Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 1486351" data-attributes="member: 13098">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.&nbsp; Then there is the Paladin's mount, which now appears and disappears.&nbsp; One advantage to more options would be that a player could avoid the mechanics they find confusing.&nbsp; The drawback is that it might make the class look more intimidating.Some people have problems with alignment/morality.&nbsp; However, I personally have not had too many issues with players on that aspect.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; (Actually though, I want my players to write their Code of Conduct and then we will look over it together.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Same as if your paladin follows Lune, or if your paladin receives power from an abstracted purpose or concept.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The thing is, I have seen very reasonable, intelligent folks get flustered over things that seem straightforward and easy for me to understand.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It's weird, because I never thought I would say something like that.&nbsp; I mean, I used to be able to tell you what page certain rules and charts were on in the 1st Ed DMG.&nbsp; I got tired of the 2nd Ed rules and switched to HERO system for a while.&nbsp; I switched back because 3rd ed was much more straightforward and was very flexible.&nbsp; As a player and a DM, I love flexibility.&nbsp; But, there are people, who are good Roleplayers, that find certain aspects of the ruleset to be intimidating.&nbsp; It is an interesting quandry.&nbsp; The question that WotC must ultimately answer is how sophisticated a ruleset can they market?&nbsp; Look at HERO, it is chock full of options.&nbsp; You can build all sort of wacky stuff with HERO.&nbsp; If everyone wants options, why isn't HERO more popular than DnD?&nbsp; That's why I am kind of advocating that maybe we don't need more options as part of the Core Rules.&nbsp; Maybe we need them in books like Unearthed Arcana.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BSF, post: 1486351, member: 13098"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification