Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nalani 12-09-07, 02:05 AM	I and my friends are later playing a world of darkness campaign set in Eberron so a Paladin would be a good addition to the group. Here's the problems. 1)I've never played a LG character, 2)I've never played a Paladin, 3)I haven't fully played a rogue which I'm also interested in playing. I know you can mix and match different classes together, but I was wondering if it was possible to multi-class a paladin and a rogue without having to be Lawful Good. Is there a feat or something that can help me do this? If not then I will try my hand at being Lawful Good. It will be hard for me since I am a naturally chaotic good person, but I can give it a try if there is no other way.
skrap-san 12-09-07, 02:31 AM	there is a feat that makes it possible to multiclass a paladin in the Eberron campaign setting. More I dare not say, and if you are looking for good ways to make a rouge paladin I would recommend complete scoundrel. It has quite an entry dedicated to LG scoundrels, which to me seems quite close to what you want.
ArcTan 12-09-07, 03:28 AM	Eberron lets you multiclass a Paladin with a feat, sure, but it doesn't let you be a non-LG Paladin. That's houserule territory -- personally, I think it *ought* to be possible to be a non-LG Paladin, but Eberron officially doesn't give much weight to the concept. Nonetheless, rules for Paladins of the other three extreme alignments exist in Unearthed Arcana (which can be viewed on d20srd.org). Ask your DM if you can play a Paladin of Freedom. Although, really, alignment is what you make of it. You don't even really have to use it at all, but with a group that does use it, you should be able to squeeze your character concept into LG if it's reasonable, as Complete Scoundrel points out. (Complete Scoundrel is of the opinion that Batman is an LG character, just so you know.)
Rekko 12-09-07, 05:41 PM	I have an NPC LG Kundarak dwarven rogue/paladin of Dol Arrah. He's a pretty awsome character. Those who fell in his traps or are hit by his sneak attack brought those affliction to them and deserve them. Though it's rare he'll sneak up on someone, there are other ways he can add a sneak attack to an attack. Rekko
skrap-san 12-10-07, 02:41 AM	there is always improved feint (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedFeint) + a good bluff for that extra damage. You could portray it around a paladin who really knows how to make his enemy lower his guard.
ArcTan 12-10-07, 03:08 AM	Again, Batman.
skrap-san 12-10-07, 04:46 AM	Again, Batman. I'm not sure if this is meant as criticism or as agreement. But I must admit I have no problem seeing that batman is a bit insane LG character in that he takes action where the law is flawed and let the bad people go loose.
Kreistor2 12-10-07, 12:57 PM	BEsides that, Bats is builds gadgets and has far too many skill points. That's more consistent with Artificer/Rogue that happens to be LG.
Nostrus 12-10-07, 05:25 PM	Complete Scoundrel has a PrC called Grey Guard which is a Paladin who has become jaded and is willing to do what it takes to get things done. Beyond that, I can't recall specifics as it was a friends book that I read.
ArcTan 12-11-07, 12:27 AM	Honestly, I don't think it was really necessary to create a whole PrC around the concept of being a non-Lawful Stupid Paladin. The endless stupid forum debates about Paladins seem to imply that it was, though. So whatever.
skrap-san 12-11-07, 02:25 AM	Well it might not have been necessary. But one thing is for certain, these books live of prestige classes, new feats and spells. Now to return to the original questions of the thread. 1) You have never played a LG character: Well I still recommend reading the LG entry in complete scoundrel. It seems that for some reason people almost always think of a I am holier than you type of personality when they think of LG. But what it truly is is: The law is a good thing since it protects the poor, but if the law is broken then I will have to step outside it to fix things in the name of all that is good and so on. So batman is actually a quite good example of it taken to an extreme, 2/3) You have never truly played a Paladin or a Rogue: The rouge is a great class in that it is so versatile. Personally I can think of three arch types of rouge. The way finder, which have a high int and dex and can disable traps, open doors and sneak in everywhere. Then there is the damage rouge, who bases all his strategy on flanking and sneak attacking. The last one is the sweet talker, who invests in charisma based skills and bluffs, threatens and sweet talk people into doing what he wants them to do. Now I don't know what your group need from the rouge but disable device and search are all you really need for opening doors and finding traps. You could have been a traplayer early in your career before you got your calling, and now you have forsaken the dishonesty of this tactic, but there is no denying that you still know allot about them. Remember that as a paladin you have a easy way with people due to a good charisma, so you could also go for the sweet talking type. Who prefers to talk people out of killing you and end it all before it escalate to violence. And of course a good bluff can be used to feint in combat when you need to put in that extra damage. So yes it is doable, and its not really that hard to be a rouge when one does it either. You don't even have to pick pockets. But I see no way outside being lawful good even with the feat as ArcTan pointed out. Your only hope is that alignments in Eberron is somewhat fussy in nature, and you don't have to follow it like a slave. Its only an important guiding light so to speak. Hope this helps.
Arcane Guyver 12-11-07, 04:01 AM	I'm pretty sure there's a feat in Complete Adventurer that lets you multiclass Paladin & Rogue with perks (better than Knight Training from the ECS). Beyond that, there's a few PrCs in that book that help make sneaky smiters. If you think the reliance on feats kinda kills your character's power mojo, keep in mind the retraining rules in the PHB2. I'd also recommend using the Charging Smite substitution ability in the PHB2.
Rekko 12-11-07, 09:10 AM	I think that setting traps as a rogue/paladin can be acceptable. If someone falls victim to the paladin's trap, that someone diserves it. You could also see some Jigsaw-like traps meant to put someone back on the good track. I wouldn't encourage a paladin to make very lethal traps for this last idea, but use some imprisonment/paralysing and hallucinatory effects, so that the person in the trap lives some freaking experience and learn something about it, some sort of divine intervention/great will power could get them out of the trap. But there could be the paladin waiting on at the end of the trap, the last test. The paladin will ask if the trap's victim learned something, if not be ready to be smited. Or, the paladin could spy on the trap's survivors to see if in their every day life they are better. If not, smite ! Well, that was my idea of a trap setting pally. Moreover, with the Kundarak House, I think there are a lot of opportunities to play a rogue/paladin. Rekko
Tordak 12-11-07, 09:59 AM	I think the Shadowbane Inquisitor from Complete Adventurer does that (it's a PrC). Look it up, it give pointer as to how it is possible to play both. LG rogue is fine, but a paladin/rogue is certainly not going to be a thief (more of a specialist slayer of evil).
Kinger 12-12-07, 08:20 PM	Be sure you check with your DM regarding a Paladin's Code of Conduct. That's the thing that will cause problems, not the Lawful Good alignment. A Paladin cannot lie, for example, without losing his Paladin-ness. That's in the code of conduct, and I've seen more than one paladin need to atone because of it. A DM is well within his right to extend lying to cover Feignts in combat, meaning no Bluff-check-SNEAK-ATTACK for our Palirogue. A Paladin adheres to a code of chivalry that is very strict about things like dishonourable combat. Unfortunately, that's kinda how a Rogue fights. Sneak attacks from hiding, look-over-there-STAB, poisons, and the like. Sure, Sneak Attack may not be simply fighting dirty and instead be interpreted as striking precisely, but it is still mainly executed when the opponent is caught unaware. A Paladin doesn't FIGHT an opponent who is unaware. The same can be extended to setting traps. Stuff that will defeat, injure, or inconvenience an opponent without giving them a chance to attack the Palirogue directly isn't particularly honourable. A trip wire that sets off a bell and awakens the palirogue's companions? I can totally see that. But a dart launcher that kills an opponent before he even sees it coming? Not so much. This is not to say a Paladin cannot benefit from Rogue levels. Evasion and reflex saves are always nice, as are more skills for things like Spot, Listen, and the Search/Disable/Unlock trio. But I'd be surprised if you can get away with playing your paladin like a rogue.
skrap-san 12-13-07, 02:11 AM	I agree, the code of conduct is what will limit you. But I'm not so sure about the fact that feint is forbidden, as i see it, it is also about zigging when your opponent thought you were zagging and then strike the open spot. To say a paladin can only strike with a few selected swings would be a sure way for really bad villains to predict them and take them out.
ArcTan 12-13-07, 03:02 AM	1) You have never played a LG character: Well I still recommend reading the LG entry in complete scoundrel. It seems that for some reason people almost always think of a I am holier than you type of personality when they think of LG. But what it truly is is: The law is a good thing since it protects the poor, but if the law is broken then I will have to step outside it to fix things in the name of all that is good and so on. So batman is actually a quite good example of it taken to an extreme, "Lawful" doesn't have to mean following the law of the local governing authority. Indeed, if the small-l law is clearly corrupt and inefficient and unfair, the *duty* of a big-L Lawful character is to impose a higher Law upon it.
ArcTan 12-13-07, 03:06 AM	A Paladin cannot lie, for example, without losing his Paladin-ness. That's in the code of conduct, and I've seen more than one paladin need to atone because of it. A DM is well within his right to extend lying to cover Feignts in combat, meaning no Bluff-check-SNEAK-ATTACK for our Palirogue. Whoa, there. I think that's a pretty big stretch myself -- there's a *huge* gulf between a deliberate verbal deception, and just zigging-when-he-thinks-you'll-zag. If a Paladin can't even do that, then Paladins really are Lawful Stupid, and incapable of defeating any foe that isn't both dumber and weaker than he is. A Paladin adheres to a code of chivalry that is very strict about things like dishonourable combat. "Honorable" combat, including ritualized jousts and duels for sport in the Middle Ages, *revolved* around things like feints. If you can't feint then you can't fight. The idea that it's possible to fight without even *feinting* -- i.e. you always stand there, swing exactly where it looks like you're going to swing, and remain standing there so you'll be in place to be hit because that's "honest" -- is taking honor to ridiculous levels. Maybe Paladins shouldn't get a Dodge bonus to AC in combat either, because moving around unpredictably in combat is "dishonest" compared to walking in straight lines?
skrap-san 12-13-07, 06:00 AM	Besides the Knight in PHB2 takes up this role already. But they get bonuses to overcome this, Paladins don't. There is also the "defeat evil as fast and as efficient as possible" route to take to it. As far as I am concerned one don't have to sneak attack everything just because one can do so. Another direction could be that you got yourself a merciful weapon after a while, so you could sneak attack but would not kill.
Arcane Guyver 12-13-07, 12:44 PM	Sneak attacking a flat-footed opponent in combat is fine. SAing from hiding, I'm not so sure - I always thought that one of the Paladin trademarks was making their presence known and lettng the opponent know why they're being eliminated (in hopes they might give up and atone). I'm also unsure about poisons; the only difference between poison and a physical attack is that physical attacks tend to kill opponents faster. Plus, in D&D, most poisons merely incapacitate the victim rather than kill them, and again, I always felt Paladins are generally more about redeeming their enemies than just laying the smite down upon them. As someone else has already stated, it's best to leave Paladins as the holy warriors and leave the honorable warrior bit for the Knights.
ArcTan 12-14-07, 06:47 PM	Sneak attacking a flat-footed opponent in combat is fine. SAing from hiding, I'm not so sure - I always thought that one of the Paladin trademarks was making their presence known and lettng the opponent know why they're being eliminated (in hopes they might give up and atone). I'm also unsure about poisons; the only difference between poison and a physical attack is that physical attacks tend to kill opponents faster. The Paladin Code specifically mentions not using poison or attacking enemies unawares. I regard this as Paladins specifically being inclined toward a particular tradition associated with the order of Paladins (since, in the very very original D&D, they were all one order that had specific roots in the Human race). I reject the somewhat annoying claim of BoED that Lawful Good (or worse, just plain Good) has some intrinsic dislike of dispatching enemies to the public order and the safety of the innocent using the most efficient means possible. The one against attacking unaware foes is more justifiable, since you can spin this to mean giving everyone their fair chance to surrender. Once battle has been joined, though, treating the use of poison as something inherently worse or more dishonorable than sticking sharp metal bits through someone's flesh is really indefensible. (Understandable, though -- we draw the same arbitrary distinction today, with the Geneva Convention going on and on about how horrible "chemical" or "biological" weapons are when shooting people full of lead pellets isn't.) Plus, in D&D, most poisons merely incapacitate the victim rather than kill them, and again, I always felt Paladins are generally more about redeeming their enemies than just laying the smite down upon them. BoED says using poison is wrong because it causes "unnecessary suffering", which I find really stupid and annoying (should we switch from executing prisoners with lethal injections to executing them by hacking them up with battleaxes because the latter is more humane?), and then compounds the stupidity by creating a new class of special poisons that Paladins are allowed to use because they only work on Evil creatures.
Trannic 12-14-07, 07:16 PM	I'll throw my 2 cents in as well. First, the feat from CAdv is Devoted Inquisitor. It allows you to multiclass freely between paladin and rogue as well, when you sneak attack and smite at the same time, you can potentially daze a target. Anyway, nowhere have I read, does it say that paladins can't feint in combat and I totally agree that a smart paladin would use tactics in a battle to beat an opponent, and feinting is a perfectly good tactic. Besides, in the end, game wise, it's up to the pally's god to decide if he broke the code or not. Knights are the ones who go all crazy on the virtuous combat and never cheating or using dastardly tactics and stuff.
Kinger 12-15-07, 12:38 AM	The PHB entry on the Paladin's Code of Conduct says that a paladin is required to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..." So... It's up to the DM what "acting with honor" and "so forth" entails. Personally, I'd rule that hiding in the shadows, waiting for the enemy to pass by, then stabbing them in the neck before they even know you're there to be dishonourable. The enemy should be granted an oppotunity to explain, atone, or even just prepare themselves for judgement, usually by the Paladin announcing her presence and intentions. "Have at thee, fiend! I shall vanquish you in the name of Good and Law!" Roll Initiative, etc. I don't think a Paladin should ever initiate a surprise round with a sneak attack. If the Paladin is not powerful enough to defeat the enemy in a straight-up, no-funny-business fight, then she either needs to grow more powerful or needs to seek assistance, not use underhanded methods. Inefficient? Yup. Potentially stupid? Sure. But that's the Paladin Way, baby. There's no room for scoundrels in the Paladins' ranks of the pure-hearted. And that's probably why Paladins are so rare.
skrap-san 12-15-07, 02:44 AM	All of this i agree to Kinger, but that is not really what I at least see when I see a sneak attacking paladin. I see a person who after all the formalities are done with, hey you atone or die! are willing to almost anything to take down his foe in combat, and if this means striking more precisely when flanking or feinting then all the better. And poison i see as dishonorable since it is a form of hidden attack, just like the ambush. Now I wonder, and maybe Nalani (who started this tread) also do. What kind of character concepts can we come up with? To start of there is the street thug who grew up in the slums of Sharn, eventually he was robbing a church where a paladin stood guard, this man showed him the first mercy and kindness ever to be had. So he turned his life around, and now he wanders the world atoning for his past sins.
ArcTan 12-15-07, 02:49 AM	If the Paladin is not powerful enough to defeat the enemy in a straight-up, no-funny-business fight, then she either needs to grow more powerful or needs to seek assistance, not use underhanded methods. Leaping out and attacking someone with no warning is one thing, and I do think that a Paladin should avoid it. (Cops are prohibited from doing this for a reason.) Never using *Sneak Attack* is another -- what, you can't benefit from flanking bonuses? You can't have a Dodge bonus to AC? You can't use *tactics* during a fight? If that were true, then Paladins would *only* be able to apprehend crooks a great deal less powerful than them, they would be basically useless in any battle against a seriously Evil foe, and there would be no point to playing one.
ArcTan 12-15-07, 02:52 AM	And poison i see as dishonorable since it is a form of hidden attack, just like the ambush. Not necessarily. What if you actually *say* to your opponent "You may be bigger and stronger than me, but my blade is coated with a powerful poison that will paralyze you on contact, so I recommend you surrender yourself peacefully"? Poison doesn't *have* to be hidden to be effective, any more than a weapon has to be hidden to be effective. It's just another kind of weapon, and it's really annoying that the classic reticence about poison as "dirty fighting" (which basically amounts to saying "stronger and better-trained opponents should always beat people who aren't trained for battle", i.e. "nobles should be more powerful than commoners") is something people unquestioningly adhere to even now. Now I wonder, and maybe Nalani (who started this tread) also do. What kind of character concepts can we come up with? To start of there is the street thug who grew up in the slums of Sharn, eventually he was robbing a church where a paladin stood guard, this man showed him the first mercy and kindness ever to be had. So he turned his life around, and now he wanders the world atoning for his past sins. *shrug* Maybe. I don't like the implication that the only way to gain "Rogue"-type skills is to have started as a criminal, though. Not all Rogues are thieves, and perhaps the majority *aren't* -- the Rogue represents the detective, the secret agent, or just the soldier who isn't stupid and has some special training for urban combat. The Church of the Silver Flame probably has an Inquisitor class of warrior-priests, most of whom have Rogue skills, some of whom are probably also Paladins.
skrap-san 12-15-07, 03:22 AM	The implication was not that you have to start as rouge to get rouge levels. The main reason i started with rouge is that 8+intx4 skill points sure as heck beat 2+intx4. But yes it is always simpler to make an explanation of good turned bad. But one could also take the doctor variant to it. I have been trained to become a doctor but hey would you look at that, now i can use this knowledge to beat you to a pulp.
Arcane Guyver 12-15-07, 09:11 AM	Gah! Lack of sleep = pointless and redundant posts! Disregard!
Kreistor2 12-15-07, 11:37 AM	I find that almost all rogue multiclasses start with rogue because of the skill point problem. It is very, very hard to catch up if that first level is not rogue.
Kinger 12-15-07, 02:05 PM	Leaping out and attacking someone with no warning is one thing, and I do think that a Paladin should avoid it. (Cops are prohibited from doing this for a reason.) Never using *Sneak Attack* is another -- what, you can't benefit from flanking bonuses? You can't have a Dodge bonus to AC? You can't use *tactics* during a fight? If that were true, then Paladins would *only* be able to apprehend crooks a great deal less powerful than them, they would be basically useless in any battle against a seriously Evil foe, and there would be no point to playing one. I never said anything about dodging or flanking. Those are perfectly legit. Flanking in fact falls under the "seek assistance" bit. Feigning in combat requires active use of the Bluff skill, and is much more deceptive than the standard stuff that supposedly happens in combat (since all we see are attack rolls). The Paladin, rather than using deception in combat, uses their simply superior skill with a sword to strike more often, more accurately, etc. as represented by their nifty full Base Attack Bonus. I'm just saying that the honourable uses for Sneak Attack are limited. They're still there, just limited. An opponent you or your cleric friend has stunned? Sure. The dragon your buddy's flanking with you? Absopositively. But a guy who's simply meandering by and doesn't even know you're there? Not so much. And you make valid points re: poison. However, the Paladin's Code of Conduct entry is pretty specific on the matter: No dragon's bile for the Paladin. And just so skrap-san's clear on my thoughts, a Paladin would never "do almost anything to take down a foe in combat" since that's a very "ends justify the means"-style attitude. The ends NEVER justify the means as a paladin. It's attitudes like that that lead to Fallen Paladins. ;) And as for the concept, even churches need a trap-disabler occasionally. A good trapmonkey rogue, with good perception skills and Disable/Open and probably some in the physical skills like Jump and Tumble is a good base. After a level or so, our trapmonkey feels the call of the Paladin. It can happen to anyone, after all. Boom, you have a Rogue/Paladin. Enjoy your absolutely kick-ass saves. :)
Neutronium_Dragon 12-15-07, 03:09 PM	> A Paladin adheres to a code of chivalry that is very strict about things like > dishonourable combat. You can house rule this, but the PHB has no requirement for adhering to a chivalric code. As far as feinting - feinting doesn't involve lying, so there's no problem there. Sneak attack? As one of the developers put it, "Using sneak attack is no more inherently dishonorable than taking Improved Critical."
skrap-san 12-15-07, 03:59 PM	Sneak attack? As one of the developers put it, "Using sneak attack is no more inherently dishonorable than taking Improved Critical." something i feel is enforced in the fact that one can sneak attack with anything. Not like in second edition where you could only backstab with a few selected weapons (I never played 2nd so I'm not dead sure). Paladin with enlarge person cast on him: "Now see here my good little goblin, I'm going to sneak attack you with thees tree trunk i call a quarterstaff."
Arcane Guyver 12-15-07, 04:22 PM	I fail to see the honorable difference between punching someone in the face (straight-up attack) and punching them in the throat (sneak attack/critical hit). Or, stabbing someone in the chest (straight-up attack) and stabbing them in the armpit (sneak attack/critical hit). There's no such thing as a fair fight, and when you're actively trying to kill someone (dealing lethal damage), worrying about how 'fair' the killing is accomplished is fundamentally flawed.
Kinger 12-15-07, 07:57 PM	All valid points. Sneak Attack itself isn't "dishonourable." It's the situations that allow Sneak Attack that may be. Announcing your intentions to your opponent, letting them draw a weapon, and letting them know you're coming so they better defend themselves is significantly different from hiding in the shadows and knifing (or stabbing, or chopping, or whatever) the guy in the back before he knows you're there. All I'm saying. Personally though, many of the arguments I've read in this thread indicate many people don't want to run paladins like I think they're meant to. Say what you want about there being no such thing as a fair fight, or that a Sneak Attack from the shadows rather than risking injury from an aware opponent is more sensible, but that's not exactly what a Paladin is about, in my opinion. My view of Paladins is that they believe there IS such a thing as a fair fight, and that the easiest way isn't necessarily the RIGHT way. It's an idealism thing, rather than a pragmatism thing. Call it Lawful-Stupid if you like. A paladin specifically doesn't choose the sensible route in some instances. Why launch an assault on the fortress if your Cleric buddy can just cast Contagion on the well and walk in unopposed next week? It is her belief that she should act in a particular fashion (following a Code of Conduct) that is very restrictive. Think of it like the difference between Boxing and, I don't know, an actual fight. In Boxing there's no hitting below the belt, no biting ears, etc, because there's a referee there to ensure that the fight's done properly. And just like Boxing, there's a good chance the ref's only going to be watching YOU, and the other guy can get away with whatever he wants. Transpose that situation to the Paladin, and she's got her god (or the over-arching universal concepts of Law and Good or whatever) to keep her on the straight and narrow. And if she strays? Well, you better believe there'll be some suspensions handed out.
skrap-san 12-16-07, 01:47 AM	I agree to the fact that the paladin has a certain code of conduct, even in Eberron. This code of conduct being as far as I see it: A) Allow you opponent the possibility of redemption. And that you cannot do if you poison the well.You will even have to redeem yourself. B) Fight fair. Don't use dishonorable tactics, what's dishonorable and whats not is mostly up to the DM. But I hope 4th ed brings up some points on this, because that is one of the things I really missed in the pala entry last time. C) Lead by example. How will others know how to live if no one shows them the way etc. I'm sure there are loads more to think of, like show respect to the proper authority etc. But that what I can come up with for now.
Arcane Guyver 12-16-07, 08:15 AM	My view of Paladins is that they believe there IS such a thing as a fair fight, and that the easiest way isn't necessarily the RIGHT way. It's an idealism thing, rather than a pragmatism thing. Call it Lawful-Stupid if you like. The more I read, the more it sounds like you're describing the Knight: The knight's code focuses on fair play: A victory achieved through pure skill is more difficult, and hence wins more glory, than one achieved through trickery or guile. ... While you cleave to your view of honor, chivalry, and pursuit of glory, you do not force your views on others. You might chide a rogue for sneaking around a battlefield, but you recognize (and perhaps even feel a bit smug about) the reality that nt everyone is fit to follow the knight's path. Again, if a Paladin isn't supposed to utilize sneak attacks, why on earth would WotC publish a feat like Devoted Inquisitor, which specifically rewards Paladins for using sneak attack in conjunction with smite evil? They couldn't get away with a feat like that with the Knight, however, as it's built into that class to ignore flanking benefits. Edit: And a character believing in a fair fight would be Lawful Stupid, especially in a D&D game. I've never seen a Paladin grumble about wiping out CR 1/3 goblin warriors because they didn't pose a big enough challenge. "Ah, darn it, I should've handicapped myself more to make this combat a bit more even! Next time I'll pull a Beowulf and fight naked!"
Kreistor2 12-16-07, 01:01 PM	To hit in combat, you need to get past your enemy;s weapon. TO achieve that, your enemy's weapon must not be in the right place. The only way to achieve that is for your opponent to be wrong about what you are trying to do. In other words, feinting is a part of combat, and it is in no way dishonourable. Feinting on the order of using the Bluff skill is just an improved form of that, such that the opponent is far enough out of position that they can't respond at all. It's not dishonourable, it's combat. When you've made the decision to kill someone -- decided that someone is deserving of death -- is there a dishonourable way of killing them? Dead is dead, and if someone deserves to die, there should be nothing in the way of seeing that task done. Risking them surviving to do whatever they deserved to die for, well, allowing that because of personal mores is dishonourable. People call Paladin's Lawful Stupid because they hamstring them with foolish ideas of honour that have nothing to do with the realities of how people have fought in this world. When you enter a state of lethal combat, anything goes, unless you are in some kind of duel where both have agreed to a set of rules.
Kinger 12-16-07, 01:03 PM	I'm not SAYING they shouldn't utilize sneak attacks. I'm just saying that the instances in which they can DELIVER sneak attacks are somewhat fewer than for ordinairy rogues. And I can't say I've ever read the specifics of the Knight class. Sounds to me though like it is a similar class, one whose power is derived from the Code of Conduct he upholds. But must a Knight be Lawful Good, or just Lawful? Also sounds like there was a concious effort on WotC's part to not repeat the same mistake and leave the same ambiguity that exists in the Paladin's Code of Conduct. If there is no Good requirement for being a Knight, then I see it as a means of playing a conduct-, honour-bound warrior that benefits from his beliefs without being shackled with the Good aspect of Paladinhood. A Paladin should uphold similar ideals to the Knight with regard to Honour, etc (though not utilizing flanking? Don't know about that...), but with additional things regarding Compassion, etc. Y'know, the Good side of Lawful Good. And a Paladin SHOULD grumble about his party of 1st level adventurers skewering a solitary CR 1/3 Goblin. Such a creature should be presented the opportunity to surrender and redeem themselves, and only be fought if they refuse and insist on fighting anyway. But hey, that's just me. As I've said before, the player in question is going to have to ask his DM what he can get away with.
Arcane Guyver 12-16-07, 01:57 PM	Basically, the Knight is a Lawful warrior that is focused entirely on their peronal view of honor (which is more about fair play than anything else). Their code of conduct includes the following restrictions: * You (and only you) do not receive any benefit from flanking. * You cannot attack a flat-footed opponent. * You cannot deal lethal damage to a helpless foe. The Knight also differs from the Paladin in that they can choose to break this code whenever they want, but each time they lose a use of their Knight's Challenge (a per day ability similar to a Bard's). Due to the clear and concise nature of this CoC, I decided to focus more on the Paladin's sense of justice and evil-stomping than worrying about defining their honor. Helps differentiate between the two classes - one approaches adventures like an honor-bound samurai, the other like a superhero. --- The goblin thing was meant in general - either a solo encounter between the Paly & the gob or a standard encounter, where there's usually almost an equal number of gobs to PCs (again, making it almost a one-on-one encounter). Again, the Knight fits this model better; I could easily see them being peeved at fighting weaker foes, as their 'Knights Challenge' ability usually doesn't work in that situation.
Kreistor2 12-16-07, 04:08 PM	A goblin in Eberron can be a paladin of Dol Arrah. It's not a great idea to kill anyone just on the basis of shape and presence of claws and fangs.
Neutronium_Dragon 12-16-07, 04:54 PM	This illustrates one of the problems with the paladin in the current edition - far too often, the code of conduct is taken as being much more limiting than it actually is, which results in all kinds of problems. Nothing in the code requires you to call an enemy out and give them a chance to prepare themselves for it. If you've previously agreed to do so (such as a formal duel) then fine - but if Lord Evil happens to be in a vulnerable spot and you have the opportunity to take him out (and you probably know full well that redemption isn't going to happen), nothing in the code requires you to behave like some chivalry-obsessed idiot and give away your presence.
ArcTan 12-16-07, 06:38 PM	Knights are Knights because, in D&D, they're the stereotype of the nasty side of medieval warfare that Mark Twain described in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, or T.H. White described in his sequels to The Sword in the Stone -- nobles who have been bred for warfare and isolated from the affairs of common people, so much so that rather than thinking of war as a desperate struggle, they see it as a kind of *game*. Only in *games* does "fairness" matter, because the point of a *game* is not winning or losing, but playing the game. The game itself should be fun and a fair test of skill. Real war, as seen by the people who are *affected* by war, is not a game. In a real war, winning and losing is the *only* thing that matters -- how you play the game is irrelevant. As a soldier, your duty is to do anything necessary to other soldiers necessary to win the war -- because the *objective fact* of *what actually happens* when you lose is that your civilians, the people you've sworn to protect, are enslaved or killed. Anyone who can possibly entertain the mindset that if someone intent on, say, raping and murdering your wife *beats you in a fair fight*, then because they *fairly won the fight* they now have the right to kill you and do whatever they want to your family -- that person has disconnected themselves entirely from reality. That person is an idiot. That person has no actual sense of good and evil. Are we all, to some degree, hamstrung by considerations like this? Yes. It's human and it's natural. That doesn't mean it's actually defensible from an objective point of view. If the Nazis were at your doorstep and you had twenty Jewish children hiding in the basement, lying to them or springing a trap on them to kill them quickly and brutally might seem not *nice*. It might seem not *fair*. Challenging the Nazis to a "fair fight", letting the Nazi guy duel you and kill you because he's a better fighter than you and deciding that *because he beat you in a fair fight, he now has the right to kill you and take the children away and do whatever he wants to them* is a horrible and twisted idea of what "doing the right thing" means.
ArcTan 12-16-07, 06:44 PM	Notice that I'm not defending the Machiavellian Paladin -- I'm not saying that every Paladin has to be a total ends-justify-means sociopath. Paladins should be aware that indulging too often in the dark side of doing what's necessary is corruptive and dangerous, yes. Because Paladins are human beings and know their own limits. (I know that someday it might be *necessary* to murder hundreds of civilians to save millions more lives. I know that I don't think I can be trusted to make that decision, myself.) However, I would only extend this as far as the PHB actually demands it be extended. Outright verbal deception just "feels dirty" and makes it too easy to justify too many bad things. Okay, fine. Cheating money out of people may sometimes make it a lot easier to operate but is also crossing a certain line. Okay, fine. Even certain kinds of weapons invite a dangerous game of mutually-assured destruction and brinkmanship -- they create unpredictable escalation of forces, and a Paladin will stay away from those. (This applies more to putting disease in the well than to using a poisoned blade, but fine, make it a whole category of things. They're signatories to their world's version of the Geneva Convention.) But going to the lengths of saying that my opponent has to be *armed* before I can take him down? I *absolutely must* announce myself to my opponent and give him a chance to kill me, no matter what? (Note that I actually agree with the "Give them a chance to surrender" concept, but it's nowhere in the PHB, and there are some situations where it's obviously inapplicable, like when someone *has been given* multiple chances to surrender in the past, and is now standing right in front of you about to cast fireball on a roomful of hostages.) I can't "feint" in combat (which, as Kriestor points out, is *all combat is*)? Paladins are supposed to be totally devoted champions for the innocent and for justice. Under restrictions as stringent as those, they'd be totally useless at protecting anyone innocent or bringing anyone to justice. Real-life cops -- whose behavior is regulated a hell of a lot more than any real-life medieval warrior's was -- would *never* be able to function under some people's interpretation of the Paladin Code. They could literally only ever arrest people who actually wanted to be arrested.
Kinger 12-16-07, 07:10 PM	This illustrates one of the problems with the paladin in the current edition - far too often, the code of conduct is taken as being much more limiting than it actually is, which results in all kinds of problems. Nothing in the code requires you to call an enemy out and give them a chance to prepare themselves for it. If you've previously agreed to do so (such as a formal duel) then fine - but if Lord Evil happens to be in a vulnerable spot and you have the opportunity to take him out (and you probably know full well that redemption isn't going to happen), nothing in the code requires you to behave like some chivalry-obsessed idiot and give away your presence. Doesn't it? The code entry seems almost intentionally ambiguous. As I said, one should find out what one's DM requires of a paladin. It just says a Paladin is required to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)" which is about as ambiguous as you can get without removing lying, cheating, and poison use from the passage. And we're kind of going around in circles here, so I'm just going to throw one final point out there before leaving the debate. All you say about "it doesn't work like that in reality" is all well and good. I agree that the concept of a Paladin in reality is outright preposterous, but that's partially because "playing by the rules" doesn't somehow empower people with resistance to ill effects or the ability to smite those of questionable moral persuasion with increased ferocity. In D&D, though, that's how the Paladin works. Because of their adherence to a strict code they are rewarded with better tools to uphold it. D&D isn't a simulation of reality, after all. It's a fantasy, and how things work in reality don't necessarily have any bearing on how they work in the game. So, having said all that, I shall reiterate that this is soley my interpretation. You are well within your right to interpret things differently, and well within your right to refuse to play a paladin in any game I run. :)
Kreistor2 12-16-07, 08:02 PM	Paladins are required by their Code to be honorable, but honorable does not have a single definition. In Japan, seppuku (suicide) could restore all honor to someone that had done something that had been dishonorable. For instance, killing one's master was the ultimate dishonor, but the Code could require a samurai to kill his master if his master did something dishonorable. This could result in a situation where a samurai had to kill his master then himself. That wouldn't happen in the West, where suicide was viewed as dishonorable (a great sin). Killing one's master was rare, since knights rarely had masters, instead being mercenaries serving whoever paid. Killing an evil man, regardless of relation, could never diminish one's honor. So what it comes down to is what is honor to the DM. There is no correct answer, and it is imperative that question be answered before the paladin can choose a course of action.
LunarWolfPrime 12-24-07, 09:00 AM	Complete Scoundrel has a PrC called Grey Guard which is a Paladin who has become jaded and is willing to do what it takes to get things done. Beyond that, I can't recall specifics as it was a friends book that I read. true but do not forget the two prcs that are pladen rougs something inquistor and some thing i do not remeber look it up on crystal keep
ArcTan 12-24-07, 07:59 PM	That's because being a Grey Guard is about compromising your LG alignment for LG goals, but plain old being a Rogue and using Roguish or "Scoundrel" tricks is *not* actually a compromise of LG alignment (as Complete Scoundrel points out).
DrunkMonk 12-25-07, 11:47 AM	One of the guys in the group I played with, used a Shadowbane Stalker that did pretty much what a paladin/rouge could do. He ended up at 8th level and was pretty darn effective. Boldrei grants city as a domain (gather info as in class skill). You can start as a rouge1/cleric 4/shadowbane stalker x and have some advancement of your sneak attack and close to full casting. DM
Edymnion 12-26-07, 02:17 PM	And don't forget the oft-overlooked line that Paladins are to fight evil without mercy. If the paladin has the opportunity to strike evil down, he is supposed to take it. Just because the dark lich says "Stop! Have mercy and I will reform my ways!" does *NOT* mean the Paladin *HAS* to stop. It might go a long ways towards being the good boyscout, but he can carry through with the death stroke without any worries. Being given time to prepare oneself for death is, IMO, a mercy. It is a stay of execution, if only a brief one. A paladin would likely seek to kill as quickly and painlessly as possible, and hence things like Sneak Attack would be good. More damage per hit, less rounds of combat, less time for the target to suffer before finally dying.
Kreistor2 12-29-07, 02:11 AM	And don't forget the oft-overlooked line that Paladins are to fight evil without mercy. Sorry, been away for Christmas. That's not what the LG section of the alignment section says. It uses one character that fights evil without mercy as an example of a viable LG character. It does not demand that all LG characters fight evil without mercy, only that they can. A LG character can fight evil and grant them mercy, too. Note that example character was removed from the SRD, so you can't even quote it without going to the PHB.
ArcTan 12-29-07, 03:07 AM	Basically a Paladin has to do what she thinks best serves the greater good and being a decent human being. Sometimes that means honestly giving the enemy a chance to surrender and mend his ways, *if she thinks this is a risk worth taking*. Other times it clearly isn't. There shouldn't be a *rule* that a Paladin *must* stand back and give the enemy a chance to surrender when he's about to push the button on his Doomsday Eldritch Machine any more than there should be a rule that a Paladin *must* immediately smite someone dead for mugging an old lady.
crimson-defender 12-29-07, 04:20 PM	I thought paladins are always LG. Playing an LG character is easy. Just try to follow law, and do not act out in crazy ways. Try not to lie to friends, and do not steal from people. The combo is hard to pull off, but it can be done with a good player. Try not to use your backstab to much, or a least give reason that a Lg person would do something that seems very unlawful.
crimson-defender 12-29-07, 04:21 PM	And don't forget the oft-overlooked line that Paladins are to fight evil without mercy. If the paladin has the opportunity to strike evil down, he is supposed to take it. Just because the dark lich says "Stop! Have mercy and I will reform my ways!" does *NOT* mean the Paladin *HAS* to stop. It might go a long ways towards being the good boyscout, but he can carry through with the death stroke without any worries. Being given time to prepare oneself for death is, IMO, a mercy. It is a stay of execution, if only a brief one. A paladin would likely seek to kill as quickly and painlessly as possible, and hence things like Sneak Attack would be good. More damage per hit, less rounds of combat, less time for the target to suffer before finally dying. But backstabbing is very unhonorable. And honnor is law to the paladin.
thehaze 01-01-08, 01:34 AM	Off-topic, I know, but I just had to ask: How does a World of Darkness campain set in Eberron work? ... Sounds interesting, care to say a few words about how those two settings mix?
Kreistor2 01-01-08, 10:07 AM	Nevermind
Edymnion 01-01-08, 10:29 PM	But backstabbing is very unhonorable. And honnor is law to the paladin.Please, its Sneak Attack, not Backstab. It hasn't been backstab since 2e. You can pop out of the shadows, use a free action to say "I'm going to stab you", and Sneak Attack them. Then, assuming you win init, you can stand there in plain sight and say "I'm going to stab you again" as a free action, then Sneak Attack them again. It has nothing to do with backstabbing, it doesn't even really have anything to do with catching them by surprise. It has everything to do with knowing where to hit somebody where it hurts the most. It just happens that the easiest way to get to that soft spot is when they lower their guard, and the easiest way to get them to lower their guard is to sneak up on them. But you don't have to.That's not what the LG section of the alignment section says. It uses one character that fights evil without mercy as an example of a viable LG character. It does not demand that all LG characters fight evil without mercy, only that they can. A LG character can fight evil and grant them mercy, too.Yes, they can, but part of the Paladin entry specifically says that they don't have to, that they can fight evil without mercy as well. Just because the evil guy begs you for mercy so he can stab you when you let your guard down does not mean you have to fall for it.
ArcTan 01-02-08, 02:02 AM	Off-topic, I know, but I just had to ask: How does a World of Darkness campain set in Eberron work? ... Sounds interesting, care to say a few words about how those two settings mix? I think it's *possible*. I think it's not a great idea, but you could certainly do it, especially with New World of Darkness (which has a lot fewer of its claws sunk into specific aspects of real-world culture and history and is therefore a lot more "portable"). I think it would fundamentally be a World of Darkness game at heart, and Eberron would be serving as a backdrop. I think there's not much more specific that I could say about it unless you want to get more specific about what you mean.
Kreistor2 01-02-08, 08:29 PM	Yes, they can, but part of the Paladin entry specifically says that they don't have to, that they can fight evil without mercy as well. Just because the evil guy begs you for mercy so he can stab you when you let your guard down does not mean you have to fall for it. Maybe I was confused. You said initially... And don't forget the oft-overlooked line that Paladins are to fight evil without mercy. If the paladin has the opportunity to strike evil down, he is supposed to take it. That isn't written such that paladins have a choice. You wrote that such that they must fight without mercy. "Are to" interprets as "must", not "may", and "supposed to" means "Are to do so if at all possible", not "can if he wants". Are you saying that paladins are required to fight evil without mercy, or that they can fight evil without mercy? Are you saying that they can fight evil with mercy?
Tordak 01-03-08, 12:54 AM	The problem with the paladin is D&D (and the DM) views on evil. There are 2 possible ways: - Creatures are defined by their action : a chaotic evil dragon is chaotic evil because he acts that way (selfish, killing everything for fun, cheating, unloyal, abusive, plotting world destruction, name it). Sure creatures have tendencies they're born with, but evil is also learned, more circumstantial and based on a clear will to do something evil, and also no evil is beyond redemption. In this view, being a paladin is touchy; you need discernement and you're likely to have to atone for minor infraction to your code more often. Enemy can ask for mercy, and you'll need a good Sense Motive to see through bluff. This is more akin to our real life, easier to relate to yet harder to deal appropriately when face with the kind of evil you find in fantasy and the apparent stricture of the paladin code; - Creature are defined by their alignement : evil creature are born evil or are embodiment of evil. This is more the view of D&D (altough it's often a mix of both views), as can be told by Demons and Devils (actually by all sort of outsiders), and, amongst other thing, the detect evil ability of a paladin. A paladin won't be looked down upon if he doesn't grant mercy to a dying devil or an almost destroyed undead. If it's an evil undead, it's undead because it did enough evil (or most likely) in it's life, the paladin doesn't need to witness acts of evil or a good reason to strike down such foe. That's why paladins get to detect evil at will : evil is. This is all explained in detail in both 'Book of Vile Darkness' and 'Book of Exhalted Deeds'. But in general, paladin should be a bit fanatic about destroying evil when it comes to undead, evil outsiders, dragons (and other overwhelming source of evil), and more on the 'conversion' side for evil humans and similar threat (all depending how disposed and opened the 'evil' is). Law is a similar issue, but being honorable doesn't mean being dumb. And using sneak attack doesn't always involved sneaking around, it involves taking advantage of an opening : Paladins are fighters, not apostles of peace.
ChaoticGood 01-12-08, 03:01 PM	That's not what the LG section of the alignment section says. It uses one character that fights evil without mercy as an example of a viable LG character. It does not demand that all LG characters fight evil without mercy, only that they can. A LG character can fight evil and grant them mercy, too. Paladins must be Lawful Good. That does not mean that Lawful Good characters are always Paladins. Hence why the description of the alignment does not include such restrictions as, "can not adventure with known evil characters" and "must never tell a lie." Basically, it comes down to a Paladin knowing his enemy. In general, he should offer his enemies a chance to surrender and/or atone... but if he knows his enemy is irredeemable (a demon, for example, or a mindless creature), then there's no reason to waste time with this nicety. Sneak attack away, dark knight! Also, as has been stated Bluff + Improved Feint + Sneak Attack is a perfectly acceptable tactic for a Rog/Pal once combat is joined. In this case, the bluff isn't a lie so much as a well-executed combat maneuver that sets the opponent off-guard. Bluff is used because it is the skill that is closest in concept to this tactic, but it could easily be replaced with a Reflex save (DC 10 + half character level + Dex) to represent the ability to be quicker to strike than the opponent is to block.
JulesCARV 01-12-08, 05:49 PM	Note: if you start as a rogue, then go into paladin, you don't need knight training (rogue) unless you want to take more rogue levels, then take more paladin levels after that. In short, you don't need knight training to be a rogue/paladin. You don't need knight training to be a rogue/paladin/rogue even. You only need knight training if you're going to be a rogue/paladin/rogue/paladin (or some other arrangement that puts some other class level between two paladin levels). One issue is that rogues and paladins have largely the opposite ability dependencies. Rogues tend to want intelligence and dexterity a lot, the only two ability scores that paladins don't need too much of.
Edymnion 01-12-08, 09:19 PM	Are you saying that paladins are required to fight evil without mercy, or that they can fight evil without mercy? Are you saying that they can fight evil with mercy?They are required to fight evil without mercy. However, fighting evil does not always mean killing them.
Thaliost 01-13-08, 01:26 PM	You can definitely start as a rogue, and get into paladin at some point. If you start as a paladin, then fine, choose the feat in EBCS, and you can level up as a paladin at any time. If the alignment bothers you a lot, take a look at Unearthed Arcana. There're CG, LE, and CE paladin variants. Pick up one you like, and you're all set. The best thing of a rogue/pal, from a power gamer's point of view, is that you have evasion, and can add your cha bonus to all the saves. The sneak attack doesn't really really matter...
Thaliost 01-13-08, 01:29 PM	They are required to fight evil without mercy. However, fighting evil does not always mean killing them. Yes, even pals of the Silver Flame would give evil humanoids a chance to confess, but only humanoids...
kelvinaw273 01-13-08, 01:46 PM	I'm pretty sure there's a feat in Complete Adventurer that lets you multiclass Paladin & Rogue with perks (better than Knight Training from the ECS). Beyond that, there's a few PrCs in that book that help make sneaky smiters. If you think the reliance on feats kinda kills your character's power mojo, keep in mind the retraining rules in the PHB2. I'd also recommend using the Charging Smite substitution ability in the PHB2. Devoted Rogue.
Edymnion 01-14-08, 08:58 AM	Yes, even pals of the Silver Flame would give evil humanoids a chance to confess, but only humanoids...After all, turning someone to your side not only decreases your opponent's power, it raises yours by the same amount, making it a double blow. And there is a line between giving mercy, and not going overkill. Capture if you can, and try to turn them to the side of good. But when you know the opponent is irredeemable (like a demon or devil), then no, just go for the kill as quickly as honorably possible.
Kreistor2 01-14-08, 09:51 AM	They are required to fight evil without mercy. However, fighting evil does not always mean killing them. I'm sorry, but that is absurd. I'd really like to know how you interpret that from the alignment or Code of Conduct rules.
ArcTan 01-14-08, 07:33 PM	They are required to fight evil without mercy. However, fighting evil does not always mean killing them. They're not actually required to fight Evil without mercy. That's not in the Paladin CoC. That's a *description* of the character Alhandra, who's just one particular Paladin. Sorry, but I'm highly resistant to people who make "logical inferences" from the Paladin Code that basically end up saying all Paladins must make the same decision at all times everywhere. That just makes me want to ban the Paladin class.
Edymnion 01-15-08, 12:19 PM	That just makes me want to ban the Paladin class.I already did. I use the Prestige Paladin PrC. Base classes should not be that niche dependent. Makes far more sense as a Fighter/Cleric PrC than it does a base class.
Siran Dunmorgan 01-15-08, 02:37 PM	They're not actually required to fight Evil without mercy. That's not in the Paladin CoC. That's a *description* of the character Alhandra, who's just one particular Paladin. Sorry, but I'm highly resistant to people who make "logical inferences" from the Paladin Code that basically end up saying all Paladins must make the same decision at all times everywhere. That just makes me want to ban the Paladin class. Different paladins can have a different definition of the evils they fight. One common example from Eberron is the paladin called to serve Kalok Shash in the Labyrinth: they may be bound to do no harm to innocents, but no one coming out of the Wastes is considered innocent. There are times when they're out in the canyons, tracking a small caravan trying to cross into the Eldeen Reaches, and there's no chance, no choice, by their code of conduct but to hit that caravan hard and fast, without warning and probably with a significant array of traps, if there's any lead time. The imperative is that nothing is allowed to leave the Wastes. If there's any question, e.g. if the caravan does not obviously bear an evil aura, then perhaps non-lethal traps and ambuscades are called for, but lethal force is not only permitted, but required, if that's the only way to safeguard the rest of Khorvaire. Rogue/paladins were probably also instrumental in the Lycanthrope Purge by the Silver Flame a few years back: much of that "war" was fought in sewers and tunnels, back rooms and haylofts, and other areas where skills such as climb and tumble were as useful as the ability to use a longsword or bow. In the "Dragons and Deities?" (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=976827) thread, Hellcow mentions a number of possible sources of paladin inspiration, most of which would make magnificent back-stories for rogue/paladins, and significant variations on a Code of Conduct. —Siran Dunmorgan P. S. Regarding the notion that Paladin makes more sense as a Prestige Class than as a base class, remember: rather a lot of Eberron was created on the basis of "here's a core rule: what story allows this to make sense in the setting?" i.e., Eberron was created to exemplify the 3.5 rules. I believe that we should honor this by permitting all of the options available to beginning characters under the 3.5 rules, but I can certainly see the point. :)
Lord_Zeal 01-16-08, 12:33 AM	It would be easiest to just break alignment. Make the character bound to faith's alignment, like the soverign host. Fight evil while being CG, NG, or whatever. Alignment is a very grey area in eberron anyway.
trelainex 01-17-08, 12:39 AM	It's complete possible. First off, Don't play Lawful Stupid, which is how most people play paladins as mindless machines who must detect evil every other round to make sure their companions are upholding their values. Also, people get really hung up on the backstab that is a rogues ability, that is far and away, the least interesting thing a Rogue can do. I personally, go to my dm and say, I want fighter feats instead of backstab, or social feats instead, like, Negotiator, Skill Focus (diplomacy, bluff etc). The ability to sneak into the Big Bad headquarters and rescue the fair maiden without killing anyone falls under "acting with honor, even to those who have none." and fighting fire with fire, you simply accept that they have a code of honor as well, you're simply abiding theirs.. it's a nice loophole. Also, there are paladin variants in the Dragon Magazine, I think it's 310, or 312, which has some great fluff and some serious crunch. In my games, a LG paladin is the exception, and an npc 99 times out of 100, and not the rule.
Kreistor2 01-17-08, 08:00 AM	I already did. I use the Prestige Paladin PrC. Base classes should not be that niche dependent. Makes far more sense as a Fighter/Cleric PrC than it does a base class. Perhaps that's more due to your mistreatment of the alignment or CoC rules that cause the Paladin to be so very restrictive more than a weakness in the class itself. If you've based your judgment on a faulty conclusion of the intent of the Lawful Good alignment, then you're correcting for something that isn't inherently a problem with the class, just your treatment of it.
Lord_Zeal 01-17-08, 11:51 AM	I already did. I use the Prestige Paladin PrC. Base classes should not be that niche dependent. Makes far more sense as a Fighter/Cleric PrC than it does a base class. That is a matter of opinion. I see your point in a historical perspective. Paladin is just another term for Knight, just as Cavalier. So as a matter of perspective perhaps Fighter/Cleric granted the rank of Paladin, or you could leave it as is.
skrap-san 01-29-08, 02:55 AM	I just found this in the SRD. Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. It still don't say anything about sneak attack, but I still feel that if done with honor its OK. After all, and as we have discussed, there is a long way from feinting in combat and jumping out from the shadows and stabbing in the back.
Edymnion 02-01-08, 08:44 PM	Perhaps that's more due to your mistreatment of the alignment or CoC rules that cause the Paladin to be so very restrictive more than a weakness in the class itself. If you've based your judgment on a faulty conclusion of the intent of the Lawful Good alignment, then you're correcting for something that isn't inherently a problem with the class, just your treatment of it.No, it has more to do with the fact that, IMO, base classes should not be niche classes. Base classes should be broad and flexible, leave the niche stuff to PrC. And yes, I feel the same way about the monk.
Kreistor2 02-01-08, 11:55 PM	Niche classes? Paladins aren't niche. They can make excellent tanks, and can fill the negotiator role in non-combat. Yeah, other classes do each job better (at least in my opinion, others may differ), but not so poorly that you can't count the paladin as a valid tank choice, or as a diplomat . The monk isn't niche either: it's just poorly designed from a mathematical perspective. The middle of the road BAB means that the naturally increasing damage/hit from unarmed strike damage just doesn't occur often enough to call them a high damage dealer. Further, with an Ac in the basement, they can't survive the melee range fights they are intended to perform. Different MMORPG's have made the same mistake, but they can repair the damage more easily than P&P. They improved the monk from 3.0 to 3.5 (FLurry became based on BAB instead of having it's own separate table, and the base to hit went from 13 to 15), but they didn't go far enough. Same goes with the Bard. It's not niche, it's just ineffective. Weak is not "niche". Thankfully, Wizards is reviewing all classes from a party role perspective in order to ensure the core classes fit a party role.
kelvinaw273 02-09-08, 12:53 PM	I wouldn't call any of them niche or weak. They have their own strengths and weaknesses. A generalist like the bard or monk will never beat a specialist in the specialists field, but they can do more than the specialist can. They don't make for an ideal character in the standard four-character party mode, but they do make great fifth-wheel characters that add to a party's abilities and provide redundancy.
Kreistor2 02-10-08, 01:39 AM	Well, Kelvin, I'm going to point you towards that discussions about class roles for 4e. The bard is not releasing with the PHB because it will take too much work to make it fit a party role. To me, that makes it weak. If it can't do an important job well, then it has no power, no matter how many abilities it has. Having a lot of weak abilities does not make you powerful: it just makes you adequate more often than others, but weaker than them just as often. If no one cares about those times when you are only adequate when they are pathetic, but everyone cares when the others are excellent when you are merely adequate, then despite being better, you're still useless. Being better at being useless is still being useless. I think it was mentioned that the monk isn't in the PHB for the same reason, but I'll have to beg others to correct or confirm me on that. I don't have time to look it up. I'm falling asleep on the keyboard.
kelvinaw273 02-10-08, 09:19 AM	Well, Kelvin, I'm going to point you towards that discussions about class roles for 4e. The bard is not releasing with the PHB because it will take too much work to make it fit a party role. To me, that makes it weak. If it can't do an important job well, then it has no power, no matter how many abilities it has. Having a lot of weak abilities does not make you powerful: it just makes you adequate more often than others, but weaker than them just as often. If no one cares about those times when you are only adequate when they are pathetic, but everyone cares when the others are excellent when you are merely adequate, then despite being better, you're still useless. Being better at being useless is still being useless. I think it was mentioned that the monk isn't in the PHB for the same reason, but I'll have to beg others to correct or confirm me on that. I don't have time to look it up. I'm falling asleep on the keyboard. Which just goes to show that number crunching and rules lawyering do not good role-playing make. The Bard HAS a role in a party - as the 5th character in the 4-man party he is perfect. Is four players and one DM suddenly the rules-permitted maximum for D&D? Of course not. If you have only three characters in a party, do you want three roles filled and one empty and hope? Or do you try to fill all four, two well and two only adequately? Neither option is 'right' but both should be available. And this: "If no one cares about those times when you are only adequate when they are pathetic, but everyone cares when the others are excellent when you are merely adequate, then despite being better, you're still useless." Is, with great respect, simply not true. A character that is adequate when everyone else is pathetic is not "useless" but sometimes "essential". A generalist only has to be essential once in a blue moon to be essential, regardless. The rest of the time they may not be as good as everyone else to still be helping out and pulling their weight. This means they are contributing, and by definition, anyone contributing is not "useless". You are clearly confusing "useless" with "non-essential", and if the games designers of 4th ed are doing the same then I cringe, quite frankly, at what they may produce. Essentially this argument (taken to extreme) says that anything but Cleric, Wizard, Fighter and Rogue (or slight variations thereof) are "useless", and any number of players over four undesirable; frankly I reject that utterly. The reasoning may work on the char op boards, but most people don't play there. Variety is part of the fun of the game, and generalists offer great variety. Therefore, generalists add to the fun, and that is what the game is all about!
Kreistor2 02-10-08, 10:58 AM	Which just goes to show that number crunching and rules lawyering do not good role-playing make. And what is role playing? Acting? Powergaming? Puzzle solving? All of these, and more, are roleplaying. Twnety years ago Champions published a list of the various types of roleplaying. Straitjacketing roleplaying into one of these narrow definitions is insulting. All forms of roleplaying are valid. The Bard HAS a role in a party - as the 5th character in the 4-man party he is perfect. That's an opinion, and one I do not share in the least. Bad spellcasting. Bad melee. Redundant skills. Buff bonuses that are horribly weak. None of it is worth the time wasted to create the class. Fortunately, WotC seems to agree with me, and maybe we'll see a Bard that can actually impress next time out the gate. A character that is adequate when everyone else is pathetic is not "useless" but sometimes "essential". If those times actually don't matter, then it's still useless and not essential. Being really good at cleaning a toilet isn't going to be considered useful, if you can simply walk out of the washroom and leave the mess behind with no consequences. Your presumption is that there are enough times that cleaning the toilet makes a difference to jusify a janitor on the team. "Oh, no, the guards will attack us if we don't clean up behind us!" Yeah, devoting a character to that doesn't really help much. You are clearly confusing "useless" with "non-essential", and if the games designers of 4th ed are doing the same then I cringe, quite frankly, at what they may produce. No, I am declaring that 90% of the time the specialists handle the situation. 50% of the time at the table is focused on combat, and the combat experts (which the bard is most certainly not) overcome the situation. The other 50% break down into a variety of other puzzles and situations. Those are handled by a variety of solutions, but common solutions are arcane and divine magic (done better by the arcane and divine classes with their greater spell/day and wider variety of spell selections), puzzles (which use player capacity, not PC capacity, so class is irrelevant), and skills (which the bard only solves when the rogue-like character doesn't have the appropriate skill). That means the bard solves the exclusive problem-solving skill somewhere around 10% of the time. How often, though, is that solution critical, and there is no other solution available? Well, given that these problems are created by the DM, that's a DM decision. Going into it, the DM might create a problem that he intends only the bard to be able to solve, but as a DM I can't assume the bard will be a the table that weekend. That means I can't restrict any problem to a bard-solution-only design: I must provide the group with more than one solution. Zip, there went the bard's only exclusive power point: at any time a bard could have solved the problem, someone else could have as well. Modules are designed the same way: there is nothing that only one class could solve. Your theoretical bard-exclusive problems simply don't exist, unless the DM creates them. If there was no bard, he wouldn't have created the bard-only problem in the first place, so it's an illusion of power. If you'd played a rogue, it would have been a rogue-only problem instead. So, yes, by useless I mean non-essential. An illusion of essentialness can exst if the DM designs for it, but there is nothing inherently essential about anything a bard can do. Others do everything equally well or better, and given the massive redundancy with the four typical roles, you're only picking up what few skills or spells the other party members didn't take. Switch to a different class, and a DM that follows that style will not include bard-essential puzzles in the first place. If there's no bard in the party, then placing a bard-only solution in the dungeon ends the adventure. Ultimately, even though a bard may be better at a few instances, no party will ever be stopped by the lack of a bard, so no, the bard can never be essential unless the DM designs for that essentialness. Just look at that example story I linked above. The DM demanded a bard in the group. He was designing for it by choice. That doesn't make the bard essential in any game, just in his. Essentially this argument (taken to extreme) says that anything but Cleric, Wizard, Fighter and Rogue (or slight variations thereof) are "useless" PC roles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a) The roles are Leader, Defender, Striker, and Controller. (Wow, that kinda simulates the roles in an MMORPG. It almost sounds like combat is combat, no matter if it's on a tabletop or a computer screen, so that the same breakdowns actually apply regardless of medium. Maybe the lessons learned in MMO's actually do apply to tabletop! Gee, I haven't been arguing that for a decade.) The last three are fairly typical roles in MMO's and don't require much thought to define. The Leader role is the one we can't determine much about just by the name: it's job title doesn't have much obvious mechanical function. (A Striker strikes, so he deals high damage. A Leader leads, but what does that do on the battlefield for a group of individuals? We'll have to wait and see what they mean, mechanically.) It doesn't take much to place the bard in a Controller role, in my opinion, since it already has lots of mind affecting spells, if you're willing to amp up its spellcasting (so that the DC's are appropriate, instead of falling behind the full casters by 1/6 levels). They're targetting the Leader role for the bard according to the article, which means they fill the role targetting the cleric. That suggests healing is important for the Leader, but the damage/hit in 4e will be higher than 3.x (see the most recent article concerning PC death), so that means the bard would need to amp up its healing capacity significantly, which is a role it never did as well as even the crowd controlling role. The bard doesn't really compare well to the true healers. I suppose that's the greater problem for revamping the bard as a Leader, since it's a big philosophical shift for the class. Anyway, that's speculation. So WotC doesn't agree with you, and the bard is getting an overhaul to target a role instead of being left as a generalist that doesn't fill any role well enough to be essential in a four member party. (If a module is designed for four memebers, that fifth man role isn't goig to have any vital problems to solve.) I personally do not see how this change has any effect on "roleplaying", because how good an actor (if that's your defintion for the word) presents teh personality of his character doesn't change because of the definition of the class the actor is playing. A good actor will act well no matter what character is placed in front of them. You're presuming that there will be less depth to the new bard, but that's based entirely on your assumptions, not on any knowledge of where the class is headed. I'm certain that if you want to play a weak, ineffecctive class in order to get that improved "roleplaying" that you're looking for, you'll be able to poorly design your character under 4e and that will provide the depth you desperately desire. Yes, designing badly automatically inserts depth into a character, and a well designed character is inherently shallow. That's sarcasm, BTW. Good actors can roleplay a well designed character just as easily as a poorly designed one. Variety is part of the fun of the game, and generalists offer great variety. Therefore, generalists add to the fun, and that is what the game is all about! Specialization is part of the fun of the game, and specialists offer great strength in the most common situations. Therefore specialists add to the fun, and that is what the game is all about. A generalist can be fun: I don't deny that. What I deny is that a redesign to fit a class into a four man party instead of a five man party is anything but a great idea.
kelvinaw273 02-10-08, 12:51 PM	And what is role playing? Acting? Powergaming? Puzzle solving? All of these, and more, are roleplaying. Twnety years ago Champions published a list of the various types of roleplaying. Straitjacketing roleplaying into one of these narrow definitions is insulting. All forms of roleplaying are valid. <snipped> So the rest of your post that advocates role-playing only in your way is therefore an opinion and no more or less valid than mine. Nonetheless I'll address your points. That's an opinion, and one I do not share in the least. Bad spellcasting. Bad melee. Redundant skills. Buff bonuses that are horribly weak. None of it is worth the time wasted to create the class. Fortunately, WotC seems to agree with me, and maybe we'll see a Bard that can actually impress next time out the gate. OK so your fifth character is, say, a wizard instead. Let's rate how well he can perform against the bard if another character gets taken out: The other Wizard gets taken out: Your wizard fills in - score 10/10 Bard can fill in some arcane magic, score 3/10 The fighter gets taken out: Wizards suck at fighting - score 0/10 Bard has better AC, better to hit, better armor than you, score 3/10 The Rogue gets taken out: Wizard has 2 skill points per level but high int - score 1/10 Bard has 6 skill points per level, and overlap with rogue - score 4/10 The Cleric gets taken out: Wizard can't really cover for a cleric - score 0/10 Bard has some healing magic - score 3/10 If nobody gets taken out: Your wizard is still half-redundant - score 5/10 Bard buffs, fills in here and there - score 4/10 Total scores: Bard = 17/50 Wizard = 16/50 My point here is that if you have a four-character party, you wouldn't use a bard. But in five-character party a bard is more use than a spare of the 'big four' characters. If those times actually don't matter, then it's still useless and not essential. Being really good at cleaning a toilet isn't going to be considered useful, if you can simply walk out of the washroom and leave the mess behind with no consequences. Your presumption is that there are enough times that cleaning the toilet makes a difference to jusify a janitor on the team. "Oh, no, the guards will attack us if we don't clean up behind us!" Yeah, devoting a character to that doesn't really help much. What if those times DO matter? Then your entire argument falls flat. They become essential. When the bards bardic knowledge answers the questions the wizard's knowledge skills didn't cover, when the monk turns out to be better at climbing than the combat-oriented rogue, etc. I've had parties in situations where the right skill, the correct feat, being in the right place all matter for party survival. I was talking about the essential situations - why did you assume I meant toilet cleaning? Modules are designed the same way: there is nothing that only one class could solve. Your theoretical bard-exclusive problems simply don't exist, unless the DM creates them. If there was no bard, he wouldn't have created the bard-only problem in the first place, so it's an illusion of power. If you'd played a rogue, it would have been a rogue-only problem instead. Did I say bard exclusive problems? No. Yes, specialists resolve 90% of the problems. A generalist can help them do it easier - that is contributing. If I help three people solve their problems, or one help one person a lot with resolving their problem. Which is more use to the party? Again you miss my point: You don't use a generalist in a specialists role, you use him to supplement a specialists role, and stand in if he gets taken down. Modules are designed the same way: there is nothing that only one class could solve. Your theoretical bard-exclusive problems simply don't exist, unless the DM creates them. If there was no bard, he wouldn't have created the bard-only problem in the first place, so it's an illusion of power. If you'd played a rogue, it would have been a rogue-only problem instead. Also, by your logic of DM allowances for classes, NO class is essential, even the specialist ones. Ergo specialists are non-essential as well. But you insist they are, and are not useless. As for party roles, tell us something we don't know about them; your definitions are very MMORPG, and you don't seem to be looking at the bigger picture: There are dozens of roles you can break down from a party ... for example: Tank Melee Hitter Missile Hitter Arcane blaster Arcane utility Healer Buffer Trapspringer Skillsmonkey Wilderness expert Streetwise expert Loremaster Athlete and so on ... filling every single aspect of each role is not easy. A generalist covers more bases. A generalist can be fun: I don't deny that. What I deny is that a redesign to fit a class into a four man party instead of a five man party is anything but a great idea. :banghead: How many times do I have to point out that I am not saying this should be done. I don't disagree about the four-man party. What about the three or five man party? If you have four roles to fill and three characters you have a choice: cover your bases with a generalist or go with a serious blind spot. If you have a five character party and all of them filled, what do you do for position five? Your options are wide open. I'm certain that if you want to play a weak, ineffecctive class in order to get that improved "roleplaying" that you're looking for, you'll be able to poorly design your character under 4e and that will provide the depth you desperately desire. Yes, designing badly automatically inserts depth into a character, and a well designed character is inherently shallow. That's sarcasm, BTW. Good actors can roleplay a well designed character just as easily as a poorly designed one. I haven't assumed you are a point-scoring, number-crunching power-gamer out to 'win' D&D who can't play a character with less than three 18s (they'd be too 'weak'), so why you assume that I advocate making 'weak' characters that are ineffective and poorly designed I really cannot guess; I'll put it down to bad experiences in your past and try not to be offended. While a four-player-one-DM game is mechanically best with four specialists, a game with more or less players can include generalists who contribute as much as the other roles, allow use of unique tactics by the party as a whole and be anything but weak. I've been playing and DMing for nearly thirty years now, and rarely have I found a group where we've had four regular players - I've been in groups with from two to ten players, and in groups where the roles were very unbalanced (for example a group of fighter, barbarian, monk and rogue). Bottom line is, the game is what you make it. If people enjoy playing monks, bards, rogues and rangers then why remove them from the game? They are balanced classes, far from weak and very useful in a non-standard party context. Edit: And I'll add that in my experience, non-standard parties in either numbers or constituents are actually the norm.
JulesCARV 02-13-08, 03:45 PM	The essential strength of the bard isn't that they're kinda half-decent at everything. The essential strength of the bard is that they can use mind-affecting supernatural and spell-like abilities with save DCs that are much higher than those vanilla spellcasters can achieve. A grey elf beguiler 20 with cloaked casting for +2 DC, greater spell focus (enchantment), and 36 int can achieve a save DC of 36 on dominate monster. A half-elf bard 20 with the first half-elf bard substitution level, maxed perform and diplomacy ranks, five ranks of the diplomacy synergy skills, 26 cha (8 lower than the beguiler before racial adjustments), a masterwork instrument, song of the heart, glammerweave clothing, and a circlet of persuasion has a perform modifier of +37, and a diplomacy modifier of +43. Then he adds a d20 roll to it. He can calm people with a DC of that diplomacy check as an SR-ignoring supernatural ability. Then he can fascinate those calmed people with a DC equal to the perform check (this part is subject to spell-resistance, since fascinate is (sp) not (su) -- the most likely part to be foiled). Then he makes 20 DC 29 suggestions as an SR-ignoring, supernatural ability. Regardless of will save, the chances of someone beating all of those suggestions is less than 36%. If you'd rather look at lower levels, since level 20 isn't played much, go ahead. Although really, diplomacy goes nuts by level 2: a +16 modifier isn't hard (+5 ranks, +6 synergy, +2 cha, +1 glammerweave circumstance, +2 racial), which is already a before-adding-a-d20 modifier higher than the save DCs of spells available at that level (okay, maybe you could get a DC of 17: 10 base, +1 spell level +4 ability modifier, +2 greater spell focus). Perform? Not quite as extreme, but still: +9 isn't bad (+5 ranks, +2 cha, +2 masterwork circumstance). Of course, suggestion doesn't arrive until level 6, but still... If your DM doesn't allow grey elves, or you're trying to enchant as a wizard rather than a beguiler, then lower that dominate monster DC by 3 to 33. One might argue that this is all irrelevant, because mind-affecting abilities can be foiled by mind blank, and don't work at any rate against undead, constructs, oozes, etc. Fair enough. That makes beguilers of rather limited relevance as well (although a beguiler can still disarm traps, and a bard can still enhance the rest of the party with inspire courage/greatness/heroics) but at any rate, if that is the big weakness of bards, it's a weakness of being overspecialized (in mind-affecting abilities), not overgeneralized.
justicar347 02-15-08, 02:12 PM	Ah, the Paladin/Rogue. It can be tricky, but not impossible. Lets look at some of the ways to handle this character. First, keep in mind that a Rogue is not necisarily a theif, assassin, con-man, etc. A rough can be a spy, scout, or "dungeon safety technition" among a variety of roles. Second, keep in mind that you can think of a Paladin as a "Holly Warior" rather than just a "Paladin". What I mean by this is that Paladin does not necesarily need to be a knight-like character, though that is the classic concept. Combinding these two classes can allow you to create plenty of interesting characters. You could be a streetwise adventure with a heart of gold that won't let evil go unpunished when he finds it durring his travels. You could be a dark and brooding vigilante (Batman!) that takes on the criminals that are above the law. Maybe you are the knightly Paladin archotype, but you have a dark past. You still use the tactics that you learned before you reformed, fighting evil with its own weapons. Don't forget, even a Paladin might have a vice such as drinking. It is not necisarily evil, but shows that he is still human (or demi-human as the case may be). As for building the character, there are plenty of options. Knightly Training in the ECS will let you multiclass your Paladin. There is also a feat in Complete adventure that is even better if Rogue is the only class you want to multiclass with. There are also prestige classes in Complete Adventure and Complete Scoundrel that will help. The Gray Guard is a good PrC to take if you want a darker kind of Paladin. You seem to be woried about your tendency to play chaotic characters. I know of two options to help with this. There is a PrC in Complete Divine that works a lot like Blackguard, but is Paladins that fell into chaos rather than evil so you can still be a good Paladin. The other option is that in Unearthed Arcana lets you play a Paladin with one of the other extream alignments. The big question that always fallows the Paladin around is what is good and what is evil. The first thing to remember is that a Paladin is Lawful Good the same way any other character can be Lawful Good. It just hurts a bit more if he falls from grace. The Code of Conduct also supplies some guidlines. I recomend that the Paladin PC and the DM get a pretty good establishment on what constitues good and evil before hand so as to not waste time debating it at the game table. I recomend using the BoVD and BoED to set up these guidlines. That away arguements can be ended by saying, "look in the book." Now lets look over some of the major areas of contention. Poison: It is stated in the BoED that most poison's are evil because they cause undue suffering in the process of defeating the enemy, not to mention it is outright prohibited in the Paladin's Code. This does seem like an arbitrary distinction, and it is. Still, just because you do not agree that poison is inherently evil in real life, that does not mean that it is evil in the game. Keep in mind that solving conflicts with violence is generally frowned upon in the real world. Sneak Attacks and Feigns: First and for most, these are legitimate combat tactics and the Paladin's code does not prohibit them. Even the BoED will tell you it ok. However, a Paladin would definately use discretion on when to use a sneak attack. Flanking and and getting initiative on an opponent are ok, completely ambushing him without warning probably not, though IMO if you use subdual damage it would be ok. Acting with Honor: Now this is open to a level of interpritation. IMO what it largely comes out to is that the Paladin should not be acting in a deceitfull manner or under flase pretenses. I would like to note that it does not explicitly state that the Paladin needs to fight honorably, and I would imagine that is because honorable combat is more likely to happen in a ring than on a battle field. Still, it stands that a Paladin would not be a big fan of ambushes, at least the kind where you knife an enemy in the shadows then run off into the night. Keep in mind that the Kight class in PHII has a very specific code of honor for combat that the Paladin does not. However, I would allow a Paladin to adopt that codes as a flaw to gain a bonus feat. Mercy or not: A Paladin's job is to fight evil, plain and simple. However, that does not mean they have to be merciless. In fact, being able to show mercy is part of what makes a character good aligned. It ain't always easy, but doing the right thing rarely is. A merciless Paladin is on the fast track to needing an attonment spell. In the end the main things to remember are no lying, stealing, cheating, or coldblooded murder. You have to help the helpless and deffend he deffenseless. If you have to justify an action, that is a good sign that it probably is leading you down that road to hell that is pathed with good intentions. If you find yourself wondering whether or not to do something, just ask yourself whether you would want your mother to findout about it. If the answer is not, you probably shouldn't or you are likely on that slippery slope to hell. Actually, I guess that is pretty good advice even away from the game table. World would be a better place if everyone acted like there mother was stairing over their shoulder. One final thing I wan to express is my own thoughts on the Paladin. I think it is a good class if used right. It can be ruined if someone insists on playing their Paladin with a holier-than-thou attitude, which is not what they are suppose to have. I think that a person needs to consider the group they are going to play with. If they have no altruistic intentions, then a Paladin is going to have a really hard time. My larges complaint isn't about how a Paladin is role played, but the name. Paladin seems like a title to me. It very specificly I dentifies the Paladin as a knight. I think this tends to limit the Paladin's rp ability. Instead, I think it sould just be the Holy Warior class. In this way the alternate idea from Unearthed Arcana can be worked in and a Holy Warior could be one of the four extream alignments. The a Lawful Good Holy Warior that goes down the path of knight hood could just be specificly called a Paladin. That would also mean that Fighter/Clerics could also be called a Paladin.
Kreistor2 02-19-08, 01:02 AM	So the rest of your post that advocates role-playing only in your way is therefore an opinion and no more or less valid than mine. Nonetheless I'll address your points. Uh, no... none of the rest of my post related to that first paragraph at all. It does not "advocate roleplaying only in [my] own way". If I want to argue mechanics in one thread, I'm allowed. If I want argue acting in another, I'm allowed that too. Participating in either does not mean I favour either merely by particpating, only that I can discuss them with those that may without prejudice towards the participants. OK so your fifth character is, say, a wizard instead. Straw Man. I never advocated any individual class as a fifth. Let's rate how well he can perform against the bard if another character gets taken out: More Straw Man. The player of a character designed solely to be useful when another character falls is going to be useless in the 9 fights in 10 when no character falls at all. I advocate a fifth character that is useful in all 10 of those fights, not just the 1/10 that your Straw Man argument advocates. The Wizard you reject so handily, with a different specialization, can be just as useful and entirely non-redundant with the other wizard in. For instance, the first Wizard is an Evoker while our second is an Enchanter. Or ow about if the duplicates were both melee? One could be a Defensive fighter while the other an Offensive Fighter, taking two distinct jobs, or better yet a melee fighter and a ranged fighter and now there's no overlap at all, pretty much. Other classes can double up without being redundant, while still retaining strong specializations, in a five man party. My point here is that if you have a four-character party, you wouldn't use a bard. Which is why WotC says the bard needs a revamp. It needs to be a solid option in a four player party like they wanted in the first place. What if those times DO matter? Then your entire argument falls flat. They become essential. If they matter, and he didn't tell you at character creation time to cover those essentials, well, get a new DM. He's an idiot. You're basing your argument on a single type of "If". There are many, many "If"s, and the bard can only meet a certain number of them, and really, fewer than other well designed generalists. If the DM is stupid enough to put a road block like that in the way, then failing to include a bard could be just as bad as failing to include a paladin, ranger, or barbarian. You're just drawing cards out of a deck, and if you don't get a heart, well, you lose. When the bards bardic knowledge answers the questions the wizard's knowledge skills didn't cover, when the monk turns out to be better at climbing than the combat-oriented rogue, etc. It's up to the DM to design challenges the party can overcome, not challenges they can't. Because you designed for the skills they had, not the skills they didn't. If none had "toilet cleaning", then you wouldn't have placed a toilet cleaning challenge in front of them. If you did, well, did the party fail, or did they find a way to voercome despite your challenge? If so, that's not an "essential" requirement, just a "it would have been easier if we had an X, but we won anyway so we don't need an X, just want one". Essential is "need", not "want". [quote]Did I say bard exclusive problems? No. Yes, specialists resolve 90% of the problems. That's bad math. All parties resolve 100% of the problems, or they lose. Four member or five, both groups resolve the required problems, or the villains win. A generalist can help them do it easier And you misunderstand me. I usually play generalists, because I hate being unable to participate. My point is that the bard is a bad class, not that generalist characters are a bad idea. Bards are just woeful compared to even other generalists. Also, by your logic of DM allowances for classes, NO class is essential, even the specialist ones. Ergo specialists are non-essential as well. But you insist they are, and are not useless. Exactly. Monte points that out in RttToEE. The DM must compensate for the party that does play, not the group that he wanted the players to bring. If the party doesn't bring a healer, then provide an NPC or drop lots of Hela potions on the NPC's. Designing for a party that doesn't exist is no different from attacking a L1 party with a terrasque. They can't beat it, so why'd you bother wasting everyone's time? As for party roles, tell us something we don't know about them; your definitions are very MMORPG, and you don't seem to be looking at the bigger picture: There are dozens of roles you can break down from a party ... for example: I'm only reporting what was in the 4e thread. You can whine about how WotC is breaking it down to them. I'm not defending someone else's design decision. But I will say this: P&P came first. MMO's learned their definitions from P&P definitions, not the other way around. You're attributing to MMO's something they talk a lot about (far more than we really did in P&P), simply because MMO's have such a larger play time that they've had to further refine their perspective on gameplay. Sure, MMO's settled on terms for them, but the concepts were already well in place. It has always been my point that basic philosphies of gaming are true regardless of media -- all players should be participating at all times and all players should have fun as often as possible. For MMO's, maximizing those two makes them money. For P&P, maximizing those two make them money. It's pretty straight forward, really. and so on ... filling every single aspect of each role is not easy. A generalist covers more bases. And the bard does so poorly -- more poorly than other generalists, who can often have a specialty to go with the general abilities. How many times do I have to point out that I am not saying this should be done. I don't disagree about the four-man party. Then why are you arguing with me? WotC has made their position clear and it supports the bard as a solid member in a four person group, which apparently they wanted in the first place, but never understood they didn't achieve until too late. What about the three or five man party? Rhetorical. There are lots of methods for dealing with 1-12 member parties discussed in other forums. WotC has written Dragon and online articles about the problems large and small groups face. I, frankly, don't need to defend their position in order to demonstrate the bard is weak. Bottom line is, the game is what you make it. If people enjoy playing monks, bards, rogues and rangers then why remove them from the game? They are balanced classes, far from weak and very useful in a non-standard party context. WotC disagrees with you, and so do I. They have clearly stated the bard is not powerful enough to fill a position in a four man group, and is therefore not balanced. They'll rectify that in 4e. Edit: And I'll add that in my experience, non-standard parties in either numbers or constituents are actually the norm. Four man is rare, yes, but that remains the target for 4e. I am not privy to the "why" of that target number, and since it was decided as the basic party for 3.0, it is unlikely they'll discuss that decision again for 4e too deeply: why rehash old decisions? Four man is the target, so all classes need to fit the four roles they target the common party to have. I listed those four roles above, copied straight from the Design and Development article. You can list other roles if you like, but WotC has settled on those four. The bard is targeted for the Leader role: deal with it. You're raging against someone else's wind, here. I can only defend my own words, not decisions made by WotC behind closed doors. I can state what is going to happen (or at least, what they are intending right now), but unless they say "why", I (and you) will never know their thoughts. I have no interest in backing the party line blindly: I run a houseruled game, so I clearly don't see eye-to-eye with WotC on everything. Most of what they do is good, or at least adequate, and they're finally catching up on some of the old good ideas other companies introduced, much to my relief. One of the things they seem to be bringing in, which is actually an old Champions concept, is balanced PC's. Ye,s you know that concept from MMO's, but it was Champions that aimed for that ideal first, way back in '82. So, don't be so quick to think WotC is stealing from the MMO community for this: there's an enormous body of work out there neither you nor I ever read, and their inspiration could be from anywhere.
justicar347 02-19-08, 11:51 AM	I'd like to point out that there are no weak classes, just weak players. It is just a matter of what you are doing with them. A bard is not a tank or a blaster. Its primary role is a buffer. Nobody is better at buffing a party than a good bard. The also make great faces for the party out side of combat. Them and the rogue are the only classes that have every charisma based skill. Bards are also good scouts, equal to a rogue or ranger. A bard will never be a tank, blaster, or healer the way other classes are, but that does not mean that it does not fill a role. A bard is at his best in a party that already has the other major roles of tank, blaster, and healer met because he can enhance their abilities. He does not replace them, he helps make them better. Any class can be broken or useless deppending on who is playing it. I've designed bards that could go tow to tow with a barbarian in melee. The only class that I have ever though to be close to useless was the Healer from Minatures Handbook. Unless someone wants to play a character that does nothing other than heal the rest of the party, that class offers nothing. Makes for a great cohort though. Some of the classes pressented in resent source books have seemed a bit overpowered IMO. The Complete Psionic classes being a good example. As WotC tried to come up with new material, it seems like certain things started to become more unbalanced IMO. If you look at some of the newest feats and PrCs then compare them to older ones, I think you'll notice that a lot of the newer ones seem more powerful. Seems I've gone off on a bit of a tangent, but I think my general point is made. :twocents:
kelvinaw273 02-19-08, 01:53 PM	Straw Man. I never advocated any individual class as a fifth. But I did. That was the point. You were talking about a four man party, I was talking about a five man party. More Straw Man. The player of a character designed solely to be useful when another character falls is going to be useless in the 9 fights in 10 when no character falls at all. I advocate a fifth character that is useful in all 10 of those fights, not just the 1/10 that your Straw Man argument advocates. The Wizard you reject so handily, with a different specialization, can be just as useful and entirely non-redundant with the other wizard in. For instance, the first Wizard is an Evoker while our second is an Enchanter. Or ow about if the duplicates were both melee? One could be a Defensive fighter while the other an Offensive Fighter, taking two distinct jobs, or better yet a melee fighter and a ranged fighter and now there's no overlap at all, pretty much. Other classes can double up without being redundant, while still retaining strong specializations, in a five man party. Once again, you have missed the point. The bard is useful in more situations than any other generalist. You can take ANY extra character as the fifth and it will be useful - the bard the same as anyone else. Which is why WotC says the bard needs a revamp. It needs to be a solid option in a four player party like they wanted in the first place. The only thing I would change about the bard would be to give them trapsense. If they matter, and he didn't tell you at character creation time to cover those essentials, well, get a new DM. He's an idiot. You're basing your argument on a single type of "If". There are many, many "If"s, and the bard can only meet a certain number of them, and really, fewer than other well designed generalists. If the DM is stupid enough to put a road block like that in the way, then failing to include a bard could be just as bad as failing to include a paladin, ranger, or barbarian. You're just drawing cards out of a deck, and if you don't get a heart, well, you lose. It's up to the DM to design challenges the party can overcome, not challenges they can't. Conversely, if your DM is designing for the party that is it doesn't matter what you take, so no class can be said to be more or less useful than another. If not there are always many ifs, and a character that can cover a lot of them is a handy backup. And you misunderstand me. I usually play generalists, because I hate being unable to participate. My point is that the bard is a bad class, not that generalist characters are a bad idea. Bards are just woeful compared to even other generalists. I disagree. They are the ultimate generalists. I wonder if you just don't get bards? They are generalists with a social specialization. Admittedly it's not as dramatic as cleaving foes in two, but it has it's uses. Exactly. Monte points that out in RttToEE. The DM must compensate for the party that does play, not the group that he wanted the players to bring. If the party doesn't bring a healer, then provide an NPC or drop lots of Hela potions on the NPC's. Designing for a party that doesn't exist is no different from attacking a L1 party with a terrasque. They can't beat it, so why'd you bother wasting everyone's time? A point I entirely agree with. I'm only reporting what was in the 4e thread. You can whine about how WotC is breaking it down to them. I'm not defending someone else's design decision. But I will say this: P&P came first. MMO's learned their definitions from P&P definitions, not the other way around. You're attributing to MMO's something they talk a lot about (far more than we really did in P&P), simply because MMO's have such a larger play time that they've had to further refine their perspective on gameplay. Sure, MMO's settled on terms for them, but the concepts were already well in place. It has always been my point that basic philosphies of gaming are true regardless of media -- all players should be participating at all times and all players should have fun as often as possible. For MMO's, maximizing those two makes them money. For P&P, maximizing those two make them money. It's pretty straight forward, really. I don't disagree there either. As far as I'm concerned MMOs are a very pale shadow to PnP games. And the bard does so poorly -- more poorly than other generalists, who can often have a specialty to go with the general abilities. So does the bard - interaction. Bards can sway crowds and influence negotiations better than anyone. The argument has been made that the bard can do the beguiler's job better than the beguiler using enhanced skills than the beguiler can with spells. Then why are you arguing with me? WotC has made their position clear and it supports the bard as a solid member in a four person group, which apparently they wanted in the first place, but never understood they didn't achieve until too late. Now that I was unaware of. I always regarded the bard as the best fifth member of a four-person group. That was the point I was trying to make that you seemed to be missing. In the light of the above statement it now makes sense. Rhetorical. There are lots of methods for dealing with 1-12 member parties discussed in other forums. WotC has written Dragon and online articles about the problems large and small groups face. I, frankly, don't need to defend their position in order to demonstrate the bard is weak. WotC disagrees with you, and so do I. They have clearly stated the bard is not powerful enough to fill a position in a four man group, and is therefore not balanced. They'll rectify that in 4e. I have never disagreed that the bard does not belong in a four man group. I do disagree that they are weak. Four man is rare, yes, but that remains the target for 4e. I am not privy to the "why" of that target number, and since it was decided as the basic party for 3.0, it is unlikely they'll discuss that decision again for 4e too deeply: why rehash old decisions? Four man is the target, so all classes need to fit the four roles they target the common party to have. I listed those four roles above, copied straight from the Design and Development article. You can list other roles if you like, but WotC has settled on those four. The bard is targeted for the Leader role: deal with it. Once again, this makes sense in context, which you didn't make clear / I didn't grasp before. On the other hand as four-member groups are rare, why only concentrate on four roles? Of course that is a rhetorical question, it's just what WotC have decided to do - one more reason I'll be delaying moving to 4th ed a while if I can. I like the variety as is. You're raging against someone else's wind, here. I can only defend my own words, not decisions made by WotC behind closed doors. I can state what is going to happen (or at least, what they are intending right now), but unless they say "why", I (and you) will never know their thoughts. I have no interest in backing the party line blindly: I run a houseruled game, so I clearly don't see eye-to-eye with WotC on everything. Most of what they do is good, or at least adequate, and they're finally catching up on some of the old good ideas other companies introduced, much to my relief. One of the things they seem to be bringing in, which is actually an old Champions concept, is balanced PC's. Ye,s you know that concept from MMO's, but it was Champions that aimed for that ideal first, way back in '82. So, don't be so quick to think WotC is stealing from the MMO community for this: there's an enormous body of work out there neither you nor I ever read, and their inspiration could be from anywhere. Now I can see the context of your points, I can see where it might look that way. You sound like a decent DM/Player - but I still say bards aren't weak. They just have different focus. A lot of character classes in the original core could be better but aren't, but I never let a challenge pout me off. The original D&D party was assumed to be Fighter, Magic User, Cleric and Thief, which also was a classic quartet, but I don't think these should be so tightly constrained as those in a superhero team. PS - Champions was good, but with a decent point-buy amendment for attributes Superworld was actually better and simpler. ;)
Kreistor2 02-20-08, 12:05 AM	Superworld was actually better and simpler. Never heard of Superworld. You sound like a decent DM/Player Thanks. It takes a lot of mistakes to get there, though. I wasn't always a decent DM. - but I still say bards aren't weak. And I will never convince you otherwise. Once again, this makes sense in context, which you didn't make clear / I didn't grasp before. On the other hand as four-member groups are rare, I never said rare, and I don't agree that they are rare. Some people try for 4 man in order to match up against the DMG recommendations. As for never saying it before, well, I didn't think I had to. Just seemed kind of obvious to me, given the fact that is why they are dropping the Bard from the DMG. I have never disagreed that the bard does not belong in a four man group. I do disagree that they are weak. That's where you are wrong. You disagree with the premise, but that premise is the standard being used to judge the class balance in 4e. The bard is underpowered because it fails to meet the standards set for all classes. Disagreeing with the standards doesn't make the bard strong. The bard is weak because it needs 4 other party members in order to become adequately powerful to belong. A rogue needs only 1 (a flanker) to be effective. Many say a wizard needs no supporting cast. A Bard needs 4? That's clearly subpar.
justicar347 02-20-08, 01:02 AM	I think that one still has to remember that any charcter that is built to be a buffer is deppendant on the rest of the party. A wizard or cleric that specializes in buffing spells is more dependant on the rest of the party than ones that focus on blassing. On a side note, I HATE that 4ed refers to buffers as Leaders. I think that it emplies the wrong thing about the class's role in the party. It says "I'm in charge" not "I make everyone stronger." The whole way they are defineing roles is wrong in my eyes. What happened to brutes, blasters, and sneaks. Now we have strikers, controlers, and defeders. It doesn't (in what i've seen) mention sneaks and faces. Those are roles even if they arn't combat roles. Well, I'll stop here before I go off on a 4ed rant. I've seen things that I like, but more than a few that make me want to whack someone on the nose with a rolled up news paper and go, "Bad WotC." :heehee
ArcTan 02-20-08, 02:46 AM	I don't get people who say the Bard is a great "fifth man". He's a great *addition* to a four-man party if it's a Bard or nothing, but can you really tell me with a straight face the Bard is more *useful* than another Wizard or CoDzilla would be? The Bard is a great "fifth man" in the sense of "fifth wheel" -- it's a great way to add a player who has a numerical contribution to the party but doesn't do anything interesting that draws any attention. You know, when someone's pressured their SO to play D&D with you but they don't really want to pay attention, so you give them a character sheet where they say "I sing" and everyone gets bonus modifiers. 'Slike having a walking magic item.
ArcTan 02-20-08, 02:47 AM	On a side note, I HATE that 4ed refers to buffers as Leaders. I think that it emplies the wrong thing about the class's role in the party. It says "I'm in charge" not "I make everyone stronger." To me it's more like "I do interesting things and make decisions" vs. "I provide bonus modifiers and otherwise just sit there. I'm like a magic item you have to talk to and buy pizza for." Now we have strikers, controlers, and defeders. It doesn't (in what i've seen) mention sneaks and faces. It shouldn't. "Sneaks" and "faces" are both very *bad* roles, because they both involve situations where one person does something and everyone else sits there waiting for them to succeed or fail.
justicar347 02-20-08, 10:23 AM	A bard does not need to be a fifth wheel. They can replace a rogue in the party the same way a barbarian can replace a fighter or a druid can replace a cleric. A bard is just as good at scouting or being the party's face as a rogue, better probably at being the face thanks to fascinate, suggestion, and mass suggestion. If a rogue cannot use sneak attack then he is no better than a bard in combat. Actually he probably isn't as good since the bard can ubber buff himself. Rogues are the only PH class that has the Trapfinding class feature is one of the reasons they are seen as indispensable, but if the DM doesn't use a lot of traps then their necessity in the party is lessoned. A bard is a good rogue substitue.
Kreistor2 02-20-08, 09:43 PM	A bard does not need to be a fifth wheel. They can replace a rogue in the party the same way a barbarian can replace a fighter or a druid can replace a cleric. A bard is just as good at scouting or being the party's face as a rogue, better probably at being the face thanks to fascinate, suggestion, and mass suggestion. If a rogue cannot use sneak attack then he is no better than a bard in combat. Actually he probably isn't as good since the bard can ubber buff himself. Rogues are the only PH class that has the Trapfinding class feature is one of the reasons they are seen as indispensable, but if the DM doesn't use a lot of traps then their necessity in the party is lessoned. A bard is a good rogue substitue. Uber-buff? Hardly. Low spell level, remember? Being able to buff at all doesn't make you Uber. Being the best at buffing makes you Uber, and there are many classes far superior at buffing than a bard. So let's keep this in perspective. The bard can buff, but it can't uber-buff. A Favoured Soul? There's an Uber-buffer. Higher SL, more spells/day to waste on buffing, the divine series -- the bard really doesn't come close. Relying on the campaign to favour certain monster types without DM warning is again just like drawing a card out of a deck. You might get lucky and get the exact right card, in which case it looks powerful, but that is only one instance. There are 51 others when you draw the other one and you're less powerful. Deciding solely on one type of situation prejudices the analysis. There are far more monsters that are vulnerable to sneak attack than are not. In general, fights vs. humanoids are the most common, while oozes are often rare. To properly analyze, you need to look at the average occurance of each. I find, in my campaign, that immunity to crit runs about 30%, but mine is artificially high due to a prevalence of golems in that campaign. it may average 20-25% more typically, with the majority of the crit-immune creatures being undead instead of constructs like mine. So, yes, a bard can be a good replacement for a rogue for damage (only), but only with advance knowledge that the campaign will favour crit-immunity. In a campaign with hordes of humanoids, the bard doesn't come close, so without advance knowledge, on average you're clearly better off with a rogue. As for the sneaking and detection side of things, rangers are designed for that job, and they come with vastly superior melee to even the buffed bard (high BAB, extra feats, and favoured enemies). Though a bard can be a good social character or scouting character, bards don't get enough to be good at both. They generally have to choose one. Buffing takes a lot of spell slots. Enchantment takes spell slots. Social and scouting situations compete for skill points. The bard usually has to make a choice which direction to take the character, just as rogues (who have more skill points) do. A buffing bard can be effective the first couple of combats in the day, but that third will be a stretch, and in the fourth, the bard will be going in unbuffed and weaker. Let's not forget that the bard has limited spell casting, and though it is possible to do many of these things, their limited spells known grossly restrict what options they have and how often they can use them. Resource management is required of any Vancian spellcaster, and the bard's subpar spellcasting slams them with the worst form of it. The paladin and ranger don't pretend to be casters, but the bard tries to be, without the resources of the wizard or cleric. Traps are changing entirely in 4e, BTW. No details on that, yet, as far as I've seen, but they seem to think traps are too much like monsters. It sounds like traps will become puzzle elements instead of skill elements. Trapfinding as a role looked to be abandoned, though the Listen/Spot/Search role will be retained (under the generic ability Perception?). But again, I may be misinterpreting. If this is true, then the requirement to have a rogue for Trapfinding is gone.
justicar347 02-21-08, 12:16 AM	Uh, dude are you forgetting about Bardic Music? Bards don't just have spells. Bardic Music, especialy with some of the feats like Song of the Heart from the ECS, can be better than a lot of spells. I was not saying that you should count on undead to level the combat field between bards and rogues. I was pointing out that in that situation they are even. Even if you arn't going against an undead a bard can use Bardic Music and spells to buff himself (and the party) to be comparable to to a rogue. There is a spell in RoS that lets bards activate their music as a move action. A bard can cast that then activate a bardic music. The next round he can activate two more bardic musics. That makes the party triple buffed in two rounds. Third round the bard activates a third bardic music then attacks. I had a bard that did that. The it made the party so strong that the DM focused more monsters on me than the two wizards, cleric, and barbarian combind. I turn a gnome that liked to sing into a killing machine. It is hard for a bard to focus on both stealth and being a face, but it isn't impossible. He just needs a high inteligence score. Further more he can augment these skills with his spells like Silence, Glibness, and Invisibility. I'd like to point out that a rogue only has two more skill points per level than a bard, that isn't that big a difference. A well crafted bard can be a buffer, a face, and a scout all at the same time. Further more he can be good at all three of them. A true specialist might surpass him in one area, but never in all of them. A rogue does not have special abilities to improve his stealth skills, but a bard can augment them with magic. A wizard could cast buffing spells, but then he isn't throwing fireballs, where as a bard can start stacking bardic music effects with spells. A bard certaintly isn't a jugernaught of distruction like a barbarian or sorcerer, but not everyone plays that way. Some people would rather use other methods to bring down enemies. Heaven forbid someone use teamwork.
Kreistor2 02-21-08, 08:53 PM	Uh, dude are you forgetting about Bardic Music? Bards don't just have spells. Bardic Music, especialy with some of the feats like Song of the Heart from the ECS, can be better than a lot of spells. Oh, well, bard music. Clearly that's the source to power. INspire courage is what you're refering to, then? +1 Morale Bonus to attack and damage. No one can do that! No, wait... Bless is a morale bonus to attack. Well, Bard Song increases to +4. No one can match that! No one can do a +2 to attack and damage from some Strength buffing spell, and those never become Mass versions. And it's not like those buffs take a single round to cast and last minutes, where uber-powerful bard songs take concentration and afterwards last only a few rounds. I think it's clear that I don't count Bard Song as worth the ink used to print the rules. Like I said: if you want a buffer, go Favoured Soul. You can stack serious spells. Mass Shield of Faith is simply brutal. Stat buffers. Bless+Prayer. And at high levels with PHB2 alternate features, you effectively heal the party if you cast them during the fight. And, all the while, you can focus on being a good tank. In fact, a player in my last group did exactly that -- powerful buffer and serious meleer. I was not saying that you should count on undead to level the combat field between bards and rogues. I was pointing out that in that situation they are even.[/qote] And I was pointing out that is only even periodically. The frequency of an ability is part of the calculation for determining the power of an ability. A single monster killing ability that only gets to be used once every 1000 game days is not ppowerful, since the odds it ever gets used is near zero. [quote]There is a spell in RoS that lets bards activate their music as a move action. [snip] Which is nice, but only useful at high levels. Also, you're going to burn out those resources fast, and that makes them no longer available as a generalist resource. If you are retaining the bard songs in order to allow you to buff that fast, then they are not available for the broader generalist functions the bard is supposed to perform. You've turned the bard into a specialist, and destroyed the theoretical power claimed earlier. It is hard for a bard to focus on both stealth and being a face, but it isn't impossible. He just needs a high inteligence score. And now you've devoted a high stat to Int, which leaves you weak in combat. So, you're saying the bard can do two of the three -- face, stealthy, or combatant. Since combat usually takes up about 1/2 of the game time, I think it's a poor choice to abandon being useful 50% of the time in order to be useful a portion of the other 50% (not all of the rest of the time requires social and/or stealth skills). Further more he can augment these skills with his spells like Silence, Glibness, and Invisibility. I'd like to point out that a rogue only has two more skill points per level than a bard, that isn't that big a difference.[quote] It's the equivalent of +4 Int. It's big enough that the Rogue with 12 Int has a 16 in Con where the Bard with 16 Int has 12 in Con. You'll have fun with those extra skill points. [quote]A well crafted bard can be a buffer, a face, and a scout all at the same time. Nope. Not enough Spells Known to do all three. Further more he can be good at all three of them. Rhetoric. Prove it. Show me the build. Use the Elite array. A true specialist might surpass him in one area, but never in all of them. Uh, dude, by definition someone that tries to do well in many areas is a generalist, not a specialist. A wizard could cast buffing spells, but then he isn't throwing fireballs, "A bard could cast buffing spells, but then he isn't going to able to be stealthy." Bard has fewer spells/day, so he's even more vulnerable to your own logic. where as a bard can start stacking bardic music effects with spells. Last I checked, spells stack with spells, and clerics can stack far more effects than a Bard. (I never used a wizard as an example of a good buffer. I used Favoured Soul. Get with the program.) A bard certaintly isn't a jugernaught of distruction like a barbarian or sorcerer, but not everyone plays that way. You think I do? You missed that I play generalists, clearly. One of my favorites was a Warforged Scout (class) with Mithral Body. At level 7 he was doing 1D6+5 damage. Wow, that's uber-high. Not. Nope, he was built to flank, distract, and aid. And if you doubt that, I mentioned him in the "characters you want to play" thread in the Races forum months ago. Some people would rather use other methods to bring down enemies. Heaven forbid someone use teamwork. Yes, I do. And I'll never use a weak bard to do that job. Other classes do it so very much better, and far more interestingly.