How would you guys feel about your character class determining your equipment? Not necessarily your miscellaneous stuff like rope, rations, tents, and other gear. Just your weapons, armor, and maybe other things that are essential for that class.
>inb4 hurr durr classes are bad
>>44375082
>tfw can't play ranged Paladin
>tfw can't play a heavily armored standard bearer bard
>tfw can't play a knifemaster fighter with over 9000 daggers
>tfw can't play an elf barbarian with spear and bow
>tfw my fighter with maxed thieving has no thieves' tools
Predetermined gear is shit and makes already restrictive character creation into clone factory
That's fucking terrible. You may as well use pregens at that point.
>>44375082
It makes sense, the entire point of a class system is that it creates archetypes, and the reason systems like D&D have so many issues is because there is not enough niche protection for those archetypes.
The complaint in >>44375143 is silly, since that's assuming your class name makes a huge difference in your character, which it shouldn't unless game terms are real world terms, in which case that isn't really a concern unless you're specifically trying to be different.
The complaint in >>44375258 is somewhat legitimate, in that you either need to have a system which doesn't pretend to give a lot of player choices, or a system in which there are so many classes, and so many minor options that having your style decided for you isn't an issue.
>>44375299
Honestly as someone who plays PF, the class system is terrible and is best used when you treat it like not a class system. I.e Each class is a set of abilities that modify a character with each level.
Protecting Archetypes and protecting niches only exasperates the problems, not fix them.
>>44375299
Dude, in D&D which is the most known class based system, your class is gonna be hugely important. You also need to understand that certain concepts done within the parameters of a class will yield vastly different results. A ranged paladin is totally different from an archer rogue mechanically and in fluff. With predetermined gear, that would be impossible.
Also, certain class mechanics are critical for certain concepts even if they do an unconventional build.
>>44375082
Bad idea in general. Even for helping new players pick up the game, if that is your intention. It sacrifices concept and learning how a tabletop game could work for expediency and familiarity.
I know Dark Heresy 1e did this but you had a choice of two or three weapons, armor, and gear in most cases. I don't if that worked well for the game or if people disliked it.
>>44375299
>that second paragraph
What are you huffing? Classes are more than a name, they're your character's most important set of mechanics.
>>44375082
Well a lot of vidya already does that, and it usually turns out just fine. That said, it prevents any "interesting" builds from happening, which while disappointing is usually done to save the developer time in terms of balance. I don't mind it so much, but I prefer when there's less restrictions as it opens the way for fun variations, though even then the game needs to make sure each class is still unique. Otherwise it's just a blurred mess.
>>44375143
>tfw can't play ranged Paladin
>tfw can't play a heavily armored standard bearer bard
You can't play those normally anyway
>>44377050
Yes you can. Literally nothing prevents that.
>>44377092
The bard's lack of heavy armor proficiency does. I suppose you can technically be a ranged pally if you enjoy not using your class features
>>44377116
In 5th ed, PF and 3.5 you can build a Bard to be a frontline melee support in heavy armour and still be decent. A properly built ranged Paladin in 5th is actually prettu fucking good.
Wake up sheeple.
>>44377116
Yes, not having a proficiency anon, is what we call a "class restriction". Which is what we are discussing. A for effort, d- for reading comprehension. See me after class.
>>44375143
>>tfw can't play ranged Paladin
You're aware that the ranged Paladin is actually the optimal build for the class in Pathfinder, yes?
>>44377246
I wasn't, though it felt pretty neat when I played one. Was a long ago though, moved on to 5th cause I didn't enjoy the rules bloat
>>44377192
Ranged pallies are shit in 5th
>>44377192
>A properly built ranged Paladin in 5th is actually prettu fucking good
if by prettu fucking good you mean impossible because:
1. Paladin don't get archery style
2. Smites don't work on ranged attacks
But yeah, other than the class defining features not working with ranged weapons, prettu fucking good.
>>44377291
You just can't build or play one
>>44377226
Wait, so we're discussing the already existing restrictions, not a hypothetical additional restriction?
>>44377291
>>44377320
>Oh noes, just becasue mechanics don't support my character idea it means I can't do it
Have you tried to play videogames? brain dead people like you like them
>>44377320
My dear summer child, learn to turn your flaws into strengths.
I bet mimicking my typo made you feel like a real cool guy.
>>44377336
>>44377356
This, I just use bows and add a +4 to hit and smite to it, my GM says no? fuck him, I just teleport behind him and slit his throat with my soul katana.
>>44377336
What is the point of this? What are you trying to achieve by arguing foolish things?
>>44377384
Edgy. Here's your reply.
>>44377320
/v/ is that way
>>44375082
5e already does that, with choices for wiggle room. It makes character creation much faster by avoiding how long piecemeal purchasing takes. I prefer it, but I like that there's also the option to forgo the starting equipment and do classic rolling-for-gold.
>>44375082
>How would you guys feel about your character class determining your equipment?
I've always hated it and think it's a bad mechanic passed over from old video games and other things with technical limitations. People must have liked it or had nostalgia for it and now it's seeping into other forms of media and with how freeform and open tabletop games are- I don't feel it has any place in them.
I've never respected it and I've never enforced it.
I find it almost as bad as "Race as a class".
HOWEVER.
YOUR STATS will obviously dictate what you can wield EFFECTIVELY.
Your Class will never restrict what you can do, but your stats and experience will.
>>44377469
every version of D&D has done that
>>44377509
>it's a bad mechanic passed over from old video games
It started before video games anon
>>44377575
>It started before video games anon
Fair enough, Anon.
I don't doubt it.
I can only speak from my own experiences and old video games introduced me to weapons class restriction- not pen and paper games.
>>44377614
Then stop talking dumb shit.
Careers restricting your equipment has been a thing for any pnp game that relied on specialist training since the 60's.
>>44377614
Video games copied pnp. They would actually be much improved were they to shed the sacred cows that formed them. The same is true of pnp itself, but it's much slower to accept change. Sacred cows are a curse.
>>44377553
Well. Good move to keep that, then.
>>44375082
In a hyper-streamlined system, I could see archetype-equipment-kits, just so long as the archetypes and the effect of the equipment is broad enough to be refluffed.
>>44375143
A little bit of imagination and refluff solves literally all of these problems, just like it did in 4e>>44375356
>Dude, in D&D which is the most known class based system, your class is gonna be hugely important.
>>44375434
>Classes are more than a name, they're your character's most important set of mechanics.
Not necessarily. In 4e, I've seen a lot of creative refluffs that really worked. A "Bow Paladin" that was a refluffed laser-cleric with a magic bow. A "Necromancer" who's "spirit companion" was actually a spooky-scary-skeleton. I've seen a warforged swordmage played as an amorphous T-1000 style monster with electricity powers. I've seen a "Soehi" who was actually a barbarian who's "rages" were refluffed as hyper-focused kung-ful-zen trances. If the fluff is broad enough, and focuses on the MECHANICAL END EFFECT of something, then it can allow much more versatility through refluff.
>>44375143
This is amusing.
Paladin are the standard for knight in shining armor...standing fast against evil using his holy blade.
And then, along comes that guy...
> hurrrrrr I wanna be pally who uses a bow!!!
Then play a ranger/elf/rogue type you stupid fuck. Instead of crying that you can't mix parts of classes/races to bend rules to form your snowflake marysue.
>>44375143
> heavily armored bard
Fine. Spend feats for hvy armor proficiency.
What's the problem?
>>44378095
>implying knights in shining armor can't smite evil with divine arrows
I'm sorry for your lack of imagination
>>44378095
The divine arrow that strikes down evil before it can threaten the innocent is a common fantasy trope. Just because you are an uncultured twat doesn't make it "Mary Sue"
>>44378328
Yes. What is the problem?
>>44377192
>In 5th ed, PF and 3.5 you can build a Bard to be a frontline melee support in heavy armour and still be decent.
4e also had a melee focused Bard type.
I don't believe they could wear heavy armor without a feat though.
>>44378376
Cause heavy armor is great for archers. Really help them draw and fire.
Yup yup.
>>44377192
>>44378413
I was under the impression we were discussing base class capability
>>44378379
>order of holy knights.
>all use hvy armor and shields
>except for one fag who wants to be an archer and avoid front line fighting.
>he'd be a joke and considered a coward in a knightly order
Snowflake.
>>44378490
4e's melee Bard IS part of its base class capability
>>44378508
Heavy armor isn't though. Or any edition's bard.
>>44378506
>implying archers need to avoid front line fighting
just git gud
>>44378527
Well technically 4e bards could wear chain, which was heavy in 4e
>>44378561
Sure. As you get better and better (levels for example), front line isn't as scary. Most complaining don't want to get good. They wanna be created good.
>>44378527
>Heavy armor isn't though
Yeah, my reply even said so.
Are you having trouble reading anon?
>>44378506
What kind of a faggot Paladin order has a standard issue uniform instead of being being composed of a ragtag bunch of people chosen because of their valor, righteousness and purity?
Just go play a video game if you hate characters who defy expectations. Bows are perfectly valid Paladin weapons.
I bet you think Paladins aren't allowed to use combat maneuvers or scout out their enemies either.
>>44378692
Video game style is exactly what paladins who kill from afar would be.
Ttrpg style paladins can use a bow, sure. But they are mainly a front line fighter in hvy armor. Protecting their allies and innocents, and drawing the bad guy towards themselves. Not sitting at the back and sniping arrows at bad guys while the others do the hand to hand.
>>44378774
You have literally no idea what you're talking about
>>44378692
>I wanna be a snowflake
I know anon.
>>44378692
> faggot order with uniforms..
Legit orders have ruled and very likely to have standard uniforms of badges of office. Shields with a coat of arms, etc.
So most all of them will.
>>44378810
Unironically thinking that only way to not be a Mary Sue is to be Bob the Paladin no 538.
You people are ruining the hobby.
>>44375082
Son, I was around when AD&D was a thing. I'm fine with it.
>>44378939
Wrong. Bob the pally can be fleshed out in a thousand ways.
Turning a pally into some hybrid elf/ranger/rogue/scout is making the clasd meaningless.
Snowflakes who have no thoughts beyond class abilities to define their character ruin games.
>>44378985
Yea, back when paladins were scouts/archers; and bards ran around in heavy armor.
I agree with you. Its fine.
>>44378636
Yeah, so the fact you needed a feat to portray the concept made your reply irrelevant, since we're discussing only base class capability
>>44379011
This is a serious question; are you autistic?
What is this thread about? Are we talking about starting equipment packages or class proficiencies? The OP suggests the former but everybody's only talking about the latter
>>44379050
Basic argument over different styles.
I think.
>>44378930
Not really. Most of the time knights were expected to supply their own arms and armour. The closest thing to a uniform would be a coat of arms on shields, a tabard worn over armour, or a flag or other standard carried into battle. Beyond that, knights wore whatever they wanted/could afford.
>>44379069
I figured that part was just trolls bickering
>>44379076
Knights sure.
Not holy orders and paladins.
A coat of arms, and a tabard covering the body sounds like a uniform really. At least to the casual observer.
>>44379011
classes should be meaningless
>>44379080
Its a core concept with gamers I've noticed. Each gamer thinks their style is the only way "real" gamers should play.
Or something like that.
>>44379101
so there's no problem with a paladin walking around with a bow then?
Totally 100% completely okay with it. This has never even remotely bothered me in any game (vidya or PnP) I've played with it active.
I disagree that it prevents "interesting" builds - weapon choices/styles can still be broad within a class, and at most it removes one aspect of customisation, which doesn't mean all of them. In some ways I think it opens up more design space of a different sword, as well.
>>44379108
That's one school of thought.
Only way to get to said school is via the shortbus.
>>44379108
That is definitely not true in any half-decent class system!
>>44379123
Why would there be?
>>44379159
because >>44378506 implies the whole source of this argument is that standard uniforms means standard gear
>>44375082
I'm all far it, though I think it works best when you define your equipment as vague categories like 'two-handed weapon' or 'light armour' and leave it to the player to determine their own style.
I'd be quite happy never to look at another D&D ish table of weapons with minor and arbitrary differences, even if I want to go all in on dungeon crawling.
>>44379203
>imply
One of us lacks reading skills.
>>44379144
>I disagree that it prevents "interesting" builds - weapon choices/styles can still be broad within a class
The whole issue of standard gear means there won't be weapon choices; everyone gets the same stuff
>>44379257
I'd point to the multiple existing games which fit OPs definition of:
>How would you guys feel about your character class determining your equipment? Not necessarily your miscellaneous stuff like rope, rations, tents, and other gear. Just your weapons, armor, and maybe other things that are essential for that class.
But whose classifications are things like 'Big Guns' or 'Heavy Weapons' or ' Light/Medium/Heavy Armor'. Limited equipment does not mean one choice of equipment. D&D itself essentially imposes a very open restriction in this area.
>>44379290
In that case then there is essentially no difference in weapon styles. In most d&d editions there is no difference between a heavy axe user and a heavy sword user beyond the damage die. Every weapon within a category is interchangeable
>>44379245
Did that post not point out this holy order of his all uses heavy armor and shields, and that archer paladins are some kind of shunned deviants?
>>44379335
>In that case then there is essentially no difference in weapon styles.
Well, that's not true either anon. The restriction of weapons and armor in a class-based system is a spectrum: it could be 'you use a sword + shield + medium armor' or it could be 'you can use one handed weapons, off-hand protective items + light to medium armor'.
Your follow on statement is true for (most, as you point out) D&D edition but it doesn't follow it's the same for all games with these restrictions. If you allow only axes and swords for a particular class it is then much easier to incorporate weapon choice into the class abilities without this feeling overly restrictive; I think in general people see class-based systems without seeing how many decisions they can involve in terms of what design space you open up or close down to the players.
>>44378465
>Form fitting armor designed perfectly around your job and your actions is not good for drawing and firing.
If anything, leather armor is worse.
>>44378506
So you're saying you DON'T have your knights trained in the Holy Trinity of Spear, Longsword and Bow?
>>44379011
>Guy uses a bow
>Therefor he must be a ranger.
Do you not understand the difference between a sneaky outdoorsmen who tracks and hunts his pray and a Paladin choosing to deliver righteous fury with Arrows of Justice?
>>44379461
And picking pockets.
And air craft flying.
And and and...
>>44379490
> my paladin is Special!!
>she is a snowflake among snowflakes!!
this thread is awful
>>44379557
Not really. At least people are talking about games
>>44379557
We didn't want to make a snowflake thread on 4chan
>>44379510
>>44379540
>Using a Bow makes you a special snowflake.
So how exactly is this weapon choice different to say a Sword or an Axe?
>>44379490
I understand.
I am not the one trying to blur the lines and make every PC a marysue who can do anything.
>>44379540
>paladin uses a weapon that isn't a sword
>HURF BLURF U AM SPECAL SNOWFLAK
>>44379584
>Guy can fire a bow
>Ergo this makes him able to do everything.
I don't understand your logic.
Hell, my fighter in my 5e game RIGHT NOW is using both a Bow and a Greataxe, while also maintaining several daggers on hand in case he's disarmed.
How is a Paladin with a bow any Different? What exactly is your argument here?
>>44379584
No anon that's the wizard
>>44379608
>using bow and great axe
Your stats must be awfully good to afford that
>Rolling something different than a dwarf fighter, elf archer, human cleric or human oldman wizard
You're all special snowflakes
>>44379636
He was a Woodsman, so he owned the Greataxe and Bow already.
He's using chain he currently got as a gift for rescuing the mayor's son from a pack of wererats.
Level 2 right now.
>>44379649
But anon.
Dwarf and elf are classes themselves.
YOU ARE THE SNOWFLAKE.
>>44379574
Examples for you.
> my thief doesn't use light weapons, he uses a great sword and wears heavy armor and a lance. He attacks on horseback usually.
> my knight/ fighter wears no armor and uses no weapons!
>my paladin uses a bow and snipes bad guys from hiding, he is scared of toe2toe fights!!
Now, any of those could be funny concepts. None of them should ever be in a normal(serious) game.
>mfw I play Pathfinder
>mfw bow paladins are pretty awesome in that game
>mfw I have no face
>>44379655
So he's actually shit with one and carries it around for flavor? Or does he actually have 16+ in STR and DEX?
>>44379682
>using a bow automatically means your hiding.
>using a weapon suddenly means your actions automatically only encompass things that OTHER people may use the weapon for, and only those actions.
Do you have autism? Also by the way, I have played a rogue who used a Greatclub before, A Halforc call Borg the Bouncer.
He was a Bouncer.
>>44379682
People using bows don't need to hide. Heck, hiding with a longbow is rather hard.
>>44379688
that must be the only good thing about PF
>>44379682
Why would a ranged Paladin be afraid of melee fights? You're making up strawmen because you have no argument.
>>44379608
No faggot. I never said a paladin can never use a bow.
I am saying paladins shouldn't be the sniper type. I am saying that trying to create a hvy armor holy warrior who hangs back and snipes, is stupid as a concept, and is only dreamed up by douche bags and pedos and those who want to rp a marysue.
>>44379717
>using a weapon suddenly means your actions automatically only encompass things that OTHER people may use the weapon for, and only those actions.
This is what class based systems do to the mind
>>44379778
Virt please go.
>>44379689
My DM houserules Longbows are weapons that can roll off of strength too, because he does archery himself.
So I don't NEED a High Dex.
>>44379778
No one said the paldin would hang back and snipe, only that they would use a bow
>>44379771
Melee combat with a bow...lol
>>44379778
Yes you did. No one said the paladin was sniping and hiding but you. You are the worst kind of person, you are Virt. Just remember Virt, you have /tg/'s permission to do it.
>>44379799
So you're not actually playing 5e is what you're saying
>>44379808
quarterstaff bow is a thing.
Rolled 14 (1d20)
>>44379461
1) Spear, longsword and bow
2) Hooksword and man-catcher
3) Lochaber axe, mace and flail
4) Lance and javelin
5) Push dagger, pata and katar
6) Whip, rope dart and urumi
7) Crossbow and ballista
8) Billhook and boomerang
9) Bolas, chakram and dragon beard hook
10) Rapier, cinquedea and sword-pistol
11) Musket, bolo and sjambok
12) Falx and atlatl
13) Balisong knife and zhanmadao
14) Machete, macuahuitl and epsilon axe
15) Zweihander, odachi and throwing weapons
16) Shotel and ranseur
17) Bohemian ear spoon
18) Yatagan, seven-branched sword and all poisons
19) Khopesh, dane axe and tomahawk
20) Jangchang and surface-to-air missile
>>44379761
There's a couple of things that are likewise neat about the system, but I don't blame anyone for not liking it.
>>44379821
No, he's saying he isn't playing a videogame.
>>44379806
Then there is no argument.
Please define " ranged paladin".
Sounds like something that would be mainly ranged to me. Does is actually mean something else?
>>44375082
Depends on the system (and I guess setting, but that's a constant), but I think it has its place.
There's a certain charm over systems where class matters very much, and your class will ultimately determine most mechanical aspects of your character.
>>44378465
When was the last time you wore proper armour or shot a bow? Honestly.
Its not like there wasn't entire cultures who's knightly class were wearing suits of heavy armour and were near exclusively archers, no sir. That would be crazy.
Such BS would ruin my suspension of disbelief in a game about wizards and dragons.
>>44379821
>One houserule means you're not playing 5e.
He just found it a bit illogical a large and cumbersome warbow that requires ALOT OF STRENGTH to draw is basically being used stat wise by people who can have like 6 strength.
>>44379862
kek
>>44379815
Please show the post where that was said.
Lol...exactly liar.
>>44379840
So not 5e then
>>44379863
>Nerfing dex rangers and ranged rogues
Good job
>>44379863
When discussing the viability of a certain playstyle, yes, including houseruled elements does disqualify you from calling it 5e
>>44379895
>Made it so you can use Strength AND Dex.
>>44379898
How is having a ranged option never not viable though.
Why would a class never have a Bow or Crossbow if they can't shoot magic shit?
>>44379898
At that point its a homebrew similar to 5e.
Its not 5e.
>>44379936
Because it's shit at using bows. Javelins and daggers are the default ranged option for STR users
>>44379936
Those classes are nerfed because they are no longer best at it. Fullplate fighter is now the best archer
>>44379976
>Get +1 Longbow
>Can use arrows of different types and designs etc etc.
>Get a +1 Javelin or dagger
>Thrown once, it's worthless.
>>44375082
The RPGs I play aready do that.
Just let players sell stuff back during chargen and you're good.
>>44380019
That's the point. STR users are designed purposefully to be inferior at range, just as DEX users are inferior at melee
>>44380043
>Dex users are inferior in Melee
lolwut? Did you suddenly forget the Rapier exists or something?
>>44380062
Rapiers aren't 2d6 and can't use great weapon fighter/master
>>44379862
>Its not like there wasn't entire cultures who's knightly class were wearing suits of heavy armour and were near exclusively archers
If you mean your picture then you're quite correct that there weren't.
>>44380016
>If a Ranger uses two Scimitars it's fine
>If a Rogue uses a rapier it's fine
>If a Fighter has access to a bow that has strength stat, suddenly all the OTHER things Rangers and Rogues do is suddenly invalidated.
Oh, and you can just make a Dex Fighter NOW who can have Fullplate.
>>44380043
Omg...that concept will blow minds here.
Many seem to think that whatever class they choose is great at anything they want to do.
>>44380079
>Rapiers are not two handed weapons
>Ergo Rapiers are worthless.
Why would a Ranger or Rogue WANT a two handed weapon?
>>44380043
But Anon, Dex Fighters with a Longbow already exist and their NOT inferior at ranged at all.
Pretty sure in Raw damage they can kill shit dead with ease.
>>44380092
>Oh, and you can just make a Dex Fighter NOW who can have Fullplate
How do they overcome the 15 str requirement?
>>44380080
>Suits of lacquered iron plate
>Primary weapon was the bow
As much as I hate to agree, he's right. Also: Mongol heavy archers.
>>44380115
To have great weapon master. It is a very potent feat.
>>44380124
The Strength requirement for heavier armors is to avoid a 10-foot speed penalty. They can use it just fine still, and speed isn't all that important at range.
>>44380124
... By having 15 strength?
Like everyone else? It's not like Fullplate is the be all end all in protection ANYWAY in DND.
>>44380143
So is Ranger spellcaster and all the tools rogues have.
Who would have thought Fighters were specialists for FIGHTING?
The problem with doing away with classes is that it encourages players to cherrypick the best of everything.
Letting people make le snowflake original heavy armor scimitar wizard or other retarded 'builds' is cancer as fuck. Might as well just play Elder Scrolls.
If anything, classes should be more restrictive and protective of their specialities.
>>44380123
They have infeeior defenses and break down if anything closes distance. STR bow users would have no such weakness.
>>44380172
>At Max Dex bonus they'd have a whopping 1 less AC.
>And be able to use Acrobatics without hinderence.
>>44380142
He said "near exclusively archers" - that is absolutely untrue of samurai, and is just completely false when you hit the Sengoku era and Japan starts producing guns like it's represented by the NRA. That used bows/were archers, yes. Near exclusively? No. Swords and polearms were a major part of samurai warfare, /tg/ is just super fucking retarded about katanas every time until that one KM fag shows up.
Inb4 poor quality iron, again, for the 1000th fucking time.
>>44380188
In a game like 5e with bounded accuracy, 1 AC actually matters
>>44380171
This.
Well said anon.
>>44380172
See
>>44380188
>>44380214
But the main point here is you're saying a STR Bow user would be some meatman firing directly at the enemy who then draws a melee weapon to bash a foes head in.
Unlike a Dex Archer who would be more mobile and agile, moving faster and evading blows to avoid the enemy.
Sounds Exactly like how a Dex and Str archer would work and fits thematically.
So I seriously need to say; what exactly here is the fucking argument?
Let me reframe this argument:
There are people who think they should be able to take a tiger and call it a horse. There are other people who don't think this is the case. The people who think classes shouldn't exist effectively believe the label of the class means literally nothing -- this is what the side that believes classes are fine can't understand. When the anti-class people call something a "paladin" they're not using the word in any specific way, they just like the word. This is fine; but, the conflict comes up when these people start insisting on playing in games where these labels matter while ignoring what the labels mean.
The solution here is simple: if you don't like classes or think they're stupid, don't play in games that use classes. If you like them, use them.
Oh that said, turning a class on its ear isn't creative or interesting. It's almost literally always marysue.
>>44380171
You deal with that by providing limited resources by which to choose abilities with. Shadowrun is classless yet doesn't turn into that
>>44380171
>Might as well just play Elder Scrolls.
It's funny you say that, because old TES worked in a way where class determined more or less everything about your character.
>>44380171
Newer players seem to want to do this. They all want to be excellent fighters who can use bows, swords, spears, stealth, social skills, and a variety of magics. To be fair, they grow up with video games that reward this kind of 'jack of all trades', but unlike traditional gishes/bard types, they can simply grind their stats and skills until they're the best at everything.
You can only prevent this with harsh class restrictions, or go the Dark Souls route and make the gear and skills hav steep Str/Dex/whatever requirements that essentially force specialization in order to use them.
>>44379682
>>44378506
>>44378095
>>44378810
>>44379011
>>44379540
>>44379778
You have to be 18 to post here, chief.
Could work. In DnD you already have feats and abilities that augment use of certain weapons and classes are usually predisposed towards certain weapons. Why not build it right in the classes? Have fighter sub variants that fight with sword-and-board, two handed weapons, polearms and knives, maybe add some niche stuff like whip warrior or samurai.
How would you handle stuff like having your stuff taken away and/or having to make do with other weapons though?
>>44380243
>take a tiger and call it a horse
This is my problem with it, essentially.
>Archer is someone that excels in using a bow and has exceptional marksmanship
>guys my archer uses a glaive and healing magic, fuck bows lol
THEN WHY DID YOU PICK ARCHER AS YOUR CLASS
>>44380328
This is literally archetypes in Pathfinder.
>>44380234
DnD ac makes no differentiation between dex ac and plate ac. Both "evade blows", and plate technically does it better. Speed wise they would be the same, as that is determined by class/race more than stats. The dex user would really only have better init, and not really consistently. The only differences would really be flavor. The str user would be equal or better in almost all categories
>>44380243
>>44380284
The argument here though isn't that people are turning a class on their head or using crazy "Jack of all trades".
They are literally saying a Knightly Martial character is using a type of weapon.
A longbow. Now, you can do fucking thousands of things to explain WHY a Knightly Paladin is using a Longbow. Perhaps he is part of an order that worshipers a hunting god and the Bow is a sacred symbol? Perhaps his Order is martial in the extreme and has dedicated branches like a military would?
There is no class breaking here, there is only a weapon choice.
Would you be angry the same way if a Paladin was using an axe?
>>44380358
>PF invented this
kek, are all paizofags so delusional?
>>44380378
>Ignores Acrobatics.
Literally one of the most versatile and gamebreaking skills right there.
>>44380143
What happens if your GM isn't running with purely optional rules like feats?
>>44380379
The paladin's smites specify melee attacks. them using bows as primary weapons would be turning the class on it's head
>>44380417
>The paladin's smites specify melee attacks
Where? Archer paladins are highly effective in Pathfinder.
>>44380396
It has no RAW use in combat, beyond escaping grapples. Athletics can do the same, and also initiate them
>>44380384
Please, regale me with your popular class-based pnp game that currently uses a variety of achetypes/variants for a class as matter of factly and modular as described that isn't Pathfinder.
>>44380431
In 5e. The argument is obviously moot in pf as the archetype exists there already
>>44380446
>>44380454
Wow, really? That kind of sucks.
>>44380446
4e and 5e d&d
>>44380379
>There is no class breaking here, there is only a weapon choice.
>Would you be angry the same way if a Paladin was using an axe?
You have no understanding of a paladin if you think your argument holds water. Paladins do not stand back and use ranged weapons, it's entirely against their ethos. They charge in and righteously smite. Hell, an ax fits with the ethos.
You're just wanting to apply a label to something that doesn't fit.
Also you're getting your head fucked over the idea of the class's label -- something that is metainformation your character wouldn't be aware of. An archer who is obsessed with dispensing justice is a perfectly workable concept for a ranger, so why not use the class that it works for instead of attempting to cram it into one that it doesn't work for? Oh yeah, you have to use the word "paladin" even though it doesn't fit.
>>44380454
>>44380417
So reword it a little so it doesn't? DnD isn't a game set in stone. Literally tells you DMs word is law, if a DM rules it and it's ok, it's fine.
I'd allow it because it could be an interesting character.
>>44380446
D&D, literally every edition. It's the entire reason Pathfinder has them in the first place. I was just joking but are you genuinely retarded, son?
>>44380431
Paladins are sword and board holy men.
Bows and axes are retarded. I miss when clerics were forbidden from slashing/piercing weapons and had to use cudgels.
It gave classes more flavour than 'cool' retarded snowflake shit. And it made characterization more important than 'I'm different because I'm a bowadin ;^) Smite smite smite‘
>>44380484
You sound like an idiot.
>>44380417
Only in fifth. Also
>What is spellcasting
>What is buffing allies
>What is healing
>What is any of the many Paladin spells that empower ranged weapon attacks
>>44380384
Yes.
>>44380495
Nice convincing him with those hot opinions.
>>44380477
You can always houserule to taste. There is no point at all in discussing the rules at all if we simply say "just houserule it".
>>44380519
I'm not trying to convince him of shit, I'm just telling him he sounds like an idiot. You sound like an idiot, too.
>>44380473
No shit.
Make a religious, pious and devoted PC, who worships a certain deity. He also happens to be a ranger.
>nooooo I wanna be snowflake paladin!!!
>>44380446
3.5 with variant character classes
>people are so eager to label themselves with a class but also so desperate to stand out from that class that they make retarded quirky builds
This is why I went back to OD&D and retroclones. I don't give a fuck about your backstory, and have fun using your shit build in the meatgrinder. If you're not spec'd properly for your class, you're probably gonna fuckin' die.
>>44380500
Their buffs are 5ft range, there healing is touch and their spells are smites, along with others that encourage melee combat, like compel duel. If you want to be a ranged divine caster, cleric would be a better bet
>>44380473
>Paladins do not stand back and use ranged weapons, it's entirely against their ethos. They charge in and righteously smite. Hell, an ax fits with the ethos.
Why? What part of that is their ethos? Being a divinely empowered warrior?
>>44380519
The classless supporters have nothing beyond " I wanna" and " u r dumb". That's the basis of their argument.
>>44380580
Take another look at their spell list.
>>44380581
Please, you tell me where in a Paladin's code of conduct, it is allowed for someone else to put themselves bodily between the paladin and the enemy (which is what happens when your ranged paladin stands back and fires arrows, the melee characters move to engage).
>>44380581
Paladins classically are knights and follow the codes of chivalrous combat. Bows were viewed as a coward's weapon and they would not use them.
You can use whatever naff modern twisting of holy crusader you want, but it's a perversion of the original intentions.
See : Charlemagne, King Arthur, Roland, etc
>>44380641
You mean how Sir Tristan of the Round Table had Fail-Not, the magic bow that was said to never miss it's mark?
>>44380473
>>44380641
>>44380630
The Autism is strong in this one.
Alright, let's make a character backstory, let's see what it sounds like more, a Paladin or a Ranger.
Galios Turelan is the third son of Duke Augustus Turelan of Acbridge. With his Eldest and senior brothers training in politics, Galios was sent out on a more martial path, Induced into the Order of the Wyrmslayers at a relatively young age, Galios displayed great courage and martial skill during his training. The Induction into the Order of Wyrmslayers left a lasting impression on Galios, with the History of the order always stuck in his head.
The Order had three branches, each based upon the weapons the Knights use to find and slay dragons. The First is the Sword Brotherhood, then the Spear Brotherhood and Finally the Bow Brotherhood. Each paladin was trained in the arts of each, though guidance of elders within the Order saw fit to push each young squire down the path that best suited their talents. The Wyrmslayers and their training applied well to convential warfare as well. Galios's quick wit and sharp aim had him destined to join the Bow Brotherhood. When he graduated to a full Knight of the Wyrmslayers, Galios was given is sigil,Weapons and his armor as well as several Silver Arrows and given a quest. To go out into the world and hunt for traces of a Dragon and to banish their minions as be.
Tell me this isn't a Paladin. Go ahead.
>>44380676
Alright, let's make a character backstory, let's see what it sounds like more, a Paladin or a Ranger.
Galios Turelan is the third son of Duke Augustus Turelan of Acbridge. With his Eldest and senior brothers training in politics, Galios was sent out on a more martial path, Induced into the Order of the Wyrmslayers at a relatively young age, Galios displayed great courage and martial skill during his training. The Induction into the Order of Wyrmslayers left a lasting impression on Galios, with the History of the order always stuck in his head.
The Order had three branches, each based upon the weapons the Knights use to find and slay dragons. The First is the Sword Brotherhood, then the Spear Brotherhood and Finally the Wizard's Staff of Brotherhood. Each paladin was trained in the arts of each, though guidance of elders within the Order saw fit to push each young squire down the path that best suited their talents. The Wyrmslayers and their training applied well to convential warfare as well. Galios's quick wit and sharp aim had him destined to join the Wizard's Staff Brotherhood. When he graduated to a full Knight of the Wyrmslayers, Galios was given is sigil,Weapons and his armor as well as several Silver Eyes of Newts and given a quest. To go out into the world and hunt for traces of a Dragon and to banish their minions as be.
Tell me this isn't a Paladin. Go ahead.
>>44380674
>Beroul version of Tristan and Iseult
>not even Le Morte D'Arthur
>Cornish KotRT
You're a fucking peasant. Not once in the medieval accounts or even romanticized versions of the Arthurian lore does he use a bow. You're citing the equivalent of King Arthur fanfiction.
>>44380717
>Wizard staffs are now weapons
You could make that Quaterstaff and yeah it would be the same.
>>44380720
>Cites Le Mort D'Arthur
>Claims King Arthur Fanfiction
>Compared to fucking CORNISH renditions
top kek
>>44380676
>Knights
>Bow
>breaking the chivalric code
>Knights
Your shit story already has holes, senpai. There's no Knightly Order of Ranged Whores.
>>44380676
>no mention of divine power
>focus on weapon mastery
It's a fighter with a fancy background
>>44380630
>>44380641
You guys are literal autists. Is it so hard to imagine a Paladin favoring a bow because it lets him attack evil before it has a chance to lay a hand on his charges? The holy archer is a common thing in mythology.
That doesn't mean such a paladin would be afraid of melee. It just means his favored weapon isn't a sword, even if he can use one. That doesn't mean he's mary sue or that using a bow is his only character trait. It's just a weapon choice.
>>44380717
> wrymslayers
> favored enemies
Rangers.
>>44380720
Oh, I'm sorry is an earlier source than your preferred fanfiction not applicable?
I hear there is a recent Arthur movie. Maybe you'd like to cite that as the true one because it's newer.
>>44380748
>>44380744
>Paladins only work my way when I want them.
Alright, so what is a Paladin to you?
Holy archers are very common in Indian folklore.
>>44380763
>Rangers now carry sigils, wear heavy armor and are literally knights.
>>44380754
It's the weapon choice of a ranger.
>>44380776
A divine caster. You know, like in the book
>>44380754
Knights didn't use bows though. It literally breaks the code of knighthood.
It's like saying someone is an autist for claiming his knight is attacking unarmed men, or punching women in the face. Being a knight came with a code and appointment.
Retards like you just want the class name and nothing more.
>>44380748
Yup, or a ranger, hell, could easily even be a rogue.
>>44380754
>You guys are literal autists. Is it so hard to imagine a Paladin favoring a bow because it lets him attack evil before it has a chance to lay a hand on his charges? The holy archer is a common thing in mythology.
Is it hard to imagine a holy archer? No, but that's *not* a paladin. Yes, it's impossible to imagine a paladin like such because it's entirely against the character archetype to act in such a way. In modern military terms it's like imagining a tank driver who is specialized in flying C130s
>That doesn't mean such a paladin would be afraid of melee. It just means his favored weapon isn't a sword, even if he can use one. That doesn't mean he's mary sue or that using a bow is his only character trait. It's just a weapon choice.
Making a choice that's entirely unlike the rest of everyone else is one of the bigger facets of marysuedom.
>>44380802
So Galahad isn't a Paladin?
>>44380787
DESIGNATED
>>44380787
Paladins aren't an indian concept. This argument essentially boils down to an obsession with romanticized western archetypes
>>44380769
Your argument is invalid. Because in skyrim my guy wears heavy armor and uses a bow!!!
>>44380822
Neither is Knight Roland. He was just a Fighter with high Str and Con.
>>44380787
Which literally has nothing at all to do with the class of paladin.
>>44380793
Noble background, Knight variant.
>>44380769
>he was also making fun of Morte
>you act like he was treating it as history
Wew lad
>>44380822
No, he's a knight; a fighter archetype
>>44380848
>>44380872
So there is not ever any sort of paladin in any sort of mythology?
>>44380891
No Paladins only exist in these two anons D&D, in which they definitely do not ever use bows.
>>44380838
>>44380819
>>44380812
>>44380849
>Paladin, an ARCHTYPE CLASS is supposed to be a Divine Warrior of righteousness.
>But to these autists the only type of divine warrior of righteousness is a Knight with superpowers.
Do tell me how this is not a Paladin.
>Fought Evil
>Divine Power
>Good
>Wears armor
>Could summon magical steed
Name why he is NOT a Paladin.
>>44380891
Not really, no. It's an invention of D&D.
>>44380916
It uses a bow and doesn't look like a white guy
>>44380812
>>44380819
>A medieval warrior caste never used bows
Ok chief.
Even if your arguments were true on any level, it's a fantasy game. It has wizards and dragons and certainly can have holy knights who use bows. It's not an unique or new concept and has existed in the game before.
>>44380904
Aside from 3.5 literally having an paladin version for elves that specialized in bows?
>>44380940
>Paladins must only be white.
You want to say that to my face motherfucker?
>>44380944
Yes that doesn't count, only the word of these two anons counts.
>>44380916
The very etymology of the word "Paladin".
If you want to use your made-up twisted bullshit definition of the word, you can.
Just like how in my game, "wizard" doesn't mean magic user at all!
>>44380942
>Knight
>Bow
Why do you persist on calling not a knight a knight? Just call him a holy warrior who uses a bow.
>>44380944
Elves are a class. 3.5 is a perversion
>>44380975
So by your logic, Nobody ever in the history of DnD can be a Paladin.
Because Paladin was a specific term for the Knights of King Charlemagne.
So there is literally no reason why ANY Paladin in DnD is called a Paladin, they are clearly holy warriors.
>>44380959
Go back to your video games pleb
>>44380975
That was the first time I mentioned knight
>>44381007
You have it backwards.
Not all knights are Paladins. But all Paladins are knights.
People in D&D can be knights, and they can be Paladins. Hell, Charlemagne can be alive in your setting.
>>44380959
What is even being reflected in his armor?
>>44381007
Also anybody not specifically playing a Roman is a Barbarian, class be damned.
>The term ‘chivalry’ can be traced to the old French term ‘chevalier’ which means horseman or knight. Chivalry became a knightly code of conduct which can loosely be described as rules and regulations to live by. This ‘code’ was practiced by members of the nobility both on and off the battlefield in countries such as France and England. During the Hundred Years War the English began to depend more and more, not on their knights, but on their bowmen who were primarily made up of yeomen, men of lower rank than the knightly classes. At the battle of Agincourt the French refused to believe that the English yeomen would dare attack their knights. One of the reasons for the failure of the French army at Agincourt was the their plan relied heavily on the English abiding by traditional chivalric values and when it was clear that the English had no intention of doing this, the French did not react quickly enough to English tactics it was the courage and chivalry of the French that lost them the battle in the end.
All these dirty fucking yeomen pretending to be knights in this thread. Knights do not use bows. They never did. It was literally repulsive to them as a notion.
Y'all peasants posting in a French thread.
>>44381032
Ah, but your logical fallacy is that the Paladin Archtype must adher to being a Paladin.
So ergo, in order to play the Paladin class, you MUST Have Charlemagne in your setting and him to be alive.
Anything else is not a Paladin and thus not allowed to be the class.
OR
The Class is an archtype, like the literal 5e page does by displaying the oaths. And can be as mercurial as Ranger, Fighter or Cleric.
>>44380960
>>44381007
Yup, you're absolutely right. My next paladin will specialize in daggers and bows, pickpocket, and various other skills that will allow him to steal in the name of divine justice.
>>44381070
>The French plan relied heavily on the English purposely not deploying their army properly and for the English to let the French charge them on an open field.
Sounds like the French just got mega butthurt they never used their heads.
>>44381106
Wut?
>>44381106
But the 5e paladinbis the source of all these woes, for they heavily favor melee combat and are not nearly as flexible as a ranger, fighter or cleric
>>44381070
Came in this thread to mention the battle of Agincourt but you beat me to it :(
baka desu senpai, no one knows what a knight or a paladin is on /tg/ anymore. If you want to cite D&D as a reference, note that Gygax took his personal inspiration for a Paladin from Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions".
>Paladin class
>Based largely on the character of Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, as well as Anderson's original sources, Charlemagne's paladins in the medieval French chansons de geste ("songs of deeds"), particularly The Song of Roland and Ariosto's Orlando Furioso. The paladin's tie to a special war-horse is also from Three Hearts and Three Lions. ("I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden." -- Martinus, in Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.)
They did not use bows. Only after Gygax left TSR and other people started to shit directly into the mouth of D&D did we get ludicrous bastardizations like elvish bowadins, that make no fucking sense because no one has any respect for homages or source material.
PF paladins are awesome archers, imbuing bows with new powers and choosing wicked targets to rain down arrows of justice upon like the wrath of heaven. Smites aren't limited to melee and eventually they can grant allies around them smite bonuses against their target. Where the ranger stalks down favored prey and the rogue snipes from hiding, the archerdin stands in plain view, commanding their platoon and filling the air with divine vengeance, bringing evil low before it can bring harm to their allies.
>>44381126
Good call.
My next thief will wear plate armor and never steal or backstab. He will specialize in the lance.
Then we can fit in with the fucking morons here.
>>44381126
So Robin Hood then?
>>44381138
Either Paladin is a coverall term for a Noble Divine Warrior or it's literally Charlemagne's knights.
>>44381148
So again by this Logic, paladins must only ever be Charlemagne's Knights?
>>44381135
They did but they were literally so balls deep in the notion that using a bow was for pussies and that being a knight was SO hype that it never entered their mind that the English would just pepper them to death with shitloads of yeoman.
The French Knights literally died rather than use bows.
A Bow Paladin is so fucking anachronistic and retarded that it boggles the mind.
>>44381165
>PF
Stopped reading there.
>>44381169
You're really grasping for straws here. They were inspired by real knights. They follow a code of chivalry.
It's not "WELL HURR HURR CHARLEMAGNE ISN'T REAL SO FUCK CHIVALRY AND LET'S USE BOWS AND IGNORE LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE CHARLEMAGNE ISN'T IN THIS SETTING". You're using some real shitty false equivalencies here while memespouting.
It's really simple.
A Paladin is a holy knight. Emphasis on knight. Knights, already held to lofty standards, which become paladins, that have EVEN LOFTIER standards.
But nah, fuck it, let's just use bows because I want to.
>>44381169
>So Robin Hood then?
You mean one of the examples given in basically every PHB for a ranger?
I was hating this thread, but now it's fun. The displays of sheerly absurd stupidity are hilarious. Like watching two retards having a slap fight
>>44381216
Sure, but you could easily stat him as a Dex Paladin.
>>44381169
>either Paladin means what I want it to, or it means something absurdly specific that I'm implying you're meaning it is, so that my definition seems correct!
Fuck off, retard. It's just a fucking holy knight. You are so assblasted that your snowflake concept cannot be a knight by the very definition that you're just trying to twist the meanings of words.
>>44381216
>>44381230
Robin hood seems more obviously a rogue. Aragorn is the archetypal ranger
>>44381238
>>44381210
>>44381174
Actually, I am just amused by your rampant autism that anything that isn't literally a Straight up Knight cannot be a Paladin.
Are you saying different countries cannot have different customs for their paladins?
Are paladins only ever allowed to be from western analogue countries?
What about if I wanted to play a Sikh-inspired character?
Is he not allowed to be a paladin?
>>44381285
Considering that you need to be a knight in order to be a Paladin, that's primarily correct.
If a Sikh was willing to adhere to the code of chivalry, he could still be a Paladin though. It wouldn't make a lot of sense however, considering Naam Japna, Kirat Karni, and Vand Chakna already explicitly clarify the duties of a Sikh which would cause conflict with Chivalry.
>>44381285
>calling the enemies of christianity paladins
Kek
