Academic Chris's page

2 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


dmerceless wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

Make a fighter or barbarian with a paladin-like backstory. This isn't hard.

What if my rogue wants to hit people with a greatsword but can't use his sneak attack? Suck it up.

What if my cleric wants to be a blaster, but the spell list doesn't support it very well? Suck it up.

What if you can't handle a paladin that doesn't meet your idea of a paladin? Play a different class or system, I guess.

I don't really think this is a very constructive way of addressing things. Having options is always good, it lets people build characters that are mechanicaly satisfying for the character concept. I don't know if you wrote those examples as a joke, but having Rogues with greatsword with some feat investment would be cool. Also, 5e has Blaster Clerics and they are a blast (no pun intended) to play. I'm pointing out stuff that lack diversity and options, currently, in my opinion. You can disagree with them, but if we just use the "suck it up" philosophy we could just stay with 1st Edition D&D forever, why not?

So while I wouldn't mind a more offensive paladin variant, update 1.6 lets me play a tank as a paladin, which is something that I cannot easily do in 5e (the barbarian is a better fit for this). I definitely want most of these abilities to stay as an option, if not as the default. I love being the defender of the meek style paladin, and this is the first time I've seen it implemented easily and not without a bunch of feat trees or mulitclass dips to get to it.

I really like this idea, because it makes Retributive Strike feel a lot more tactical. There could be a push/pull of who you'd want to step next to, and you could also try to step to gain flanking, negating the -2 penalty.