Why the paladin fails: It's all about OPTIONS

[mmadsen]

Well, there are some people that already claim the Paladin is too complicated and too difficult for a new player to play.

Mechanically? Aren't the complaints about alignment and morality (and how the DM and players need to be on the same page)?

 

[BSF]

Mechanically? Aren't the complaints about alignment and morality (and how the DM and players need to be on the same page)?

Some people have problems with things like Smite (how does it work, when do I use it), Lay on hands, and are confused by the Cha bonuses to saves. Then there is the Paladin's mount, which now appears and disappears. One advantage to more options would be that a player could avoid the mechanics they find confusing. The drawback is that it might make the class look more intimidating.

Some people have problems with alignment/morality. However, I personally have not had too many issues with players on that aspect. I try to keep good communication open and I am a very strong advocate that the DM and the player should sit down and write out the paladin's Code of Conduct before you ever roll the dice in the game. (Actually though, I want my players to write their Code of Conduct and then we will look over it together. I may point out possible quandries that may come up ahead of time and I will want to make sure the Code of Conduct is consistent with the character concept. So, if your paladin is also a follower of Pter, then I need to make sure the Code of Conduct fits for Pter's dogma. Same as if your paladin follows Lune, or if your paladin receives power from an abstracted purpose or concept. Once we are on the same page, I can then use the Code of Conduct to help drive storylines.)

I know that, in some ways, it sounds silly to be worried about too many options making the game too complicated. The thing is, I have seen very reasonable, intelligent folks get flustered over things that seem straightforward and easy for me to understand. We all think and process information in different ways, but I am starting to wonder if some of my friends wouldn't have more fun with a lighter ruleset. It's weird, because I never thought I would say something like that. I mean, I used to be able to tell you what page certain rules and charts were on in the 1st Ed DMG. I got tired of the 2nd Ed rules and switched to HERO system for a while. I switched back because 3rd ed was much more straightforward and was very flexible. As a player and a DM, I love flexibility. But, there are people, who are good Roleplayers, that find certain aspects of the ruleset to be intimidating. It is an interesting quandry.

The question that WotC must ultimately answer is how sophisticated a ruleset can they market? Look at HERO, it is chock full of options. You can build all sort of wacky stuff with HERO. If everyone wants options, why isn't HERO more popular than DnD? That's why I am kind of advocating that maybe we don't need more options as part of the Core Rules. Maybe we need them in books like Unearthed Arcana.

 

[mmadsen]

One advantage to more options would be that a player could avoid the mechanics they find confusing. The drawback is that it might make the class look more intimidating.

Is the Fighter class intimidating?

(Well, in 3.5 it is; in 3.0 it didn't have the Intimidate skill... )

If everyone wants options, why isn't HERO more popular than DnD?

Hero is not just D&D with more options though; it's an unnecessarily complex game full of unnecessary math -- that I too reveled in, in my misspent youth.

 

[BSF]

Is the Fighter class intimidating?

(Well, in 3.5 it is; in 3.0 it didn't have the Intimidate skill... )

I have seen an unfortunate number of people end up choosing the weapon focus/specialization/power attack string because it is easiest to understand. I say unfortunate not because that isn't a valid progression, but because it sometimes seems contrary to what the character seemed to start off with as a concept.

Hmm, maybe what I am saying is that the Hero Builders Guidebook wasn't quite as silly as I always thought it was. Is it possible to quickly coach somebody through ways to achieve character concepts so that they can see ways to use the system to their advantage?

Hero is not just D&D with more options though; it's an unnecessarily complex game full of unnecessary math -- that I too reveled in, in my misspent youth.

I still like components of HERO. But, DnD 3rd Ed is easier to build characters with. The feats have good descriptions and mechanics. The framework is a little less open, and that is a strength because it makes it quicker and easier to put together a character.

 

[mmadsen]

I have seen an unfortunate number of people end up choosing the weapon focus/specialization/power attack string because it is easiest to understand.

It sounds like choosing feats wasn't the problem; it was the feats to choose from that were complicated (or poorly explained).

Hmm, maybe what I am saying is that the Hero Builders Guidebook wasn't quite as silly as I always thought it was.

I think the problem with the Hero Builders Guidebook was that it was an add-on product, when it should have been part of the Players Handbook (or of a hypothetical Basic Set).