and ethical options to increase diversity in the types of paladins availible.

Have you considered the Paladin Variant classes (using the Shared Game Rules) found in Dragon #310? (Evil Variant classes using the Paladin's Shared Game rules like the Anti-Paladin can be found in Dragon #312.

 

[Wormwood]

In this case, I think we can "have our cake and eat it too" -- by having generic classes (e.g., Warrior) and very specific subclasses (e.g. Cavalier). The generic class could list class skills and class feats, and the subclass would list exactly which ones match that character concept.

Exactly.

Sorta like the 'recipes' we used to get back when 3e first came out.

 

[nopantsyet]

Driddle-

While I can see your point, for me those classes are options in and of themselves. From a RP perspective, I see the monk and paladin as so focused and lawful that they don't necessarily look for other options. And the barbarian as too chaotic to discipline himself to learn much else. But that's a flavor explanation for a mechanic, which probably isn't a satisfying response to you.

On the other hand, there's nothing to say you cannot make a "Paladin" whose actual class is a fighter or a ranger, maybe with a level or three of cleric thrown in. As I interpret the way the mechanics are balanced, power and options are inversely proportional. The sorcerer knows fewer spells that a wizard, but can cast more flexibly, etc. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. And these three classes do have some pretty powerful class abilities; so I believe few options is there precisely for balance.

Following this idea to its logical conclusion, would you be satisfied to see a Paladin (or monk or barbarian) class with more options, but fewer or less-powerful class abilities? Or are you looking for the versatility of a fighter with the class abilities of a Paladin? If the latter, perhaps Gestalt is the answer for you?

I do like the generic class mechanism as well. Definitely breaks the D&D archetypes, but I don't have a problem with that.

 

[mmadsen]

But, is it advisable for WotC to try to toolkit each class to accomodate every possible character combo? I'm not entirely sure. How complicated would each class become? How large would the classes section of the book become? Would it be worth it? Maybe, but maybe not.

I think the designers could simplify the game while making it more flexible by converting all classes' special abilities to feats and giving each class a bonus feat list (instead of a set-in-stone special ability progression).

 

[Nifft]

Oh.

I thought this thread was going to be all about how Paladins chose evil because they had more options for character development that way. (Blackguard, Disciple of an Arch-Fiend, etc.)

-- N

 

[BSF]

I think the designers could simplify the game while making it more flexible by converting all classes' special abilities to feats and giving each class a bonus feat list (instead of a set-in-stone special ability progression).

I'm not sure I agree with you. There are point-buy systems in which you can purchase your abilities. This would be a minor hybrid step away from that. I'm not sure it would make the game simpler for everybody. While you and I might appreciate the flexibility such a stance would allow, would it benefit the entry level players? As it is, I have a group of fairly solid players that are just barely beginning to look for more flexibility and options. I play in another group that has far more experience with the game and most of that group wouldn't even look at such a system. Heck 3.5 is a little too convoluted for some of their tastes at times.

These aren't bad gamers. They are excellent gamers with kick-butt characterization. But, they don't want to spend very much effort figuring out how to level a character. They want to focus on the game.

So, I think such systems might be better off remaining optional. Thereby keeping the entry level to the game a little more straightforward but giving an option for different types of play.

 

[milotha]

Humm, I tend to agree with what what have determined was the original thesis of Driddle's post. That is that certain of the classes have too narrow of a focus/progression. I've felt this way about the Paladin, Druid, Monk, Barbarian, and even Cleric. This isn't to say that these are badly designed classes, I've just felt that they lacked some flexibility in their overall concept and roleplaying/rollplaying potential. I realize that the idea is that you give up some flexibility for unique/special abilites, but do these classes really need such a narrow definition. Would allowing some diversity "unbalance" them so greatly?

Consider which are the core classes in D&D that are most commonly seen in campaigns. I've seen more Fighters, Wizards, Clerics and Rogues than Barabrians, Monks, and Druids. Yes, this is the way the game was designed, but I also think that some of the flexibility issues are at play here.

Consider the Barbarian. Must all barbarians have anger management issues and be speedy. When I think of a Barbarian, I think of a Fighter whose main ability is his Constitution and not his Strength. Given the extra hit points, rage bumps, etc, I do not think this is too unreasonable an intrepretation, but I'm certain some will disagree.

Consider the Paladin: Must they all be holy fighters devoted to some diety? Could they not be devoted to some cause. Maybe they should be Fighters with minor divine spell casting abilites, and differentiate them from there.

Consider the Monk. Must all monks be Asian influenced unarmed combat specialists seeking perfection of body through mind. Not that this is a bad concept, but I've noticed on the boards that many people consider the monk class a poor fit into their campaign. Could we not come up with a more general concept for the monk class. Perhaps we should just define monks as unarmed combat specialists and go from there. Or perhaps we should define them as combat specialists that combine wisdom with their fighting style.

It seems that if we had a core understanding of the base mechanic of these classes, then it would be easier to design out alternate feats that different versions of these classes would get at each level. I think that since these classes don't have a base definition that revolves around a base attribute, then they end up being versions of the core classes with narrowed paths and some more goodies.

Aside Rant

It's has stuck me that some of the core classes just seem to be subclasses of Fighter or Cleric. Too me, I've always viewed that the class design should have been based around core attributes. For example, the design could have gone and almost did go something like this. We have the Wizard, their primary attribute is their Int and they cast arcane spells. We base their spellcasting around this and their skills. Next, we have the Sorcerer, their primary attribute is Charisma and they cast arcane spells. Fighters are mainly Stength based. Clerics are wisdom based and cast divine spells. Rogues are mainly Dex based with lots of skills. Barbarians are say Con based.

Now what is a Paladin? Perhaps they are a fighter with minor divine spell casting ability. Perhaps we build in that they champion a cause- whether it be a diety or an idea. They can get more specific feat chains that a fighter, but still have the opportunity to diversify. Perhaps we make the Monk a Wisdom based fighter.... Maybe we should have a Fighter with minor arcane casting abilites, kinda like old 1st ed Rangers. You can go one from there.