The full saying is "Jack of all trades but master of none is oftentimes better than a master of one" In DnD it's certainly true, it's called versatility and the funny thing about paladins is they're *still* a master of burst damage that also comes with being a master of burst healing.

The curse is you now have to rp as a paladin.

I think Wizard is my favorite class, because I like having options. My favorite character was a Paladin though. It's fun still having some spells but not having to worry about it much. You're mostly just hitting people.

My favorite character I've played was a Paladin, but I went in not wanting to RP the typical always good Paladin. He was a bit of a narcissist, but he helped people to maintain his image and status. It was an interesting spin on the lawful good architype. He did good, it just happened to be for selfish reasons usually.

It's silly, but it bothers me when people claim recent revisions to sayings are actually the "complete" forms of sayings. Here's a great write up of the history of the phrase "Jack of all trades": https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907 The end of the comment has a summary of the revisions over time, and the "ofttimes better than master of one" first appeared in 2007.

Interesting, but you'll also note the oldest usage wasn't negative to the concept either.

Don’t half-ass two things when you should whole-ass one thing.

Who are we who took our own pills?

Homelander?

Druids, Clerics & Artificers: are we a joke to you?

I miss Natural Spell at lv 5

Same with "the customer is always right" having "in matters of taste" added to it as the alleged full version around the same period. Not only is it wrong, it ignores the entire narrative that led up to the original saying. Retailers asked their front-line staff to tolerate customers's unreasonable behavior to increase sales. That's it. The revision shifts the blame to the customers, who should be civil regardless, but would be more likely to be so if acting otherwise didn't have few consequences and the possibility of greater material gain. /rant

Your wrong. It's smited since most people say smited.

Lol. I guess he was somewhat similar. He didn't kill people though. He was the only survivor of what should have been a TPK. One member of the party did something stupid and summoned a hoard of enemies to us. We were totally surrounded with no hope of winning the fight, so he summons a steed and fled. He tried to grab people but failed, so he ended up as the only survivor. I felt bad for that.

Per the rules that sounds more like lawful neutral as intentions and ethical understandings of the world matter for alignment but these discussions always take up more time than they're worth and is a great example of why characters shouldn't have alignments.

Ur rong they dont

Yeah, I always like to play loose with alignment. It doesn't really make sense. Treating them as hard rules just ends up with worse role play. No one in the real world is *always* good, or lawful, or whatever. Also, "evil" people often think they're doing good. It's more of just guidelines in my opinion than actual rules.

After strength, charisma, and constitution do you think they have the intelligence for that?