How a class feels


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I didn't know the right way to title that but yeah. I started off in AD&D and my favourite class was the Paladin. Now when I got into 3.5 and pathfinder, they just don't feel the same anymore. It just doesn't feel very good or satisfying being one. Another way to put it is back in AD&D, being a Paladin felt like Paladin - Freedom Call But now, it feels like just another guy with a beat stick. I don't think it is just nostalgia because I could crack open my PHB and The Complete Paladin's Handbook and they just feel good when I read them. It's just that it feels like all the stuff that made them feel right was sucked out to be more "just another class." Anyone else have this sort of issue with Paladins between editions or any other old class into a current edition?

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have that problem with the Monk. But that's because I came from Final Fantasy Tactics where the Monk class is pretty useful. I got disabused of the notion that class description matches mechanics very early.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Right, but crack open an AD&D book. 1st or 2nd edition, whatever. Look at the amount of description/detail is in each class. It's excellent. You get a feel for what they really are other than a quick sentence and then a table full of numbers. I am not saying those old editions are perfect, but the descriptive parts seemed to have more heart in it and meshed with the mechanics rather than "Here is a quick description you can totally skip to get to the numbers for how to beat things and win."

I can't stop listening to that song and it just reminds me of how classes used to feel. Makes me a little sad really.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is not a game issue, it's a player issue. Books can provide description, but the player needs to bring the feelings. I've been very moved by some PF characters. Others felt meh, mostly because I felt meh about the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Philo. The rogue does not even feel like what it used to be because it is practically an NPC class and anyone can take the options to do what it does, but better. That is a game issue.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well now wait a minute.

First the complaint about how the "feel" of the classes has changed was about how there's less description and just a bunch of mechanics:

Jaçinto wrote:
...Look at the amount of description/detail is in each class. It's excellent. You get a feel for what they really are other than a quick sentence and then a table full of numbers. ...the descriptive parts seemed to have more heart in it and meshed with the mechanics rather than "Here is a quick description you can totally skip to get to the numbers for how to beat things and win."

Okay.

But then you turn around and say this:

Jaçinto wrote:
The rogue does not even feel like what it used to be because it is practically an NPC class and anyone can take the options to do what it does, but better.

So now your complaint is that the mechanics changed in such a way as to alter the feel of the class.

First you say the "old feel" came from the descriptive text, then you say that the "old feel" came from the mechanics. Looks a little self-contradictory to me, so I'm not sure how to respond to you.


Jaçinto wrote:
I don't think it is just nostalgia because I could crack open my PHB and The Complete Paladin's Handbook and they just feel good when I read them.

well...that's exactly what nostalgia is: missing the good ol' times n' stuff.

Anyway, i don't seem to understand what's the issue if is the class' description being off: stick to the one you prefer and use the stats of whatever system you are playing.

Shadow Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Really, all I'm getting out of this discussion is "people don't make REAL music anymore".


Sorry. My mind is all over the place. Jiggy, I am not saying one or the other specifically. Not saying it just comes from one. They need to mesh well together and neither should feel pointless. Now I do like some of the new classes like the inquisitor, but that is because I see them as almost a Warhammer 40K inquisitor. While small, I like their description and their abilities, yes I hate that so many just ignore the descriptions. It does not feel good when descriptions are ignorable.

For the rogue, that was in response to it just being a player problem not a game problem. It's both really and you cant take just one of those out.

For the nostalgia, perhaps I misspoke. I was always aware of nostalgia as just thinking back to the old days but when you actually physically re-experience the old stuff, it tends not to hold up. It is only good cause you remember it being good. I look at those old books and they still look really good to me. I always thought it stops being nostalgia when it still actually holds up as quality.

Also new music does come out that is just great. That song I link is from 2014, I believe, which is still pretty new to me. I have a bit of a grace period for "newer" stuff.

Sovereign Court

Jaçinto wrote:
Philo. The rogue does not even feel like what it used to be because it is practically an NPC class and anyone can take the options to do what it does, but better. That is a game issue.

And 2e thief was pretty bad too. Without kits or multi-classing they were pretty horrible past the first few levels. From what I understand, virtually all PC thieves were fighter/thief multiclass.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Also new music does come out that is just great. That song I link is from 2014, I believe, which is still pretty new to me. I have a bit of a grace period for "newer" stuff.

Why don't you have that grace period for gaming?


TOZ wrote:
Really, all I'm getting out of this discussion is "people don't make REAL music anymore".

All they want, a boom boom boom boom


But I am not saying something is bad just because it is new. I am saying the new stuff doesn't really feel good. I have played plenty of newer games that I really enjoy and feel great. I actually do have a somewhat long grace period for gaming of when I consider it "somewhat new." Now I think, but I am not sure, I somewhat consider post 199..5? to be newer tabletop games. I definitely think of post 2001 as a newer game and modern but age, how is the age relevant at all here? I try to judge things individually. There are lots of old music and games that are junk.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
For the nostalgia, perhaps I misspoke. I was always aware of nostalgia as just thinking back to the old days but when you actually physically re-experience the old stuff, it tends not to hold up. It is only good cause you remember it being good. I look at those old books and they still look really good to me. I always thought it stops being nostalgia when it still actually holds up as quality.

So did you actually go back and play a 1E/2E campaign, or just re-read the class descriptions and imagine how fun they were?


Wikipedia wrote:
Nostalgia is triggered by something reminding an individual of an event or item from their past. The resulting emotion can vary from happiness to sorrow. The term of "feeling nostalgic" is more commonly used to describe pleasurable emotions associated with and/or a longing to go back to a particular period of time, although the former may also be true.

Well this should settle the definition issue.

Jaçinto wrote:
While small, I like their description and their abilities, yes I hate that so many just ignore the descriptions. It does not feel good when descriptions are ignorable.

Oh, and you're right here. But what makes "not ignorable" a description is kinda subjective. I'm fine with a generalized paragraph or two, so i can fill the details of character myself, while, instead, i find a wall of text could try to pidgeonhole a concept too much.

Like i just said, fluff can come from everywere with no problem, the only things you are "forced" to keep the same are numbers, which you didn't complain about right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy, I have been trying to find an AD&D game that plays over voice online, since there are no local games of that anymore. It is kind of difficult.

VanCucci, Okay yeah I understand. See I don't want a wall of nonsense or strict pidgeon hole. I mean, more like explanations for things like why a druid needs to be neutral or a monk has to be lawful rather than "Because we say so." I want the "why" rather than "just because." Something I know people didn't like in AD&D was how things like Elves had a level limit for each class. The thing is though, it explains why this is in that game. I can't recall if it is in the complete book or elves or the PHB but it boiled down to things like how their long lives and the way they are hard wired (Since they are not human and thus their physiology and brain chemistry is not the same as humans) makes it so they can't keep to the same task very long without becoming incredibly bored and have to change jobs. This is why there were no elven shepherds. Well that, and elves could not eat meat so they do not see the point of having shepherds in their communities. These are the details I miss. They are not just meaningless junk but rather they explain why they have certain rules and abilities.


TOZ wrote:
Really, all I'm getting out of this discussion is "people don't make REAL music anymore".

C. P. E. Bach was the last composer to write real music, and even he barely carried on the legacy of his more famous father. All this new-fangled stuff like Beethoven is just lame.


I do actually enjoy Bach.


Jaçinto wrote:
I didn't know the right way to title that but yeah. I started off in AD&D and my favourite class was the Paladin. Now when I got into 3.5 and pathfinder, they just don't feel the same anymore. It just doesn't feel very good or satisfying being one. Another way to put it is back in AD&D, being a Paladin felt like Paladin - Freedom Call But now, it feels like just another guy with a beat stick. I don't think it is just nostalgia because I could crack open my PHB and The Complete Paladin's Handbook and they just feel good when I read them. It's just that it feels like all the stuff that made them feel right was sucked out to be more "just another class." Anyone else have this sort of issue with Paladins between editions or any other old class into a current edition?

It has to largely that you've fallen victim to Old Jaded Gamer Syndrome, which is largely like Old Jaded Timelord syndrome. Things simply don't look as wondrous to a veteran as they do to someone starting out as a mostly ignorant, but enthuisastic newb.


Maneuvermoose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Really, all I'm getting out of this discussion is "people don't make REAL music anymore".
C. P. E. Bach was the last composer to write real music, and even he barely carried on the legacy of his more famous father. All this new-fangled stuff like Beethoven is just lame.

Rock n' Roll dies with The Ramones.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one left.


There really is a lot of great descriptive text in Pathfinder for the classes. More than in 1e. What is true is that the flavor and abilities back then were much less complete/explained, so an ability could inspire imagination of the potential.

However, it could be ignored just as much. One of the first paladins I played with was infamous for having "market days" to sell off all the powerful items she'd collected for cold hard gold pieces. Pretty much just a beatstick. Well, until she got a LG two-handed sword with a higher ego than she did...

Regarding elves and level limits and such, none of that was in the player's handbook - so seek your fluff in the companion and campaign setting books!

Edit: I should say, I've been playing first edition annually at NTRPGCon the last few years, with some of the greatest folks in the business (and just 'regular people' too), and it's been a blast. Wouldn't switch back, but enjoy it.


Jaçinto wrote:

Jiggy, I have been trying to find an AD&D game that plays over voice online, since there are no local games of that anymore. It is kind of difficult.

VanCucci, Okay yeah I understand. See I don't want a wall of nonsense or strict pidgeon hole. I mean, more like explanations for things like why a druid needs to be neutral or a monk has to be lawful rather than "Because we say so." I want the "why" rather than "just because." Something I know people didn't like in AD&D was how things like Elves had a level limit for each class. The thing is though, it explains why this is in that game. I can't recall if it is in the complete book or elves or the PHB but it boiled down to things like how their long lives and the way they are hard wired (Since they are not human and thus their physiology and brain chemistry is not the same as humans) makes it so they can't keep to the same task very long without becoming incredibly bored and have to change jobs. This is why there were no elven shepherds. Well that, and elves could not eat meat so they do not see the point of having shepherds in their communities. These are the details I miss. They are not just meaningless junk but rather they explain why they have certain rules and abilities.

Ick... Sounds like it'd be so full of inconsistencies.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah! nostalgia just isn't the same as it was in my day, we had proper nostalgia then...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, just going to go on my own tangent on 'how a class feels': Slayer mechanics are excellent for getting into the mindset of a ruthless manhunter that trusts no one.

This is because studied target eventually applies to every single social skill other than diplomacy. And it is an unlimited resource that only needs a small action to use. So there is little reason not to use it on every NPC you speak to so you get better sense motive checks and perception checks.

As in, with every single conversation you will have, you will eye up everyone other than 'your team' in the same way as the guy you want to shank in the kidneys. And that just feels right for the gritty bounty hunter archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I started in AD+D in 1980 so I know how the OP feels to an extent. I recently tried doing some First Edition only to find out that I was so spoiled for the improvements to the game since, that I could barely sit through one session of it. I"m fairly confidant that I'll never play First Edition again.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I wonder if part of it is that modern games put more emphasis on balancing the various classes coupled with the removal of the need to qualify for certain classes?

I've only managed to roll the stat prerequisites for a paladin once in AD&D and it did feel more "special" than my usual fighter - but then again, it was strictly better than a lawful good human fighter, so those extra goodies were no doubt a significant factor.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I started in AD+D in 1980 so I know how the OP feels to an extent. I recently tried doing some First Edition only to find out that I was so spoiled for the improvements to the game since, that I could barely sit through one session of it. I"m fairly confidant that I'll never play First Edition again.

You are braver than I am, not sure I could bring myself to sit at a table running 1e/2e. I was looking something up in my 1e DMG the other day **shudder**

I started playing Ad&d a couple years after you 83/84-ish


I admit that I am younger that a lot of people here. I was born in 84 (Scarily enough, I have memories from when I was still in a stroller and when I was still wandering about and almost fell down the stairs cause the toddler gate was open. I even do actually remember the Challenger.) but I played AD&D when I was in high school. I had wanted to try D&D for years but never was able to do so. Mainly because of yeah, the devil thing was still a thing here. Heck, it was a bit worrisome to have people find out you played Magic the Gathering. I even could not play things like Diablo. Going further back, I had to hide that I played the old King's quest games. A year or so after I had been playing AD&D I found out about 3.0 and it was known as THAT game. Sloppy and kinda bad. Even when I started playing 3.0 and 3.5 I did not really like them much. I had and still have many issues with certain things not making sense and the races just feeling like different flavours of human rather than actually different.

Also, it is in the rules that Paladins are not allowed to retain wealth or own more magical items that their limit. What were you doing with all that stuff and profiting from it? Did you follow the rules and tithe like you were supposed to do so, or did all that stuff get hand waved for you? You can not have any claim of ownership to the excess. Selling it implies that you owned it and thus had the right to sell.


I disagree with Jacinto saying the Rogue is now more an NPC class. The Rogue has been changed and improved more then ever. I have seen a spike in abilities for all classes. The various classes have all undergone changes in some way. Saying the Rogue has taken a step down in importance is incorrect.
Of all the classes that have taken a step down in detail has been the Druid. They have gotten more powerful yet they have lost a few things that made them cool. Older Druids had to fight to gain higher levels. Later on they added more levels and abilities that made them cool. Yet Pathfinder has removed that factor entirely. Granted it was inconvienent but that was what made them cool.
Paladins have also become less then what they are all about. They have removed a lot of their restrictions that made them such a pain to play. Before they had vows they had to uphold now they are optional. I have seen and heard Paladins doing things that in older system they'd be a fighter without ever hoping of being a Paladin again.
Another detail that almost all classes have done away with is followers and students. Clerics, Fighters, Rogues and Wizards all gathered students and followers at higher level. Clerics at high level were actually encouraged to build temples in their deities name. Pathfinder has made it about feats. The new Campaign guide lets you do more but it's complicated paperwork.

Shadow Lodge

My druid is a scary scary man, so I can't agree with what you say.


Derek Dalton wrote:
Of all the classes that have taken a step down in detail has been the Druid. They have gotten more powerful yet they have lost a few things that made them cool. Older Druids had to fight to gain higher levels. Later on they added more levels and abilities that made them cool. Yet Pathfinder has removed that factor entirely. Granted it was inconvienent but that was what made them cool.

So good druids never leveled up?

Quote:
Paladins have also become less then what they are all about. They have removed a lot of their restrictions that made them such a pain to play. Before they had vows they had to uphold now they are optional. I have seen and heard Paladins doing things that in older system they'd be a fighter without ever hoping of being a Paladin again.

*Me looks at the code of conduct and wonders how it's being considered optional*

Quote:
Another detail that almost all classes have done away with is followers and students. Clerics, Fighters, Rogues and Wizards all gathered students and followers at higher level. Clerics at high level were actually encouraged to build temples in their deities name.

Thank god that was removed. Every character being pushed towards one limited narrative is ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read the posts in here but here's a thought I have. When the only class ability that ever comes into play with any regularity is my bonus to damage against giants, I do not feel like a ranger. When I have favored enemy/terrain, an animal companion, etc. I feel like a ranger. For me at least, Pathfinder does a MUCH better job capturing the feel of a class with abilities, and I definitely get the "Here's a sword now go hit stuff" feeling from 1e. (That said, I still like 1e a lot.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Why back in my day, if you wanted a Druid that wasn't Human, Elf, or Half-Elf you were s!!@ out of luck or hope a novel author cheats, but be warned, all you'll be able to say is "Oi oye"


Milo v3 wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
Of all the classes that have taken a step down in detail has been the Druid. They have gotten more powerful yet they have lost a few things that made them cool. Older Druids had to fight to gain higher levels. Later on they added more levels and abilities that made them cool. Yet Pathfinder has removed that factor entirely. Granted it was inconvienent but that was what made them cool.
So good druids never leveled up?

There were no good druids.

Quote:


Quote:
Paladins have also become less then what they are all about. They have removed a lot of their restrictions that made them such a pain to play. Before they had vows they had to uphold now they are optional. I have seen and heard Paladins doing things that in older system they'd be a fighter without ever hoping of being a Paladin again.
*Me looks at the code of conduct and wonders how it's being considered optional*

Yeah, the rules for them were harder... like a 10 item magic item limit for example and required tithing. The paladins have an option for extra vows today maybe he's confusing that.

Quote:
Quote:
Another detail that almost all classes have done away with is followers and students. Clerics, Fighters, Rogues and Wizards all gathered students and followers at higher level. Clerics at high level were actually encouraged to build temples in their deities name.
Thank god that was removed. Every character being pushed towards one limited narrative is ridiculous.

Meh, I can see both sides for this one honestly, it all comes down to the game in play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Thank god that was removed. Every character being pushed towards one limited narrative is ridiculous.

I agree. However, I think that expanding the narrative is what changed the feel of the classes.

Back when a paladin had only one narrative, everything focused on making a paladin character be a paladin. Now in Pathfinder, the paladin character is a person who decided to become a paladin. The character can follow through on non-paladin interests, such as Craft(alchemy) or Knowledge(arcane). Roleplaying can refocus the character on living 100% as a paladin, but it has to be a deliberate effort rather than automatic.

I prefer the Pathfinder way.


Mathmuse wrote:

I agree. However, I think that expanding the narrative is what changed the feel of the classes.

Back when a paladin had only one narrative, everything focused on making a paladin character be a paladin. Now in Pathfinder, the paladin character is a person who decided to become a paladin. The character can follow through on non-paladin interests, such as Craft(alchemy) or Knowledge(arcane). Roleplaying can refocus the character on living 100% as a paladin, but it has to be a deliberate effort rather than automatic.

I prefer the Pathfinder way.

To be clear, I wasn't taking specifically paladins, what I replied to was about all classes. Where no matter what your character concept is, the game tries to push you to become a mentor or leader of a faction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back then we had kits that could be added on to base classes, but if I recall they were more added on features and came from extra books that were very specific. 'complete book of Rangers, Complete book or druids...'

Now? We have archtypes. Pathfinder has tried pretty hard to NOT have 'specific feel' for their characters. No real 'generic' Paladins and Rogues... No two characters will REALLY feel the same as any other two. The class descriptiosn are intentionally vague, and the skills and feats are very modular...

I think this gains some things and loses some things. And adding all those OTHER classes into it?? We have 43 base classes now. The 'cleric' role could be cleric, oracle, warpriest, shaman... probably a few more...

I was looking to multiclass dip to get a bit of hand to hand combat and some weapons for inquisitor... I got to choose between Fighter... Unarmed fighter, brawler, monk... Lot of choices now days! Lot of overlap... lot of shared concepts.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I started in AD+D in 1980 so I know how the OP feels to an extent. I recently tried doing some First Edition only to find out that I was so spoiled for the improvements to the game since, that I could barely sit through one session of it. I"m fairly confidant that I'll never play First Edition again.

You have to remember a lot of people look back with rose colored glasses. Not all, there are people who still prefer the mechanics of older editions. But mostly it was the experience you are looking for. I think its hard to argue that pathfinder is not an objectively better written and designed rpg then ADnD. But I play pathfinder as an adult, amidst a busy life. I played Adnd as a child with a simple life, and a lot of fun. I look back fondly on those older campaigns with my cousin dming ridiculous story lines with poorly thought out rules, and house rules layered on top of misunderstandings. And it was fun, because life was more fun then.

Personally I think with the options afforded to me with the internet age and pathfinder combined, I am more then ever able to create a character that feels the way I want it to. I don't get the feel of 'THE paladin' but instead, MY paladin, the way I envision him, because I am given the freedom to adjust what is there to the character I want to create.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It has to largely that you've fallen victim to Old Jaded Gamer Syndrome, which is largely like Old Jaded Timelord syndrome.

Except that we can't solve it by regenerating into a new actor.

-----

I think the problem seems to be that the old games gave you a certain specific narrative, and some people miss this. All paladins had specific vows. All druids and monks belonged to a specific order and you needed to challenge somebody above you for a promotion.

In more modern games, they have opened this up. It allows people to bring more different types of narrative to the game. How is a paladin of Sarenrae different from a paladin of Erastil? What's the difference between somebody who was raised by a skilled cat burglar as opposed to somebody who had to learn to steal to eat?

I don't think the answer is to bring back limits on the story. I think that if you need help figuring out who your character is, you can look to any of the billions of play aids to help trigger ideas. Things like the Central Casting books, that had plenty of table to flesh out events in your character's background.


Regarding Paladins it's more about lazy players and GMs then the class itself. The class is powerful but it's restrictions are what keep it from being an OP class. But I have heard about both players and GMs pretty much ignoring them and their alignment.
Player Character Druids often did get very high levels that was why D&D introduced the Heirophant for them.
Having a base and followers was not mandatory just one aspect of the game that made it fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
The 'cleric' role could be cleric, oracle, warpriest, shaman... probably a few more...

Bad example. Cleric and healing patron witch are still the only prepared caster who gets all the healer spells on schedule. The game still has too much niche protection in it.

Derek Dalton wrote:
The class is powerful but it's restrictions are what keep it from being an OP class.

Having fewer than nine spell levels is what keep it from being an OP class. The restrictions are a stupid obsolete fetter that prevents it from being used for the equivalent concept in other good alignments (or other evil alignments for the antipaladin).


I play earlier editions of D&D as well as PF, and the early editions are still a tonne of fun. It's a very different game though. Early levels are a meat grinder, and creativity is often more important than what's on your character sheet. (I try to bring that latter quality into the PF game I DM as much as possible...)

I love the old rules where you needed really hot rolls to play a Ranger, Monk, Paladin, etc. Not for any great reason either. It just makes those classes less common and makes you want to keep them alive!

Can't go wrong with d4 HP with Wizards too. :)


Milo v3 wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
Of all the classes that have taken a step down in detail has been the Druid. They have gotten more powerful yet they have lost a few things that made them cool. Older Druids had to fight to gain higher levels. Later on they added more levels and abilities that made them cool. Yet Pathfinder has removed that factor entirely. Granted it was inconvienent but that was what made them cool.

So good druids never leveled up?

Back in the day, they did not exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment and the restrictions involving them should be enforced and played. Have read and seen people play a Paladin as a high powered fighter and they are not. That are meant to serve as a beacon of morality and a shining servant of their deity. Too few people play them or their alignment properly. They are a powerful class with decent stats. Their chr bonus added to all saves. Immunity to diseases. Smite ability against evil. Spells. This is a bad ass Martial class.
The restrictions should be their code and most people don't play it and GMs don't enforce the fact they should. Paladins have changed from first ed but at their base they haven't although have been seeing and reading people playing them like a high powered fighter nothing more.


Atarlost wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
The 'cleric' role could be cleric, oracle, warpriest, shaman... probably a few more...

Bad example. Cleric and healing patron witch are still the only prepared caster who gets all the healer spells on schedule. The game still has too much niche protection in it.

So?

Roles are more then mechanics... Cleric Oracle, Warpriest, Shaman, ALCHEMIST (forget him last night..), Witch... They all can play the healer role in a party. Some may do it better then others, but they can all fill that 'role' that the cleric used to be the only game in town.

If your looking for more 'holy warrior' aspect to Clerics? You're back to Clerics, Warpriest, Paladin, Monk, Inquisitor etc. Lot of overlap in personality and party role between the classes.

We have completed RotRL, Serpent Skull, Kingmaker, Jade Regent so far and working on Giantslayer and Shattered Star and have not had an actual cleric show up yet. We have always had a healer... but never the cleric. So far it's been Druid, Alchemist, Heavens oracle and Paladin, Time Oracle, Bard with wands, and Life Oracle with Alchemist back up... They've all worked just fine despite any limits of 'prepared or 9th level spells or whatever other bonuses the 'vanilla cleric' gives out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Still need to rock a healer alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:

Alignment and the restrictions involving them should be enforced and played. Have read and seen people play a Paladin as a high powered fighter and they are not. That are meant to serve as a beacon of morality and a shining servant of their deity. Too few people play them or their alignment properly. They are a powerful class with decent stats. Their chr bonus added to all saves. Immunity to diseases. Smite ability against evil. Spells. This is a bad ass Martial class.

The restrictions should be their code and most people don't play it and GMs don't enforce the fact they should. Paladins have changed from first ed but at their base they haven't although have been seeing and reading people playing them like a high powered fighter nothing more.

Preach on!

I played a Paladin in Kingmaker to the end, and was astonished by how powerful that class is... especially at lower levels. NONE of which was even focused on the Smite. Those crazy awesome saves, Healing, Channeling, Immunity to fear... So many defensive abilities let me just shrug off the majority of attacks coming at me.

it was pretty awesome. I really can't get behind people who claim that the class is nerfed down and balanced to the point that it doesn't need restrictions anymore. It's just too good at too many things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the Paladin went wrong and lost its respect when it stopped being a prestige class.


And yet the paladin class is used around these parts as an example of a properly balanced class. Solid but balanced


Grognardy Dangerfield wrote:
I think the Paladin went wrong and lost its respect when it stopped being a prestige class.

???

In 2E Paladin was always a Base class. It's one of those old standby classics that have been around near forever... and really SHOULDN'T be a Prestige class. There's too much background and training and stuff to justify 'picking it up later'. Same with the old Bladesingers. The fluff says it takes 5o years learn the bare basics of the style... but you pick it up as PrC mid campaign?

Not my favorite use of the PrC mechanic. Somethings should be there from the backstory.

Though admittedly you can always do that with the goofy multiclass rules anyway... but I'd prefer the OPTION of starting on that road before we meet in that shadowy inn...

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How a class feels All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.