|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:16PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2006
|
Why should a paladin have to be a defender? If he wants to be a leader, controler or striker, he should be able to be one. It's poor design that classes are roped into specific roles.
No, it's not. The classes have roles for a reason - while you're free to dabblein other things, a class is suited to a particular role; this has been the case since the early days of D&D. The problem here is that this d-bag willfully chose a particular role and then acted 100% against the grain, to the disruption of the group, in order to "prove" that 4e sucks; like someone else pointed out, he's real life trolling his group.
Wayne M. Formerly known as WayneTheGame"Better that I should wrong the world, than let the world wrong me!" - Cao Cao (Romance of the Three Kingdoms)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:19PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
It is flexible enough to handle it. The problem is he's blatantly going against the way to do that.
No, he isn't. There should be no "one way" to do this. Paladin multi-classing into rogue is perfectly fine for his chosen role.
There's no system flexible enough to support this nonsense. It's like making a mage character in any game in existence and then claiming a fault of the system when he can't swing a sword as good as the warrior character while ignoring the ability to cast spells.
Um, there was a spell specifically created for just this reason, only it made the mage as good as the warrior at swinging a sword.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:19PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
Why should a paladin have to be a defender? If he wants to be a leader, controler or striker, he should be able to be one. It's poor design that classes are roped into specific roles.
What do you suggest, then? Drop all class names and just call them "Adventurers"? Have any class capable of doing everything the other classes can? If you don't like the nomenclature of a class, then change it. My God...this is nothing new. It's new semantics, but old (very old) constructs. If the design is so poor, why are so few people voicing discontent with it? Once again, it's the vocal (very vocal) minority that wants nothing more than to spread ill feelings across the boards. Ridiculous. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to call myself a gamer if I have to be lumped into the group with some of these people...
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:20PM
#54
|
|
|
Yep. It's a pitty that 4ed kills so many options.
Out of curiousity, can you name a single feat, spell or PrC in 3.5 that was geared specifically towards making Paladins better at throwing knives? Sure, there were general use things, like Rapid Shot or such, but this guy's got access to the multiclass feats for Rogue and could do that just as easily.
One. That's all I'm asking. One piece of 3E game design that was specifically created to support this kind of sillyness.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:26PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
He probably shouldn't be a Paladin. There's no connection from pointing out the obvious statement that he'd be better off trying to fit better into his design intention and forced action.
This is not for you to say. Neither of us knows what his concept entailed, and if it was someone very religious with secondary dagger abilities, then paladin should be his primary class, even if it makes him weaker than a rogue with paladin secondary.
Except that was not what he demonstrated he wanted to play. He showed no evidence of any interest in mystical abilities. He wanted to play something called a Paladin that threw knives and did nothing else. He purposefully focused on the class name over his desired character behaviors and a desire to be beligerant.
We don't know how else he roleplayed(if at all). Such posts are very often one sided and leave out things that would support the person being complained about.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:26PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
I still want to know why Maxperson seems to think a Paladin can be Evil in 3.x.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:27PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2006
|
No, it isn't. It's a player who actually decided to roleplay his paladin the way a paladin of the Raven Queen should be played. There was nothing wrong with what he did. No one should have to always do what is good for the group if it breaks roleplay. Now, if he was just screwing over the partly left and right in other areas, then okay, he's a jerk, but I didn't see that in the original post.
Click the link in the first post, then read the thread to which it leads. The guy does have a history of screwing over the party and being a jerk, and he has stated that he is doing this because it is ineffective.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:27PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Actually, if you read the thread, the guy did this specifically to 'break the system'. Basically, he was trolling his group in real life.
The original thread linked? I didn't read it, but if this is true, then he should be kicked out of his group. I have no problem with what he did, if it was from a valid roleplaying concept.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:28PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
No, it isn't. It's a player who actually decided to roleplay his paladin the way a paladin of the Raven Queen should be played.
Actually, that's not how the Raven Queen rolls at all. In fact, her clerical power feat is a mass heal for taking down an enemy.
If you go back and read the thread, the guy specifically plays the way he does to break the system. The OP on that thread notes that he actually said this.
Further, you can play a paladin (little 'p') without taking levels in the Paladin (big 'P') class. You can easily be an anointed champion of the Raven Queen endowed with supernatural accuracy in the form of the rogue's attack powers (the actual power source doesn't really matter any more than the actual class name).
*THAT* is what real RP is about, not clinging tenuously to the name of a mechanical class and declaring your total rejection of that class's basic design to be roleplaying.
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:28PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
I don't have any of the books so I can't say what's good or not mechanically.
but I don't see a problem with someone playing the holy warrior of what I assume is a Death good, if Paladins aren't restricted to LG anymore.
Likewise I don't see a problem with him not healing those he feels are meant to die. Admittedly with the same character concept I would be more inclined to the possition of "it's not your time yet" and then heal people.
But since I don't have the books I have to ask.
Do Paladins even have any powers that work with ranged weapons?
I mean I'm told the Ranger has a few abilities that don't force him to use 2 weapon fighting for melee, so a Greatweapon or Polearm Ranger is workable but with limited options.
If the Paladin class has some useable ranged weapon attacks even if it's only a handful then I don't see a major problem here, but if it dosen't than It's like a 3.5 fighter who wants to spend all his bonus feats on Melee Feats and then refuses to use anything but a bow.
It's a deliberate choice to be useless.
|
|
|
