Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Big Bad Bob" data-source="post: 1479067" data-attributes="member: 6822">The thing about D&amp;D is that it's a class and level based system.&nbsp; D&amp;D is a system built on archetypes, and the classes by nature are somewhat restrictive.&nbsp; If you want a lot of options, go play a White Wolf game or something that throws classes away altogether.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; Maybe the question is really: What about a paladin can be changed?&nbsp; So if you distill the paladin down to the basics, what do you have?&nbsp; What makes a paladin a paladin?&nbsp; 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 &quot;off topic&quot; is that the thread title is &quot;Why the paladin fails.&quot;&nbsp; And I don't think you can really call the paladin a failure.&nbsp; It certainly can be called &quot;more restrictive,&quot; but not a failure, not by a long shot.&nbsp; Paladins are just a friggin' cool concept.All the options vs. archetypes shpeel, of course, also applies to bards and monks as well.&nbsp; When is a bard not a bard?&nbsp; And one last afterthought... a fighter isn't a very restricted class, maybe because the concept is a broad one.&nbsp; A fighter is a guy who fights.&nbsp; The paladin is a very narrow concept: the paragon of holiness and righteousness.&nbsp; The hand of his deity.&nbsp; Just a thought.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Big Bad Bob, post: 1479067, member: 6822"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification