Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tzor" data-source="post: 1477610" data-attributes="member: 12826">In general I disagree.&nbsp; It's not all about options.&nbsp; It might be about the illusion of options, but it's really not about options.&nbsp; The paladin has about as many options as any other class.Let's take multiple classes.&nbsp; Aside from the normal alignment restrictions (the same ones that make Barbarian/Wizards impossible) the only real restriction on the paladin is that his paladinic levels must be contigious.&nbsp; While other classes can go ABABAB, he must go AAABBB.&nbsp; I can't see how that is a serious restriction to a character's options. So in other words you can take 10 levels of anything followed by 10 levels of paladin, or you can take 10 levels of paladin followed by anything, as long as it still falls within the normal alignment restrictions and have a 10/10 character with all the paladinic trimmings.&nbsp; It may not be as perfect as a 20th level paladin, but then again one can argue that for any X/Y over a X+Y character.&nbsp; Likewise there is no official way to play a paladin.&nbsp; While they do not get virtual feats, or extra fighter feats, they get other abilities that most fighters and rangers would die to posess.&nbsp; They certanly can be built in a vareity of ways, from the high cha/dex fighter that can almost be ranger like to the high cha/str fighter that is more typical of the class.Free multiclassing doesn't give options, but the illusion of options.&nbsp; Unless you are going for a specific PrC (in which case you don't have any options, you have to meet the prerequisites) most of the time wild changing of classes is not always you best option.&nbsp; Wasn't that the principle behind most of the Mystic Thaumaturge debates when it first came out?&nbsp; So the notion of options is merely that of an illusion.&nbsp; The real reason a paladin is not for everyone is that it requires the character to be lawful and good at the same time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tzor, post: 1477610, member: 12826"] In general I disagree. It's not all about options. It might be about the illusion of options, but it's really not about options. The paladin has about as many options as any other class. Let's take multiple classes. Aside from the normal alignment restrictions (the same ones that make Barbarian/Wizards impossible) the only real restriction on the paladin is that his paladinic levels must be contigious. While other classes can go ABABAB, he must go AAABBB. I can't see how that is a serious restriction to a character's options. So in other words you can take 10 levels of anything followed by 10 levels of paladin, or you can take 10 levels of paladin followed by anything, as long as it still falls within the normal alignment restrictions and have a 10/10 character with all the paladinic trimmings. It may not be as perfect as a 20th level paladin, but then again one can argue that for any X/Y over a X+Y character. Likewise there is no official way to play a paladin. While they do not get virtual feats, or extra fighter feats, they get other abilities that most fighters and rangers would die to posess. They certanly can be built in a vareity of ways, from the high cha/dex fighter that can almost be ranger like to the high cha/str fighter that is more typical of the class. Free multiclassing doesn't give options, but the illusion of options. Unless you are going for a specific PrC (in which case you don't have any options, you have to meet the prerequisites) most of the time wild changing of classes is not always you best option. Wasn't that the principle behind most of the Mystic Thaumaturge debates when it first came out? So the notion of options is merely that of an illusion. The real reason a paladin is not for everyone is that it requires the character to be lawful and good at the same time. [/QUOTE]

Verification