Are Ranger and Paladin broken?

[chomskola]

I havent yet used PF as i'm new to DND, and 3.5 specifically.I think the cleric is really cool, but so far my fav base class is Druid. Cool look, cool idea, animal companion, spell casting, and decent support fighting. I hear a lot of praise on th eforums for these two plus the fighter and wizard. so..is the Paladin and ranger...umm..broken? and if so how and does PF improve on it sufficiently? I read somewhere that PF characters beyond level 10 are ridiculously powerful. I dont want to ignite a war over that last point.

[gallagher]

they arent broken per se, they are certainly better than being a plain old fighter (a class that tends to be just a two level dip, like monk)

but they are MAD as heck (multiple attribute dependancy or something of that nature). they need 4 good stats to play decently, and even then they need some prestiging to make them more viable at later levels, just like all martial non-TOB classes.

you'll see dips into paladin (3 levels, 5 max) and ranger (for swift hunter). my advice is if you want to play one of them, take levels in prestige ranger/paladin

[Venusaur]

Broken as in overpowered? Not at all. They are considered to be very weak without special tricks to boost them. Full spellcasting is more powerful than anything in the game. Here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=eg68k1cl93nj5ja1sh12grsb13&topic=658.0) is a ranking of the classes in order of power. Generally, the more martial the character, the weaker it is. The cleric is a better paladin then the paladin, and the ranger doesn't do anything a Druid or Wizard can't.

[Larkas]

Indeed. If by broken you mean overpowered, you should be looking at Wizard, Cleric and Druid, not at the poor Paladin and Ranger. Fighter is almost brokenly UNDERpowered, though their PF's power level is much better than 3.5's.

[Lord_Gareth]

Indeed. If by broken you mean overpowered, you should be looking at Wizard, Cleric and Druid, not at the poor Paladin and Ranger. Fighter is almost brokenly UNDERpowered, though their PF's power level is much better than 3.5's.

Well, except for the bit where all of melee's feats got broken up (Improved Trip) or nerfed (Power Attack), which means that the developers essentially stabbed fighter in the gut and left him to drown in his own blood.

[Larkas]

Yeah, I'm talking classes, not feats, but you're right. It is very easy to fix, though. Much easier than fixing, say, 3.5's Fighter :smallbiggrin:

[FMArthur]

"Hey, we should fix the fighter. what's wrong with the fighter?"
"I don't know. He seems to be pretty good at cranking his numbers."
"But they say he's weak."
"Maybe we should give him higher numbers."

Pathfinder.

[chomskola]

But regarding balance etc, doesnt it all depend on rolls also? In our campaign we have a human barbarian and dwarf fighter. Thing is the Fighter rolled INSANELY high on creation and has +2 +3 and +4 mods, all told, the fighter has awesome dexterity, constitution strength and so on (not to mention cool racial traits that let hmi be an ad-hoc trapfinder etc). The Barbarian on the other hand rolled slightly above avg. SO the only advantage I can see that the Barb has is rage at 1st level. Meaning as a team we are gonna kick butt, but there might be tension between the fighter and the barb...any ideas on how to handle this? Also what is a dip? and is there a link to DnD abbreviations?:smallfrown:

[Frog Dragon]

Abbreviations. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512)

Regarding the fighter and barbarian thing, it seems that your problem is mostly uneven stat modifiers. The best method to fix this is to use a stat generation system that does not have the huge potential discrepancies of a single random set of rolls. I personally use 4d6b3 with a fallback of 32 point-buy if the rolls happen to suck.

However, if the characters are already generated, this may not work. There are ways to shore up stats afterwards, but these will inevitably take several levels to become available, and will generally be item-based temporary bonuses. If they are not, you are most likely talking about Tomes, which are even more expensive, though they offer permanent bonuses.

Regarding the power of the classes, the Tier System Venusaur linked has the gist of it. Fighter, Paladin and Ranger are all pretty lackluster, though they get better with splats (fighter in particular hates being restricted to core because the bonus feats become useless due to most of the core feats being useless). Optimized druids and clerics beat face better than fighters and cast spells while doing so.

[Steward]

I feel as if Fighter and Barbarian are comparable in strength, so the difference between them actually can be explained by better stats, better optimization (the fighter is better in this one case because the player chose better feats, has better equipment, or is more knowledgeable about the game). But neither of them even come close to comparing to a wizard or a druid. You can roll all you want, but druids at high-level outclass paladins, rangers, fighters, and barbarians in almost every conceivable way.

I'm not sure what to do about 'tension' between the Fighter and the Barbarian in your group though. What, specifically, is the problem that they're having with each other? The best bet to handle it is to listen to the players' complaints instead of trying to preempt them.


Also what is a dip? and is there a link to DnD abbreviations?

A dip is when you take only one or a few levels in a class, as part of another build, and if you want abbreviations check here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512).

[Tyndmyr]

I havent yet used PF as i'm new to DND, and 3.5 specifically.I think the cleric is really cool, but so far my fav base class is Druid. Cool look, cool idea, animal companion, spell casting, and decent support fighting. I hear a lot of praise on th eforums for these two plus the fighter and wizard. so..is the Paladin and ranger...umm..broken? and if so how and does PF improve on it sufficiently? I read somewhere that PF characters beyond level 10 are ridiculously powerful. I dont want to ignite a war over that last point.

I would not consider them broken overall...both have sufficiently low spellcasting that it's not an issue.

Pathfinder raises the bar for both of these, but also tends to boost most things, so...still not broken.

[chomskola]

IS there anything the fighter can cross class into early on (and if so how early would be good), to make him more "the fighter he always should have been". I'm including prestige classes in my question there. The tension is, for me as DM, im worrying that as the encounters wear on the BARB might feel redundant, and yes, it hasnt quite happened yet, so maybe worrying about nothing.

[Gavinfoxx]

Well...

Is your game 3.5e?
PF?
3.PF, with PF stuff taking precedence?
3.PF, with whatever you agree on taking precedence?

What books do you have available?

[chomskola]

3.5e , I have bought most of the expansion books for 3 and 3.5 (not realising there was a distinction at the time). Actually, something im still confused about , compatibility between 3 and 3.5 expansion books :(

[Righteous Doggy]

IS there anything the fighter can cross class into early on (and if so how early would be good), to make him more "the fighter he always should have been". I'm including prestige classes in my question there. The tension is, for me as DM, im worrying that as the encounters wear on the BARB might feel redundant, and yes, it hasnt quite happened yet, so maybe worrying about nothing.

Well, if i had a choice, I'd probably cross class into about anything else at level 3, and never look back... Optimizing the Fighter is absurdly annoying without a few splatbooks. Some people even prefer Psionic Warrior as a dip. Off the top of my head, most optimization is just making charging/power attack absurdly powerful. You can always take a level in Whirling Frenzy/Lion Spirit totem Barbarian if you wanted some overpowering oomph(variants are cool).

On the other hand, alot of people make the joke that the Warblade, a class from the Tomb of Battle, is how the Fighter should have been. Its much easier to handle and much harder to mess up. Plus its more entertaining to use manuevers than power attacking every turn in my opnion.

Edit: For the most part the books are compatible, changes to spells/domains/prcs and the way DR works were made. If you look it up on google someone makes a long simple statement about the difference.

[Gavinfoxx]

Alright.

IMO, the best way to play 3.5e is to choose a target power level for the type of story you want to tell, and then, one way or another, encourage everyone to normalize their characters around that power level.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11714.0


So. Lets say everyone wants a gritty, deadly game where mundane people have to worry about mundane threats, and people have backup characters, because death is around the corner for everyone, and you all aren't 'heroic' by default.

Encourage people to play in the Tier 5/4 range, then, and be really really careful about what monsters are thrown at the party -- in fact, probably don't throw monsters at the party at all, but just humanoids with weapons.

Let's say you want to have a game where people are competent, have useful skills, can use them in different ways, but tend to have to rely on one another for things outside their comfort zone, but they can still contribute in this situation. And the player characters are definitely heroes.

Then encourage people to play a Tier 3 game, with perhaps Tier 4 dips allowed. This is perhaps the 'balanced' area of D&D. A Player character who wants to play a "Fighter" is in fact playing the Warblade class, with perhaps a Fighter (or Zhentarim/Dungeon Crusher/Hit and Run/etc.) dip. A "Wizard" is either a Beguiler or a Dread Necromancer. A "Cleric" is a Shugenja, perhaps.

If you want to encourage a game where people have the capability of making reality their bitch, changing the world, completely bypassing encounters, and being the Justice League to the world around them... then encourage a Tier 1/2 game, and encourage optimization, planning, and tactical and strategic thinking and efficient use of resources. This has your clerics, cloistered clerics, dwoemerkeepers, Psions, Erudites, Druids, Mystics, Binders with all Vestiges allowed, Planar Shepherds, Initiates of the Sevenfold Veils, Incantatrixes, Artificers, etc.

[Curmudgeon]

Regarding the fighter and barbarian thing, it seems that your problem is mostly uneven stat modifiers. The best method to fix this is to use a stat generation system that does not have the huge potential discrepancies of a single random set of rolls. I personally use 4d6b3 with a fallback of 32 point-buy if the rolls happen to suck.
Or you could use point buy with a weighting system to take relative class power into account. The following is what I recommend.

There's no rolling for any part of character level gain. (Hit points at later levels are always average + ½.) Adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0):

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but really: Just skip characters this weak.

This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.

[Answerer]

Fighter is generally better than Paladin or Ranger. All three are rather weak classes.

Paladin is incredibly MAD, Smite Evil is worthless, Aura of Courage is only mildly better, and Lay on Hands is a joke. Divine Grace is awesome but it's the only awesome thing the Paladin has. The Mount is OK (honestly, it can be stronger than the Paladin himself), but Animal Companions are much better. Paladin spells can be decent, but they get too little, too late.

Ranger basically has no schtick. Favored Enemy isn't even worth remembering that you have it, the Combat Feats are both for fighting styles that depend on bonus damage that the Ranger doesn't get, and the Animal Companion is basically worthless because of the half level thing. Ranger spells, like the Paladin's, can be good, but it's again too little, too late. Swift Hunter helps massively, since then the Ranger does get bonus damage.

The Ranger is a pretty weak dip, but if you're desperate for BAB and skills, it's there. The Paladin's a pretty solid dip for Divine Grace, but the rest of the class is rather weak.

The Fighter gets Bonus Feats, which is lame as anything, but at least you get some pretty solid options out there, and lots of builds are feat-starved. Dipping for more than 2 levels is still not worth it (as odd levels of Fighter are completely worthless) unless you're going for Dungeoncrasher or Zhentarim Soldier.


The Barbarian gets a ton of useful class features at 1. Unfortunately, while there are so many that a Barbarian 2-4 isn't bad, per se, there's very, very little incentive for staying in the class.

[Prime32]

It was already mentioned that PF gave fighters higher numbers and nerfed their feats. This is a general pattern for PF - the classes themselves have slight power boosts, and if you use them in a 3.5e they could be more balanced than its Core classes, BUT rules in other places mean that in a pure PF game non-casters end up nerfed harder than they were buffed (except for paladin).

As for power past level 10... This post (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4189;msg=57634) should help with a lot of your questions.

[Daftendirekt]

Fighter is generally better than Paladin or Ranger. All three are rather weak classes.


:smallconfused: Right, because a boatload of bonus feats (of which good ones run out rather quickly) is just soooo much better than spellcasting and class features. Gross.

[Answerer]

:smallconfused: Right, because a boatload of bonus feats (of which good ones run out rather quickly) is just soooo much better than spellcasting and class features. Gross.
Are we talking all of 3.5? Because there are plenty of good feats. The design of the Fighter is bad, but the Paladin and Ranger really just don't have anything to do.

[Menteith]

Are we talking all of 3.5? Because there are plenty of good feats. The design of the Fighter is bad, but the Paladin and Ranger really just don't have anything to do.

The Ranger has 6+Int skill points and spell casting, on top of full BAB and 2 good saves. Even without any ACFs on the table (Mystic Ranger and Wildshape Ranger come to mind), it still has better options than a Fighter. Paladin's not fantastic, but until it stops losing class features, it's fine - and there are decent PrCs for Paladins. Divine Feats and Battle Blessing both help immensely, even on just a straight Paladin.

[Soranar]

Depends if you go vanilla or not.

Straight fighter, not very impressive.

Dungeoncrasher fighter? Those can hit like a ton of bricks. (tier 4)


Straight barbarian, can get by for the first 6 levels or so (before pounce becomes a requirement). (low tier 4)

pounce whirling frenzy trapkiller barb. Again, ton of bricks + some useful skills.
(high tier 4)

Straight rangers make ok scouts and archers

trap expert wildshaping rangers with sword of the arcane order become crazy spellcasting fleshrakers (high tier 3)

finally, vanilla paladins are extremely MAD (tier 5, tier 4 with insane rolls)

warforged holy warriors paladins (with all 3 substitution levels) with the smite to song feat , or sword of the arcane order paladins with the Wisdom based feat (forget the name, dragon compendium feat) both reach tier 3

[Answerer]

The Ranger has 6+Int skill points [...] on top of full BAB and 2 good saves.
Meh, it's chassis. On classes with real, meaningful class skills, this stuff is barely worth mentioning. The fact that it's probably the best of what the Ranger gets is very telling.

Yes, it's a very nice chassis. But Dragon and Outsider RHD have very nice chassis too, and you don't see people looking to stock up on those.


and spell casting,
Ranger spellcasting is OK, if you factor in splatbooks. Spell Compendium has a bunch of rather-nice spells for the Ranger. Hunter's Eye alone does a lot for the class.

That said, you get very few spells per day, they come very late, and Battle Blessing doesn't apply to the Ranger. They're nice, but they're not worth anything like the level investment it takes to get them.


Even without any ACFs on the table (Mystic Ranger and Wildshape Ranger come to mind),
Mystic Ranger does change things, yes. Wildshape Ranger's not that impressive; it's just stat boosts and some natural weapons. I mean, these things definitely at least give the Ranger something to do, plus you could always bring up the Swords of the Arcane Order for real shenanigans, but at any rate I was not really factoring these in.


it still has better options than a Fighter.
This isn't really true. Dungeoncrasher is fantastic, Zhentarim Soldier offers some really useful things, though I will acknowledge that it's not really fair to consider these and not Mystic Ranger. Moreover, feats are what power most Core-style melee power. The best Core-melee character will be dip-tastic and probably have some levels in both Fighter and Ranger (and Barbarian and Horizon Walker), but if we're talking a single-classed character, Fighter probably does best since it's in the best position to get things like Trip and Charge online ASAP. Plus the high-level PHB2 Fighter feats are actually quite good. Not worth the enormous number of Fighter levels you need for them, but as long as we're talking about single-classed characters...


Paladin's not fantastic, but until it stops losing class features, it's fine - and there are decent PrCs for Paladins. Divine Feats and Battle Blessing both help immensely, even on just a straight Paladin.
Divine Feats are nice, and Battle Blessing's nice, but they're not really enough to save the class. Pathfinder's changes to Smite are nice too, but still not enough.


Ultimately, all three classes are weak. I think the Fighter's probably a bit better when you include all WotC-published stuff. Note that Mystic Ranger is Paizo material from back when they did Dragon...

[Thiyr]

I will make the point that a (Mystic Wild Shape) Ranger (with Sword of the Arcane Order) is broken (in e6). Not that this helps the OP at all, but in those circumstances it is accurate. Just a straight ranger in a normal game, PF or not, however, really isn't.

[FMArthur]

Fighters can usually build for only one or two tricks in combat. They wind up quite good at those tricks, but they can't be effective for all types of combat. Enemies often have the choice to just not play along, without planning or being geared towards that end - flight, terrain or peons block chargers; good tumblers invalidate trippers; big foes autowin versus Grapplers; counterattackers can be avoided. That is to say nothing of the foes' actual offenses, whose negative effects generally impede melee warriors more than anyone else...

But outside of combat, they have nothing. That's a travesty for a roleplaying game.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I... don't see where on these forums fighter gets praise alongside three of the most powerful classes in the game. What forums have you been on?

[Answerer]

Fighters can usually build for only one or two tricks in combat. They wind up quite good at those tricks, but they can't be effective for all types of combat. Enemies often have the choice to just not play along, without planning or being geared towards that end - flight, terrain or peons block chargers; good tumblers invalidate trippers; big foes autowin versus Grapplers; counterattackers can be avoided. That is to say nothing of the foes' actual offenses, whose negative effects generally impede melee warriors more than anyone else...

But outside of combat, they have nothing. That's a travesty for a roleplaying game.
I didn't say it was a good class or that it was a well-designed class.

But none of them really get much of anything for out-of-combat, at least in the majority of games (since few groups actually have the Ranger go out scouting solo, and stealth is meaningless when the rest of your party isn't), barring Diplomancy by a Paladin.

[Gavinfoxx]

I dunno. I kind of like Skilled City Dweller, Spiritual Connection, Trap Expert, Solitary Hunting, Arcane Hunter, Champion of the Wild, Wild Shape Ranger.

And I like Thug, Zhentarim Soldier, Dungeon Crusher, Hit and Run, Physical Prowess, Exoticist, Skilled City Dweller, I-don't-care-that-some-of-those-are-mutually-exclusive Fighters.

Both of those can be fun to play.

[Aeryr]

I don't think it's a valid argument to say "few groups..." people can speak for the groups they play with, they personal experience, etcetera.

In my group, for example, the ranger totally goes on solo scouting.

[Answerer]

I don't think it's a valid argument to say "few groups..." people can speak for the groups they play with, they personal experience, etcetera.

In my group, for example, the ranger totally goes on solo scouting.
Anecdotal evidence is, indeed, flawed. That said, I do (strongly) believe your group is not the norm. I speak not only of every group I've ever been a part of, but also every group I've heard tell of (excepting yours, just now). I've read campaign logs, talked with friends about their games, discussed playing games on this forum and others, and you are literally the first person to say that having a stealthy character go scouting ahead, solo, is a common attribute of their games.

[FMArthur]

I've seen plenty of rangers use their abilities for reconnaissance, even if only a couple ever went on an extensive solo scout mission. They are good at it even it's just getting a hawk to peep around corners for the party for a minute. They are also good at sneaking and spotting threats before they happen just with awareness skills, which they have in-class and have the skill points/wisdom to be good at.

The party splitting into multiple approaches to an encounter to suit each member's best approach method has been normal for the groups I've played with as well; the ranger has good options available for that. I'm sorry if Hide sees no use in your games but I have a really hard time believing that it's the norm.

[Frog Dragon]

Or you could use point buy with a weighting system to take relative class power into account. The following is what I recommend.

There's no rolling for any part of character level gain. (Hit points at later levels are always average + ½.) Adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0):

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but really: Just skip characters this weak.

This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.
I agree that a flat point buy is probably more balanced. I just like rolling, and my group is probably a bit of an anomaly anyway.

Even with this system, you can end up with a character who gains point buy far below their actual tier. For example, if someone starts with a Cloistered Cleric dip and moves into melee classes, they will have the point buy of a tier 1 character when they actually are somewhere around tier 4 or perhaps 3.

[Answerer]

I'm sorry if Hide sees no use in your games but I have a really hard time believing that it's the norm.
It sees use, but only combat applications, or if everyone in the group has it.

[Curmudgeon]

Even with this system, you can end up with a character who gains point buy far below their actual tier. For example, if someone starts with a Cloistered Cleric dip and moves into melee classes, they will have the point buy of a tier 1 character when they actually are somewhere around tier 4 or perhaps 3.
Yes, I know this. It's intentionally designed to make players cognizant of the consequences of such dips. If you want to dip into a very front-heavy (i.e., with much power in the early levels) class like Cloistered Cleric, it'll either cost you in point buy or you'll need to wait and do that dip later when the power boost won't be as significant relative to other characters.

[Cor1]

Depends if you go vanilla or not.

Straight fighter, not very impressive.

Dungeoncrasher fighter? Those can hit like a ton of bricks. (tier 4)


Straight barbarian, can get by for the first 6 levels or so (before pounce becomes a requirement). (low tier 4)

pounce whirling frenzy trapkiller barb. Again, ton of bricks + some useful skills.
(high tier 4)

Straight rangers make ok scouts and archers

trap expert wildshaping rangers with sword of the arcane order become crazy spellcasting fleshrakers (high tier 3)

finally, vanilla paladins are extremely MAD (tier 5, tier 4 with insane rolls)

warforged holy warriors paladins (with all 3 substitution levels) with the smite to song feat , or sword of the arcane order paladins with the Wisdom based feat (forget the name, dragon compendium feat) both reach tier 3

Yeah, but you need to optimize those classes heavily (substitution levels, obscure feats, Dragon material) to get to be about as good at fighting (or skill-monkeying) as the guy who's not supposed to be good at it (the full casters).

Here, that's how I'd make a better Paladin :
Race : Human
Lvl 1 : Cloistered Cleric 1. Domains : Planning, Competition (and Knowledge, it's free). ACF : Spontaneous Domain Casting (replaces spontaneous Cure).
Feats: Persist Spell, Divine Metamagic : Persist.
The Domain of Competition gives you both Divine Power and Righteous Might, so it's basically the Domain Of ClericZilla.
Lvl 3 : Persist Magic Circle Against Evil and you have auras of buffs like Paladins do. Get the Mounted Combat feat and Persist a Summon Monster II
Lvl 7 : Pool of Healing ACF. It's basically a Lay On Hands (Sp) that takes up the slot of a 4th level Cleric spell, like Archmage Spell-like abilities. It holds 5*(1+CL) HP / day.

By that point, you have a Smite Evil ability, a Persistent Full BAB, a Persistent Magic Circle Against Evil, spontaneous Augury and Scrying, Bardic Lore, a floating at-will untyped +1 to every opposed check (from Competition domain), and full Cleric casting.

At lvl 9, you get Righteous Might. "Problem, fighters? UMAD much? Trollolol"

Why even keep doing the Cleric stuff when you could take the second (or third) level as Crusader and the rest in Ruby Knight Vindicator, actually? With one Practiced Spellcaster feat somewhere (to replace Divine Spell Power and thus burn fewer Turn attempts) to make up for the couple of lost CL. Or just eat them and justify it by the fact that Paladins are not as good as Clerics at casting...

Or take Battle Blessing (why yes, Clerics can cast Paladin spells. There *are* spells that appear on both lists, right?). Then use Divine Impetus + DMM Quicken, so you cast spells for five Turn attempts and zero actions. (Yeah, expensive. That Cleric will have a nasty Cracksticks habit... Or a Cohort for crafting them, and possibly storing Turn attempts.)

That's how your Paladin-type Holy Combatant shows up and kills undead all by himself, without needing a party to make him able to do exactly what its character archetype is supposed to be good at doing. When you think of an Holy Avenger, how do you see them? With three friends without which he can't Holy Avenge anything worth fighting? Or all alone with one Mount and maybe one Cohort?

(I'd SO do the Cloistered Crusader Vindicator. "My Cloister was destroyed by <Vile Folk>. I took to the Crusade and was so good at Divine Magic that I became Vindicator. Most straightforward backstory ever. And makes a better Paladin than any Paladin.)

The thing is that full casters can be made better at every role than mundanes or half-casters, so much better, in fact, that while they can keep up with the monsters, half-casters and mundanes can't.

I think that any character should be able to solo an equivalent-level monster, if that's balance you seek. But a story doesn't work that way, not in a cooperative storytelling game. So you tell stories of a party of characters, who go up against groups of monsters, undoing plans, playing factions. Each of them playing their role in the game.

Is a circle of Red Mages overpowered? Depends whaat you're talking about. Of course they can get their caster level over 9000. Yes, that means a ridiculous Metamagic Node for ULTIMATE ARCANE POWER!!!. Yes, that's the point : that's the one reason why they haven't been wiped off the map yet, Evil and antagonistic as they are. That's what I call playing their role in the game.

But, by mechanics, a Paladin can't kill most high-level Undead without assistance. What does that mean in the world of the game? It means that the archetype of the solitary Holy Avenger can't be played by a straight Paladin. Squads of Paladins supported by Clerics and some mages if compatible with their faith, now, yeah, those can Holy Avenge. But the mechanics should support the concept of Solitary Holy Avenger instead of actively hindering it.

That wouldn't be so offensive if primary magic-wielders couldn't (theoretically) solo everything. One example I found ridiculous is in Magic of Incarnum : there is one Psionic power that can replicate the effects of five feats. That's how much more better magic (and other magics) is than every other ability.

[Soranar]

Can a solo paladin handle high level undead? Of course he can.

I'm never going to debate a tier 1s capacity to break the game. But a tricked out high level paladin can handle his own. The simple fact that he can have a dragon has a mount should make that obvious.

I have played enough gun ho paladins to know exactly how much craziness they can handle. The high saves alone often makes them survive where others wouldn't (and before level 9, I've seen more people die from a failed reflex save than any other kind, Crusaders might sound powerful but maneuvers are not the answer to everything and Will saves are not the only thing you should worry about). Investing in negative energy immunity is never a bad idea, which negates half the problems encountered while facing undead.

Of course they're nowhere as strong as they used to be in 2nd edition (when having a holy avenger meant something). But even their inherent MADness can be offset by a belt of magnificience.

Dnd isn't just builds, it's also magic items and roleplay.

And the paladin's code (love it or hate it) is an integral part of playing a paladin for me (or failing and becoming a blackguard).

[Lord_Gareth]

Show me how a level 20 paladin handles a Nightwalker.

[Flickerdart]

Can a solo paladin handle high level undead? Of course he can.
How? His Turn Undead is worthless, even when facing regular undead. Against high level undead such as Nightshades, it's utterly hopeless. All of a Paladin's other abilities are useless in fighting undead - Smite is pitifully weak, Lay on Hands is as well, his spells have a terrible CL and are foiled by any SR whatsoever. He has no senses to detect undead (who have good skills because of their high HD counts), or to stay hidden himself. A solo Paladin setting out to fight high level undead is going to die brutally.

[Menteith]

Show me how a level 20 paladin handles a Nightwalker.

He basically plays like an Ubercharger and kills the thing through Travel Devotion + Full Attack, in a nutshell.

Depends on the Paladin. If you're saying this is straight Paladin 20, no racial substitution levels, no ACFs, no decent PrCs, then you Travel Devotion up to it and smite the crap out of it. A full attack, with every attack a Smite, will drop it quickly, and with it's crappy movement speeds you shouldn't have an issue getting to it. Nightwalkers don't do great damage, Evil Gaze doesn't work on a Paladin, Summon Undead takes a minimum of a round, the Paladin can easily make the low save DCs on the Sp-Likes.

If the Paladin is allowed to have any amount of optimization, this gets easier - a lot easier.

EDIT
Nightwalkers aren't the best example of this, as you're throwing a CR16 creature with crappy defenses against someone with Pounce. It's not a great example of the Paladin's shortcomings (of which there are many, I'll agree).

[Flickerdart]

He basically plays like an Ubercharger and kills the thing through Travel Devotion + Full Attack, in a nutshell.
You mean the thing he can't see even when it isn't using invisibility, which can kite him with minions and dispels, surround itself in darkness if plain ol' invis isn't enough, can Plane Shift away whenever, and is capable of crushing the Paladin's weapons to bits? He'll never get the opportunity to charge unless the DM is an idiot.

[Menteith]

You mean the thing he can't see even when it isn't using invisibility, which can kite him with minions and dispels, surround itself in darkness if plain ol' invis isn't enough, can Plane Shift away whenever, and is capable of crushing the Paladin's weapons to bits? He'll never get the opportunity to charge unless the DM is an idiot.

A Paladin trading Swift Actions for a Nightwalker's standards is coming out ahead.

Divine Insight gives a Paladin +15 to Spot. Daylight counters and dispels Deeper Darkness. The minions summoned take an average of 5.5 rounds to show up. Nightwalkers have a 40ft land speed as their fastest movement mode, and their 20ft (poor) flight speed isn't helping much for kiting. Crushing an item is a standard action (see the round by round tactics, as they specify that it spends a round crushing an item), meaning a Disarm --> Crush Combo eats up 2 turns - and on top of that, disarming a Paladin with a 2Hed weapon with +10 higher BAB than you isn't what I'd call feasible. Invisibility isn't something a Paladin can beat on class features alone, which is why it's a good thing items are around.

Plane Shift sucks, though.

[Flickerdart]

+15 to Spot vs +37 26 (mixed the Spot up with the Hide) to Hide? Yeah, that's super helpful. The Nightwalker is free to run circles around the Paladin, including summoning minions, and the Paladin can't really do anything about it.

[Menteith]

+15 to Spot vs +37 to Hide? Yeah, that's super helpful. The Nightwalker is free to run circles around the Paladin, including summoning minions, and the Paladin can't really do anything about it.

Umm. No, not against +37. Against +18. The amount listed as a Nightwalker's bonus to Hide. They gain an additional +8 if they're in Darkness, but as a Paladin can just Swift Action Daylight (or have it up already, if he expects a Nightwalker), I wouldn't rely on it. Not sure how you're getting +37.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightshade.htm

[Lord_Gareth]

Umm. No, not against +37. Against +18. The amount listed as a Nightwalker's bonus to Hide. They gain an additional +8 if they're in Darkness, but as a Paladin can just Swift Action Daylight (or have it up already, if he expects a Nightwalker), I wouldn't rely on it. Not sure how you're getting +37.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightshade.htm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the paladin need to beat the Nightwalker's CL in order to dispel its darkness?

[Flickerdart]

Umm. No, not against +37. Against +18. The amount listed as a Nightwalker's bonus to Hide. They gain an additional +8 if they're in Darkness, but as a Paladin can just Swift Action Daylight (or have it up already, if he expects a Nightwalker), I wouldn't rely on it. Not sure how you're getting +37.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightshade.htm
Why would he expect a Nightwalker, or know anything about it, before the Nightwalker was upon him (and didn't need to Hide anymore)?

[Menteith]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the paladin need to beat the Nightwalker's CL in order to dispel its darkness?

"Daylight brought into an area of deeper darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."

So they stop each other. Multiple instances of Daylight (or hell, a torch if we want to be low tech) should work fine, though.

EDIT

I can make an actual build for this, if you want to present a situation. I was going off the Paladin going out for a night of Undead killing in my mind, but if we're making an actual challenge then I'd be down.

[Soranar]

There's no reason whatsoever for a paladin to ever stop detecting evil. And creatures of the nightwalker's HD leave an aura behind wherever they go.

And a level 20 paladin gets a level 20's WBL, which would net him plenty of ways to detect a nightwalker.

As for the whole killing part, a simple ubercharger build (using travel devotion) would deliver a charge that does something like this

and his mount gets blindsense anyway so...

power attack 1.5 (wielding a 2 handed weapon, a lance)
spirited charge (x4 damage)
banner (x5 damage on a charge)

paf, it's dead

[Spuddles]

Detect evil at will does nothing?

[Flickerdart]

It wastes a standard action every round, has a very limited area of effect, and only detects lingering auras if the aura's owner died (for creatures). So yes, useless.

[deuxhero]

Short Anwser: No.

Long answer: PF Paladin is pretty good but can't do anything but "kill evil stuff" and possibly talk real well, 3.5 and PF Ranger is open to optimization (especially the 3.5 Ranger) with effort and 3.5 Paladin just sucks, with heavy effort making it slightly less so.

The versions of AC Rangers and Paladins are awful compared to the Druids, with very slow progression. In PF, then Paladin's AC is slightly better in absolutes, but Paladins don't get the buffs for it Druids do.

Druid is the only class you can't screw up too bad without trying purposefully (and even that takes effort). As long as a Druid has a high Wisdom, he can prepare better spells and get a new Animal Companion and be useful. He enjoys Natural Spell and Augment Summoning, but neither is strictly required to hold his own weight.

A Paladin has a very tricky attribute set to manage (Strength, Constitution and Charisma are all fairly important, plus Wisdom in 3.5. You can't really dump intelligence if you want some feats that need 13 int and you can't really do anything outside of combat with only 1 skill point), his feats can be permanently blown on lots of traps (Weapon Focus comes to mind) and he is hosed without them.

Even if you do all this right, the Paladin can do damage to evil creatures (animals, constructs, true Elementals and Inevitables/Formarians render him unable to do anything of real value) a few times a day and heal (but not all that well). The Druid can stop anything from moving, let the party adventure in places they normally couldn't, stop them from being tracked and create expendable meatshields at Level 1, and it only gets more favorable to the Druid after that.

[nedz]

Anecdotal evidence is, indeed, flawed. That said, I do (strongly) believe your group is not the norm. I speak not only of every group I've ever been a part of, but also every group I've heard tell of (excepting yours, just now). I've read campaign logs, talked with friends about their games, discussed playing games on this forum and others, and you are literally the first person to say that having a stealthy character go scouting ahead, solo, is a common attribute of their games.

This is common in both groups I play with. Its a viable tactic most groups could use.

Just because a lot of groups don't use it doesn't alter the potential power of the class. Wizards are T1 after all, even if McBlasty doesn't appear to be so.

[Curmudgeon]

I've read campaign logs, talked with friends about their games, discussed playing games on this forum and others, and you are literally the first person to say that having a stealthy character go scouting ahead, solo, is a common attribute of their games.
I guess you haven't read too many of my posts, then. The Rogue is my favorite class, because I like having lots of options both in and out of combat and the class is a good chassis for options. I usually build my Rogues so they'll be sneaky, and you can't sneak if you're in the company of non-stealthy companions. Solo work is usually the only option if you're going to do any scouting, and solo scouting happens in at least half of all the games I play in (usually because it's my character doing it). I've written dozens of times about the various ways a Rogue can gain Hide in Plain Sight because the good versions of HiPS are such a useful boost for a stealthy character. I've also extolled Rogues taking advantage of nightly party down time (when spellcasters are resting and preparing) for solo earning, and most nighttime solo jobs will require stealth if you want to survive on your own.