Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[DragonLancer]

Interesting thread.

As a DM and as a player, I'm more than happy with the way the classes are presented in the D&D system. Each class has strong and weak points, and thats kind of the point - game balance. The fighter is the main combat class. He gains feats that make him better and better in a fight as he levels. He's none too good outside of that with skills and such. The barbarian and monk are also combat classes but with twists.

The barbarian represents not a "barbarian person" but more a warrior who focuses on instinct rather than trained skill as a fighter does. With its rage and some other class abilities, its not really possible to recreate with another class hence one reason for it.
The Monk is just an unarmed combatant. Its possible to create a pretty good unarmed warrior with just the fighter class. The point of the Monk is to allow that with a few extra powers.
The Paladin represents (depending how you view the class) a holy warrior or someone touched by the gods of good. To represent that, the class does not get the fighter feats but gains something different - the clerical style abilities for instance.

The core classes are balanced towards one another. One class gains feats, another gains special abilities. A third gains spells but lacks both the feats and skills of other classes. So its not a case of a class lacking options, but more a case of a class having different options.

Its late, so I hope that makes sense.

 

[drnuncheon]

Please ... Let's go back to how barbarians, paladins and monks lack flexibility compared with other classes.

Thing is, there's not much to say there. If we agree, you pat us on the head and say 'good boy'. If we disagree, you claim we're making venemous attacks. Neither one is conducive to an actual discussion.

On that note, then, I'm outta here.

J

 

[Driddle]

It's good to see so many people actually sticking to topic. [meaningful nod toward someone]

Obviously (duh!) we can't expect WotC to make a *fix* just on a whim. But it would be nice for v3.6 or v3.7 to include a few more class-specific options. When you reach Barbarian level X, for example, you can choose between ability A or B -- you're not limited to just the same rage every other barbarian at the table has. ... They made the change with the ranger. Why not others?

 

[BSF]

It's good to see so many people actually sticking to topic. [meaningful nod toward someone]

Obviously (duh!) we can't expect WotC to make a *fix* just on a whim. But it would be nice for v3.6 or v3.7 to include a few more class-specific options. When you reach Barbarian level X, for example, you can choose between ability A or B -- you're not limited to just the same rage every other barbarian at the table has. ... They made the change with the ranger. Why not others?

Well, truth be told the Ranger is an improvement in my opinion, but still a long way from what I would want to really play. Why do all Rangers have Animal Companions? Why spells? What I do appreciate about the Ranger class is that WotC has made it a little more enjoyable to play and provided a little incentive to keep taking levels. If you like all the options that the class offers, you do get to look forward to something new with almost every level. But, if the class is not exactly what you are looking for, then you are left feeling a bit disappointed at times.

Which, is what I *think* Driddle is saying about the Barbarian, Monk and Paladin. I suppose the problem for me is that I see the same issues with the Ranger and the Rogue. To a lesser degree, I can see it with many classes. But, that is one of the payoffs that I am willing to accept for a class-based system. I want the entry level to be easy enough for new players to be comfortable. To borrow from Wormwood: I want the recipes. I'm not sure a list of alternate ingredients is helpful for every single player. But, I do not mind seeing the alternate ingredients in a non-core book.

What I don't want to see is a bunch of people looking at DnD and saying "Sheesh, now this is like GURPS or HERO." Those systems have strong points. But, they also have weak points, just like D20. I want to see people enter into the hobby. As they gain confidence and excitement for the hobby, I want them to be able to look around and find new options to expand their gaming fun. Heck, I even encourage them to make it up. One of my players wanted to play a Samurai (Hi Macbeth!). He wasn't entirely keen on the Oriental Adventures version. He did like the Complete Warrior version. Well, except for the assumption that all Samurai dual wield. He didn't want to do that. As a player, he was willing to accept that some of the class abilities would go unused because it doesn't fit his character concept. However, I (as the DM) and not satisfied with that. This is a character that is multi-classing into Samurai because it fits his background and concept. He is established as using a Nagamaki. Looking over it, I proposed that (if he wants) we could treat the Nagamaki as his Daisho and we would swap out some feats at the levels where Two-Weapon fighting style feats were granted. It's not a big change. Why WotC didn't provide alternate ingredients is something I don't know. Nor is it important. Between the DM and the Player, I think we worked out an acceptable option.

 

[Nifft]

I'm gonna chime in with those who say that the Paladin, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger etc. don't need to have as many options, because they are options. They're there to allow certain archtypes which the Fighter cannot emulate. So, complain that the Fighter lacks options, since it can't do everything that is asked of it.

-- N

 

[Snoweel]

It's good to see so many people actually sticking to topic. [meaningful nod toward someone]

Obviously (duh!) we can't expect WotC to make a *fix* just on a whim. But it would be nice for v3.6 or v3.7 to include a few more class-specific options. When you reach Barbarian level X, for example, you can choose between ability A or B -- you're not limited to just the same rage every other barbarian at the table has. ... They made the change with the ranger. Why not others?

HA HA HA GILBERT!!!!11!! SAY WHERES ARNIE GILBERT SAY WHERES ARNIE !!!!

HAHAHAHAHAGILBEEEEERRRTTTT.....

 

[Big Bad Bob]

The thing about D&D is that it's a class and level based system. D&D is a system built on archetypes, and the classes by nature are somewhat restrictive. If you want a lot of options, go play a White Wolf game or something that throws classes away altogether. How many options can you give a paladin before he's no longer a paladin?

Of course, I can imagine a paladin that can't remove disease, and I can imagine a paladin that is better in combat (ie: more feats). Maybe the question is really: What about a paladin can be changed? So if you distill the paladin down to the basics, what do you have? What makes a paladin a paladin? Once you've got the essence of paladin in your hand, you can figure out what can be changed and what options can be given.

Also, I think that the reason this thread seems to be going "off topic" is that the thread title is "Why the paladin fails." And I don't think you can really call the paladin a failure. It certainly can be called "more restrictive," but not a failure, not by a long shot. Paladins are just a friggin' cool concept.

All the options vs. archetypes shpeel, of course, also applies to bards and monks as well. When is a bard not a bard?

And one last afterthought... a fighter isn't a very restricted class, maybe because the concept is a broad one. A fighter is a guy who fights. The paladin is a very narrow concept: the paragon of holiness and righteousness. The hand of his deity. Just a thought.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Thing is, there's not much to say there. If we agree, you pat us on the head and say 'good boy'. If we disagree, you claim we're making venemous attacks. Neither one is conducive to an actual discussion.

Did I offend you in a previous life or something? Please ... Let's go back to how barbarians, paladins and monks lack flexibility compared with other classes.

Drnuncheon, gotta agree with you. As seen from Driddle's statement which I quoted here he expects people to agree with his view on Paladins, Barbarians, and Monks almost as if he is looking for someone to support his own view and justify it so he won't feel like he is the only one with that particular view. When someone presents a counter view he's been dismissing it without consideration because it runs counter to what he wants to believe about those classes.

 

[Snoweel]

And can I add that whatever variant take on the paladin one can think of can probably be accomplished with a single-classed cleric.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

And can I add that whatever variant take on the paladin one can think of can probably be accomplished with a single-classed cleric.

Yep... when you do that you are trading the Divine Grace, Smite Evil, SR, Better Attack Bonus Progression, Better Hit Dice, Immunity to Fear, and Immunity to Disease for the better spell progression and better Turn Undead attempts of a Cleric. IMHO the Cleric and the Paladin are just two sides to the same concept. One stresses spell ability and the other stresses combat and innate powers.
Not to change the subject but I love that they finally came up with a system for the various vows and presented a playable character class for people who want to play characters who have taken a vow of non-violence. I'm playing a Half-Orc Barb right now but if he gets killed I think I'm going to ask my DM if I can play such a character as a change of pace.