Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[spider_minion]

Well, this has been an interesting thread to read. I'd like to see paladins, barbarians, and monks with more built-in class options. Now I've got some ideas how to do this.

Barbarian--choose raging style and animal totem
Monk--different martial arts fighting styles (could replace flurry of blows and feats with other abilities)
Paladin--powers based on god's domains (like law, good, fire, destruction, healing)

I don't think the classes need to be uber-generic or cover every character concept, but choosing powers from a small list might make these classes a lot more attractive. I've DMed a while, and I haven't seen all that many barbarians, monks, and paladins in the party. Maybe it's just my players, but I think the rigid class design may be the culprit.

Well, that’s my two cents. (smiley to diffuse tensions)

 

[mmadsen]

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.

I suggest that the whole class system could be made less convoluted by having most classes follow the same pattern. Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues -- they could all have tailored feat lists, and they could all get one feat every other level. The Fighter's list of feats would look very different from the Rogue's, but they'd both have a feat list -- just as the Fighter's list of skills looks very different from the Wizard's, but they both have skills.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Paladin options:

a) high charisma to maximise paladin benefits, skimp on other attributes
b) just above average charisma, boost other attributes
c) select mounted combat feats to use with mount
d) specialise in sword & board techniques
e) specialise in 2H techniques
f) specialise in TWF techniques
g) specialise in reach/trip weapons
h) specialise in disarming
i) specialise in weapon appropriate to deity
j) specialise in missile weapons (esp mounted missile weapons?)
k) use DMG option for "mount" to be some other kind of comerade-in-arms
l) careful selection of magic spells - defensive or buff or healing?

Quite apart from the magic items that the Paladin ends up with, and the role-playing slant, and the deity served... all of which can make them very different.

I think I could happily create and play half a dozen completely different paladin characters if I chose to do so.

Options? I see plenty.

Cheers

 

[mmadsen]

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?

Agreed. Animal Companions certainly fit the Ranger concept, but should all Rangers have an Animal Companion? Spells fit some Ranger concepts, but should all Rangers have spells?

It seems far more natural to me to give the Ranger a feat list and the option to move into a spellcasting prestige class than to tie the class down to one extremely narrow definition -- even if you like that definition.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

It seems like the answer for all concerned is to just start using the Generic Classes option in Unearthed Arcana.

 

[BSF]

It seems like the answer for all concerned is to just start using the Generic Classes option in Unearthed Arcana.

That's kind of my point, in a convoluted sort of way. Leave the Generic Classes as an option, but not the default playing mode.

 

[Carrion]

keeping on track

it was a good discussion. im looking forward to the next 'flexable class feature' thread.

thank you, Driddle!

 

[mmadsen]

It seems like the answer for all concerned is to just start using the Generic Classes option in Unearthed Arcana.

That's a start, but I think we need both flexible, generic classes and highly specific, ready-to-play subclasses.

 

[mmadsen]

Would anything be lost by increasing the flexibility of the Paladin class? (Assuming all the options matched the holy-warrior archetype, of course...)

 

[BSF]

Would anything be lost by increasing the flexibility of the Paladin class? (Assuming all the options matched the holy-warrior archetype, of course...)

Well, there are some people that already claim the Paladin is too complicated and too difficult for a new player to play. I don't necessarily agree (a lot depends on the player) but it is quite possible that by increasing flexibility would create an even greater artificial barrier to the class.

That being said, I think a lot could be gained by having clear options for a different paladin. Of course, PrC's can fit that role as well. Since I have no problem crafting PrC's for my campaigns, and I have already done one that fits nicely for a certain type of paladin, I am not sure that I need more flexibility.

So, we move back to the broadest use for a Paladin, as a Core class applicable, in a generic sense, to each campaign. Would anything be lost? So far as I can see, the only thing that might be lost would be the entry point for new gamers, and for some gamers that like to keep things a bit more simple. Is that a strong enough reason to not increase flexibility for the class? I don't know. The people I play with are pretty astute as players and none of them has worried too much about the lack of flexibility of the Barbarian, Monk or Paladin.