Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morgenstern" data-source="post: 980999" data-attributes="member: 5485">I'm sorry, the Poke-paladins are just dumb. You've got this guy, see, and he's already, like, grossly pigeon-holed by this alignment restriction, see, and then you've got this weird "And don't come back!" clause which was the first thing FR negated, you understand, and then all of a sudden, "Well we'll make it all up to you by, uh, I dunno, letting you mount go *poof* when it's not convienient - oh, and here, have some more smite"...Guys, the mount is smarter than some of the players I know. It can take care of itself. Hell, at higher levels, it's more dangerous to spell casters than the the rider. Dealing with the fact that you were a -mounted warrior- was about THE most significant difference from just playing a fighter (or cleric) the Paladin had. It was, to me, the point, since there is no cavalier-type base class. You know, the ancient quadry - lotsa feats or a magical mount?If that's their idea of making a paladin a more useful tool for creating my own campaign (here, have a bunch of arbitrary, psuedo-Cristian crusader limitations built into the canon), or even reflecting their abilites in their own most popular setting (where you can multiclass and come back), then I don't really need the help as embodied in 3.5.I'm nearly as annoyed with the far reaching (sarcasm) fixes to the Sorcerer. "Hey 'Turret', we noticed that your primary stat was Cha, but we didn't think you'd actually want skills that are driven by it. Eh, have bluff. Oh, and while you're melting your brain trying to figure out what 1 spell is the best for you this level and looking at the Wizard who can learn them ALL, we thought we'd pat you on the head and let you swap spells as you get older. Well, one. Every other level.  A little one. Maybe." I mean sure, they're nice fixes, but geeze, sorcerers pay a heavy, heavy premium for their casting on the fly. Would Eschew Materials, or maybe the ability to have higher level slots used for lower level spells still count as that level really have triggered a mass exodus of arcane casters players from Wizard to Sorcerer? If I blow a 4th levle slot on sleep, I'd like to at least have the satisfaction of knowing it'll probably work. Little things would go a long way towards separating the feel of these two classes even if they share the same spell list.And the really sad thing is I like some of the changes - a LOT. Nerfed archers? Whatever- pretend the bonuses should have ALWAYS have benn 'named' bonuses, and you'll realize that stacking restrictions have been around for quite some time now.I like the improvements to the Bard, Barb, Druid, AND Ranger. I'm sorry, but its the cleric spells like Divine Power that bugged me. "Look, I'm a full blown Fighter now *pats wizard on the head* and in a few levels you'll get Tenser's Transformation which will make you almost a good at fighting as I am even without spells..." Clerics are the CLEAR avenue for casual powergaming. Anything that leaves them in the relative dust is fine with me. Again personal prefence, but I'd give them ONE domain at 1st level, an let them gain more as they advance- so that it's less of a no-brainer to cherry pick clerical PrC levels. You know, the oodles of classs that give full spell progression and nifty abilities at no cost? If there was a downside, then there'd be a tradeoff. The "Every good-aligned cleric born is automatically a healer" is also a bit irksome. The spells are on the spell list. Take the healing domain if you want to be a healer!*pant, pant* Anyway, I'm sure there's a lot to like, but If I ever publish a campaign, there's gonna be about 7 pages near the front having to explain the local ruleset as envisioned by the author, so the game supports that setting, rather than the 'implied setting' that 3.5 has introduced, 'cause I'm not interested in their implied setting nearly as much as I was in 3.0.Poke-paladins. *snort*</blockquote>

Verification