Jump to content
6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

Leaving behind the d20 System

Recommended Posts

:wub:

The setting is malleable.

 

In a Forgotten Realms game, I could only be a human Paladin in AD&D.

 

But in a 3rd Edition D&D game, I don't HAVE to be a Human Paladin.  So I'm not sure what the setting has to do with it, given that now suddenly there are Paladin's of all sorts of races and whatnot.

 

 

Really??? Do the 3E Greyhawk/FR settings have dwarven paladins? (w00t) AFAIK, they don't. And if they do now, then I must be concerned about the dangerous direction gaming is heading towards!

 

It is not as simple as wanting a dwarven paladin PC and that's it. One needs to make sure that the dwarven paladin makes sense within the context of their setting. Meaning, if dwarven paladins don't exist in the gameworld, there shouldn't be any dwarven paladin PCs ever unless there is a very, very good in-game explanation of why all of a sudden such a character exists that normally wouldn't in dwarven society. It would most likely require a truly radical explanation like dimensional transport and wormholes.

 

It is the same reasoning as to why you would never find Buck Rogers on Faerun. Or Bugs Bunny on Mystara. I care about character customization but not to that extent. Not at the expense of believability.

 

I, personally, want my campaigns to mirror fantasy as seen through movies (Conan,Sinbad,..etc) and literature (LotR, Arthur, Hercules etc) as much as possible. I also don't run "cute" or comedic campaigns... I like keeping the tone serious and believable. Maintaining the feel/integrity of a particular setting is also important to me. If you don't mind taking a more lighthearted approach towards fantasy with off-the-wall characters then be my guest... 3e is pre-disposed for such.

In this case, the "restrictions" in AD&D actually do more good than bad, IMHO.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3e allows dwarven wizards...  >_<

 

Better not get me started on that one... Or those awful sorcerors  :lol:

 

Don't remind me about how downright ludicrous 3e really is. lol.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Monte Cook's Champion class from Arcana Unearthed is a much better class than a Paladin.  It offers more variety where one can become a Champion for Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, a certain Diety, etc.

 

You can do the same with AD&D Paladins.. Don't forget anti-paladins as well.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Monte Cook's Champion class from Arcana Unearthed is a much better class than a Paladin.  It offers more variety where one can become a Champion for Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, a certain Diety, etc.

 

You can do the same with AD&D Paladins.. Don't forget anti-paladins as well.

 

OD&D paladins were much better IMHO - you had to reach level 9 and as a fighter and then swear allegiance to a church that accepted paladins, then you got a few spells to cast on top of your warrior ability and ability to turn undead - all as a priest of one-third of your level IIRC.

 

That was much better than the 2e or 3e paladins, where you just decide whether you want to play on or not. In OD&D it was a goal you had to sacrifice something to reach, so it was a big accomplishment when it happened. That's all down the drain in 2e and 3e, though some have considered a Defender prestige class that works similarly in 3e...

 

And yes, OD&D had paladins who were not good - the Knight was neutral and the Avenger evil (well, chaotic, but it translated into the same thing).

 

But it's 3e now and you can play gnomish paladin/thief/necromancers... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Monte Cook's Champion class from Arcana Unearthed is a much better class than a Paladin.  It offers more variety where one can become a Champion for Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, a certain Diety, etc.

 

You can do the same with AD&D Paladins.. Don't forget anti-paladins as well.

 

Actually, no you can't.


Harvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OD&D paladins were much better IMHO - you had to reach level 9 and as a fighter and then swear allegiance to a church that accepted paladins, then you got a few spells to cast on top of your warrior ability and ability to turn undead - all as a priest of one-third of your level IIRC.

That was much better than the 2e or 3e paladins, where you just decide whether you want to play on or not. In OD&D it was a goal you had to sacrifice something to reach, so it was a big accomplishment when it happened. That's all down the drain in 2e and 3e, though some have considered a Defender prestige class that works similarly in 3e...

 

And yes, OD&D had paladins who were not good - the Knight was neutral and the Avenger evil (well, chaotic, but it translated into the same thing).

 

Yep. I must agree. I did manage to incorporate this aspect of OD&D into my AD&D game. In my campaigns budding paladins must start off as a fighter and reach name level. Then they can choose to become a paladin (of various alignments) or become a lord.

 

 

But it's 3e now and you can play gnomish paladin/thief/necromancers...  :wub:

 

:blink:


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, no you can't.

 

Actually, in my game you can :blink: See above post.

My AD&D ruleset actually incorporates some OD&D aspects and it was done so long ago that I sometimes forget what belonged to which game.

 

 

AD&D priests, however, are allowed to uphold any non-deity mythos of the player's choosing upon the DM's approval. This allows for many, many possibilities.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:blink:
The setting is malleable.

 

In a Forgotten Realms game, I could only be a human Paladin in AD&D.

 

But in a 3rd Edition D&D game, I don't HAVE to be a Human Paladin.  So I'm not sure what the setting has to do with it, given that now suddenly there are Paladin's of all sorts of races and whatnot.

 

 

Really??? Do the 3E Greyhawk/FR settings have dwarven paladins? (w00t) AFAIK, they don't. And if they do now, then I must be concerned about the dangerous direction gaming is heading towards!

 

It is not as simple as wanting a dwarven paladin PC and that's it. One needs to make sure that the dwarven paladin makes sense within the context of their setting. Meaning, if dwarven paladins don't exist in the gameworld, there shouldn't be any dwarven paladin PCs ever unless there is a very, very good in-game explanation of why all of a sudden such a character exists that normally wouldn't in dwarven society. It would most likely require a truly radical explanation like dimensional transport and wormholes.

 

 

Then why do CRPGs based on 3rd Edition in those settings allow them? Or even the PnP based on 3rd Edition allow them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, no you can't.

 

Actually, in my game you can :blink: See above post.

My AD&D ruleset actually incorporates some OD&D aspects and it was done so long ago that I sometimes forget what belonged to which game.

 

 

Then you aren't playing AD&D anymore. You have modified it, to overcome the restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not in my game.  If you are going to be a divine caster you better have a god to grant you spells.

 

A couple of years ago I underwent the massive undertaking of creating AD&D priest specialty classes for every single one of the Immortals in Mystara's Wrath of the Immortals Boxed Set.(using the AD&D Complete Priests Handbook and a few OD&D Materials like WotI and the Rules Cyclopedia).

 

It was quite the ordeal trying to decide just what major and minor spheres, and powers the approximately 100 or so Immortals would grant their followers but it was fun albeit in a masochistic manner.

Definitely worth the effort.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not in my game.  If you are going to be a divine caster you better have a god to grant you spells.

 

Yeah, I do the same. The dwarven fighter/cleric and the human ranger both have deities that grant priest spells to them. I never liked the idea of serving a concept and gaining priest spells for it. There most be something there to grant them for loyalty... and take them away for disloyalty. Besides, slowly removing a PC's spells from the higest level and down is a wonderfully effective way to communicate that his deity is not pleased - then they usually become good little choirboys quickly :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you aren't playing AD&D anymore.  You have modified it, to overcome the restrictions.

 

By your logic, the moment you introduce the first house rule into your 3e game.. It ceases to be 3e.

 

My game is still AD&D (I use all the AD&D tables and charts..) though with a little OD&D flavor.. that's all :blink:


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not in my game.  If you are going to be a divine caster you better have a god to grant you spells.

 

Yeah, I do the same. The dwarven fighter/cleric and the human ranger both have deities that grant priest spells to them. I never liked the idea of serving a concept and gaining priest spells for it. There most be something there to grant them for loyalty... and take them away for disloyalty. Besides, slowly removing a PC's spells from the higest level and down is a wonderfully effective way to communicate that his deity is not pleased - then they usually become good little choirboys quickly :blink:

 

I don't use non-deity mythos either. But my point was really in response to Ender's post about Monte Cook's class to point out that "hey, in AD&D the priest class is damn versatile too, you know." The option is there in AD&D for the DM that wants to use it.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you aren't playing AD&D anymore.  You have modified it, to overcome the restrictions.

 

By your logic, the moment you introduce the first house rule into your 3e game.. It ceases to be 3e.

 

My game is still AD&D (I use all the AD&D tables and charts..) though with a little OD&D flavor.. that's all :blink:

 

 

Do those OD&D changes make sense in the setting?

 

 

If there's some grand idea that a different race cannot be a Paladin or some other class because of a setting, then why didn't 3e stipulate some of these rules?

 

And what, in the FR/Greyhawk setting, would absolutely prohibit the creation of a Dwarven Paladin? Dwarves don't have gods that would grant a warrior divine powers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why do CRPGs based on 3rd Edition in those settings allow them?  Or even the PnP based on 3rd Edition allow them?

 

The option to create non-traditional characters is there, yes, for those who probably run a non-traditional (I'd call it "strange") world. It doesn't mean you are forced to create a gnomish necromancer/thief/paladin character just because the rules allow it.

 

If your character concept isn't in agreement with the flavor the DM has determined for his world he has all the right in the world to disallow that concept.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr, I meant them in FR/Greyhawk settings games. Why do 3e rules and CRPGs based on 3e rules allow for non-human Paladins (NWN for example).

 

 

EDIT: I think your reply was to an old, editted post...or something.

 

EDIT2: Nevermind, I found the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do those OD&D changes make sense in the setting?

 

They sure do because I am still playing the same setting-- Mystara.

 

If there's some grand idea that a different race cannot be a Paladin or some other class because of a setting, then why didn't 3e stipulate some of these rules?

 

And what, in the FR/Greyhawk setting, would absolutely prohibit the creation of a Dwarven Paladin?  Dwarves don't have gods that would grant a warrior divine powers?

 

That's because 3e tried to do too much by trying to make rules that would appeal to every freakin' body (powergamers, munchkins, roleplayers, metagamers, old school, new school, elementary school, young, and old, skill-based, class-based..etc). Not to mention that there were people complaining forever about the earlier AD&D incarnations for their "restrictions."

 

So how do you appeal to everybody and make everyone shut up? Give everbody the option to do anything they want regardless of how ridiculous it is.

This strategy backfired somewhat as many AD&D vets (myself included) got alienated by the confusing mess which was the new system. But I digress...

 

At the end of the day, it is still up to the DM to decide what he or she wants in his campaign. And the 3e DM is definitely at full liberty to not use everything 3e has to offer just because it is in the PHB and DMG.

 

Many of the things 3e allows is just plain ridiculous in most fantasy settings.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we're not comparing Paladins to Champions. You are discussing your own custom classes.

 

I maintain the actual Paladin class isn't as nifty as Monte Cook's Champion Class.

 

For any fan of D20, I really recommend checking out his Arcana Unearthed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we're not comparing Paladins to Champions.  You are discussing your own custom classes.

 

I maintain the actual Paladin class isn't as nifty as Monte Cook's Champion Class.

 

For any fan of D20, I really recommend checking out his Arcana Unearthed.

 

OD&D Paladin class >> Champion Class


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flexibility > Static Class

 

Only when you know exactly (including skills) how you want your character to be. Otherwise, classes are just as good, if not superior and in most cases easier for beginning players to get into.


image002.gifLancer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny, but sadly not true.

 

And I'm fine with one class having more restrictions that another for a story reason. However Champions have restrictions based upon specific concept, where as Paladins have the exact same restrictions.

 

And I don't think anyone is ever going to convince me that class restrictions on the whole are superior.

 

I have introduced beginning players to non-class based systems, and many have told me later down the road that after trying D&D, they feel D&D (3E even) is far more complex and cumbersome. When teaching a new player, you might as well teach them how to roleplay properly. Roleplaying is about having a unique character.

 

D&D is about forcing a template upon players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...