In article <1169689969.192717.173680@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
psychohist <psychohist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner posts, in part:
> You found paladins to have superpowers? I'm
> continually frustrated with the class. SCAP (very
> appropriately, I think) has paladins as
> very rare and individually significant people,
> and I really like that flavor. But in play they
> just aren't, unless you load them up with
> special-purpose equipment.
>I don't think you can ignore the equipment, at least if it's anything
>like it used to be. I don't know if D&D Holy Swords still have
>antimagic fields, but when they did, having a paladin in the party made
>it hugely more powerful.
My basic feeling is that if you have to earmark certain items for
a particular class, and someone isn't a fully functional member of
that class unless she has the item(s), something is very, very
wrong. Bryce is still a fighter even if he has to rip off a chair
leg and swing that; the flame-brand sword is nice but it doesn't
define who he is. Even more, Charis should still be a paladin
even if she doesn't have a Holy Avenger.
I'm suddenly reminded of the Smothers Brothers:
I see by your outfit that you are a cowboy.
--I see by your outfit that you are one too.
We see by our outfits that we are both cowboys;
If you get an outfit you can be a cowboy too!
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
