Crusader vs. Paladin

[paladinofshojo]

Just out of curiousity, what are the pros and cons of both classes, and which one would you personally use and view a better asset to the group than the other.

[Eldariel]

Paladin as written doesn't gain meaningful abilities aside from very gimped spellcasting past level 4. Paladin Turn Undead is quite weak to actually Turn Undead with and Smite is too rarely up to be something to rely on (I still remember my first Pally I played; I missed my first Smite attack and then realized I literally have nothing to do for the rest of the day). Mount's nice but not that good and the scaling isn't all that.

Crusader is largely just Paladin done right I feel; less daily limits, better scaling, less rigid code of conduct (nothing wrong with a code of conduct, but it doesn't need to be built into the bloody class), covers all the alignment options (there's a separate Paladin for LG, CG, LE, CE). Most importantly, Crusader is worth taking 20 levels in though. I feel Crusader is just better written class.

[navar100]

Crusader is better than paladin in all ways. It has more interesting things to do. It has more interesting choices to make upon leveling. RAW it can multiclass freely allowing for synergies with other classes. There's no official Code that bothers some people. It can dish out raw damage consistently. It thrives on taking punishment with the tools to mitigate it. It doesn't lose a class feature if the party needs to enter a dungeon, swamp, mountain area, or tundra. Crusader is less MAD. Charisma helps a little but isn't that important. If you don't pump it up to focus more on Strength and Constitution you aren't losing much.

However, it you were to use Pathfinder's paladin it's a slightly different story. Crusader is still better, but Pathfinder gives paladin a lot of love. Less MAD, cool new class features, more interesting Lay On Hands, and Smite Evil worthy of the name.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I predict an overwhelming number of responses that say, "crusader all the way!" or something to that effect.

Cursader:

Pros: Versatility in combat, unlimited healing ability (with the right maneuver choices), healing ability that doesn't dig into the action economy, generally greater resilience, and no alignment restriciton or code of conduct, several abilities that are unique to ToB.

Cons: maneuvers and full attack are mutually exclusive (barring a barb dip), no spellcasting, no divine grace, little outside of combat utility, signature maneuvers (devoted spirit) are largely either alignment dependent or revolve around minor damage boost and healing

Paladin:

pros: spellcasting, divine grace, the special mount*, cha dependence and diplomacy make for a decent face, and decent splat support.

Cons: MAD, CoC, alignment restrictions, poorly scaling and limited healing ability, special mount*, less interesting combat options (move + attack V full attack), and Turn undead is innefective without splat support or being traded away.


*the special mount can be a bane or a boon depending on the particulars of the build and campaign.

I'd be happy playing either one, personally, though the paladin's CoC can cause problems in your group if the player and DM aren't on the same page when it comes to the alignment system.

Crusader is the more mechanically interesting and less RP dependent choice, and being a ToB class requires little to no optimizing ability to play effectively.

I honestly don't think one or the other is "better" for everyone, but I can't deny that an effective paladin is a little harder to build than an equally effective crusader.

[Hiro Protagonest]

However, it you were to use Pathfinder's paladin it's a slightly different story. Crusader is still better, but Pathfinder gives paladin a lot of love. Less MAD, cool new class features, more interesting Lay On Hands, and Smite Evil worthy of the name.

Stop touting Pathfinder. It's fine, and it can make play experience better with smart melding of 3.5 and PF (PF with the Compendiums and Tomes, or 3.5 with PF classes for everything tier 4-6 and maybe sorcerer and cleric, as well as the new classes and archetypes and feats), but I have a hard time believing PF is this wonderful system where you can play a game without problems, and 3.5... isn't. 3.5 paladin is perfectly good once you get the options from Complete Champion, Spell Compendium, and Dragon Magazine Compendium (mostly Serenity for the Dragon Magazine Compendium).

It doesn't matter which version of the paladin you're using. Crusader is better. Also, I can't stand 2+int skills on a class where int is valued only above charisma (if you have Serenity), or roughly equal with wisdom (if you're PF paladin). But the skills thing is just preference. With the broader spell list of Spell Compendium (even broader if you're allowed Sword of the Arcane Order), or the better Smite Evil of Pathfinder (although I would've preferred it if it just let you apply its effects to all evil creatures for one encounter, because then it could truly be dubbed "going Super Saiyan"), or both, paladin is perfectly playable.

Other good sources of paladin stuff are Dungeonscape (good Alternate Class Feature if you don't want the mount), and... whatever Forgotten Realms book has Sword of the Arcane Order (look up the feat online, feat finders often have the sourcebook listed).

[Tavar]

Kelb_Panthera, you should note that Diplomacy is on the Crusader list as well, and they are almost as Charisma dependent as the paladin(ie, not very), while lacking the wisdom requirement.

[eggs]

Crusader is very hard not to make powerful. Paladin takes work to turn into a contender, but it got a ton of support in terms of ACFs, spells, items, feats, etc. over 3e's run.

In terms of optimization potential, I would say Crusader has a much higher floor, but Paladin has a somewhat higher ceiling (it's just way more work to dumpsterdive its gems of support and piece them together).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kelb_Panthera, you should note that Diplomacy is on the Crusader list as well, and they are almost as Charisma dependent as the paladin(ie, not very), while lacking the wisdom requirement.

Barring serenity, a paladin is much more dependent on Cha than a crusader.

Crusader gets 2 smites that he doesn't really need, cha to will saves, and cha is keyed to the save dc's of some devoted spirit maneuvers. Only the devoted spirit maneuvers are a major class feature and they all do damage before they even call for a save against their rider effects.

A paladin, on the other hand, gets his cha to all his saves; and at a much lower level; has his smite as a primary class feature, uses cha to determine his lay on hands pool, and needs cha to determine the number of uses and effectiveness of his turn undead ability.

That's hardly the same amount of dependence.

[Tavar]

His turn undead is worthless except to fuel Divine feats, and most of them aren't all that great. So...yay?

The 5/day smites that a Paladin gets...are you really saying that something can only be used 5 times per day at level 20, and each use is a single attack, is a key feature? Yeah, it's billed as a key feature, but it's not really one. The Crusader has the same smite mechanic, and considering the limited number of times per day the smite mechanic grants, he has a comparable number.

Regarding the saves, I wasn't aware that a level 2 paladin was much lower level than a level 2 Crusader. Additionally, while he doesn't get them to all saves, he get's the bonus to will saves, possible one of the most important(reflex saves generally deal damage, fort saves or die, Will saves or kill your teammates, to paraphrase someone).

In any case, one thing that helps a crusader in this regard is that while the Paladin as written needs 4 abilities, the Crusader only needs 2, so giving a bit of a boost to Cha is really easy, and much easier than a similar boost for a Paladin is, in my experience.

[Kelb_Panthera]

His turn undead is worthless except to fuel Divine feats, and most of them aren't all that great. So...yay? A) that assumes divine feats are in play. If the game in question is core + ToB then the only divine feat available is divine spirit. Comparing the feats available to multiple classes isn't comparing the two classes. B) The paladin's turn undead is no more useless than the cleric's. The paladin is only 3 points below a cleric of the same level, a difference small enough to be eaten by the dice. Unless of course you're arguing that turn undead is always worthless?


The 5/day smites that a Paladin gets...are you really saying that something can only be used 5 times per day at level 20, and each use is a single attack, is a key feature? Yeah, it's billed as a key feature, but it's not really one. The Crusader has the same smite mechanic, and considering the limited number of times per day the smite mechanic grants, he has a comparable number.
5/day is equivalent to once per encounter on the recommended schedule of encounters per day, and it doesn't preclude the use of a full attack. It's also the only in-class damage booster that the paladin gets.

The crusader has many more in-class options for damage boosts and so has no reason to invest in cha for his smites. The catch he runs into is that most of those other options preclude making a full attack. A crusader using a strike on the enemy will do fairly similar damage to a paladin making a full attack. The crusader's full attack is on about the same level as his high damage strikes as well though.

Regarding the saves, I wasn't aware that a level 2 paladin was much lower level than a level 2 Crusader. Additionally, while he doesn't get them to all saves, he get's the bonus to will saves, possible one of the most important(reflex saves generally deal damage, fort saves or die, Will saves or kill your teammates, to paraphrase someone). I admit that I misremembered when the crusader gets indominatble soul, but that doesn't change the fact that its only one save. For a paladin it's all three, making a cha investment for their respective features more useful to the paladin than the crusader.


In any case, one thing that helps a crusader in this regard is that while the Paladin as written needs 4 abilities, the Crusader only needs 2, so giving a bit of a boost to Cha is really easy, and much easier than a similar boost for a Paladin is, in my experience.

The paladin doesn't need 4 abilities, he likes 4 abilities. If a paladin chooses not to invest in cha, he can still do normal attack damage on the same level as the fighter, ranger, or any other fighting class. If he doesn't invest in Wis, all of his spells are available in the form of wands, and only a handful of paladin spells are actually worth casting unless you include splat-support. A paladin only -needs- to invest in str and con, same as any other heavily armored fighting type. He's more heavily rewarded for spreading his stats around than the crusader is though.

[navar100]

Stop touting Pathfinder.


No.

4E has its fans. Legend has its fans. E6 has its fans. Pathfinder has me.

[toapat]

Sword of the Arcane Order.

Wrong Substitution levels, you want Mystic Fire Knight, with the feat Sword of the Arcane Order

Required Splatbooks to make paladin Viable:

Champions of Valor (Sword of the Arcane Order and Mystic Fire Knight)
Dungeonscape (Divine Spirit, actually useful without 7 source books)
Dragon Magazine #***? (whatever one you need to replace Wis for Cha) or 306, P 100 (Serenity Feat, Sidebar)
Complete Champion (Battle Blessing)
This Forum Post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242100) (Measure of Conviction)

Combined? High Tier 3 paladin

Crusader? Never better then Low T3

As has been said, Crusaders have a high floor head start, but their ceiling is only at the same story. Paladins have a pretty low floor, and an elevator to the top of the trump tower.

[Big Fau]

5/day is equivalent to once per encounter on the recommended schedule of encounters per day, and it doesn't preclude the use of a full attack. It's also the only in-class damage booster that the paladin gets.

Smite Evil is useless because it requires a Standard action to use.

[T.G. Oskar]

Note that you're trying to compare a class built right at the beginning of the 3.x run to one that was built just before the 3.5 run was almost over. The differences between both are, by all means, staggering.

I wouldn't consider Paladin spellcasting all that, but it's not weak by any means. You need to be quite creative with it, but if you manage to do so, you can get a decent amount of utility from it. 1st level scrolls or wands of Deafening Clang or Divine Sacrifice usually provide a solid boost to damage for the Paladin, which work on all attacks it makes. Bless Weapon, Checkmate's Light, Holy Sword and Lawful Sword turn any weapon into a magic weapon capable of dishing quite a bit of damage. Shield Other (and if you have access to BoED, Glory of the Martyr) are phenomenal tanking spells because they ALWAYS redirect damage towards you, and if they lack deflection bonuses to AC or resistance bonuses to all saves (unlikely, but it might happen), it grants a small but decent amount. There are other interesting Paladin spells to consider, and because they're limited to 4th level and most are shared with Clerics, you have a chance that a wand or scroll is available for them.

The crux of Paladin spellcasting is just how limited it is. It progresses veeeeeery slowly (a 7th level paladin has 1 base spell slot of 1st level whereas the cleric has 4 plus its domain slot, not to mention having spells of 2nd, 3rd and 4th level already), so once they're out, you're once again relying on your full BAB, your mount and your smites to pull through. You really can't blame them on that because they honestly believed at the beginning of the 3.x run that full BAB was equivalent to full spellcasting, as it was a drag from 2nd Edition where spells were far more dangerous to cast than now. Thus, while they boosted Paladin spellcasting a bit compared to 2nd Edition (the old Paladin got spells at 9th level, and progressed as a Cleric of 8 levels lower), they still couldn't handle full spellcasters. The fact that Divine Power was a core spell and not a limited release spell (likewise with Holy Word and co. spells being general whereas Holy Smite and co. are domain-specific) really made a dent, because that way you could have limited a bit the Cleric's power (or at least essentially nerf one of the core points of Clericzilla). Had the paladin been released at the end of 3.5's run (and no, I don't consider the Crusader a "paladin released at the end of 3.5's run; the frickin' class description makes them stand side to side with the core Paladin, and I'll agree only after I see an officially errata'ed version of the Player's Handbook that replaces the Paladin with the Crusader), it would have been quite different. Perhaps per-encounter Smites, Cha-based spontaneous spellcasting, a wider spell list and more spell slots, extra feat slots, etc. However, that's not the case.

What IS the case is that the Crusader took advantage of how the game evolved during quite some time. The Crusader's maneuvers have the advantage of being usable essentially at-will (so as long as they could be recovered) and provide a wide set of useful abilities inside of combat (healing, tanking, solid damage, status effects, buffs), so it's natural they're considered a solid Tier 3 class at least combat-wise. They can handle themselves pretty well outside of combat, but only regarding Balance and Diplomacy and perhaps Intimidate; they can't open locks or disable traps or forge documents or gather information or track or etc., etc., etc., which is another key aspect of Tier 3 (if it's not a specialist in one thing and good at some others, it's very good in many things).

Another thing is that the Paladin has loads of support on different supplements, in comparison with the Crusader. The Paladin has a huge wealth of "exclusive feats" (between Battle Blessing, the divine feats it shares with any user of turn/rebuke undead, and their Wis dependence makes them fair targets for Combat Form feats) and ACFs that improve various aspects (Divine Spirit from Dungeonscape, Charging Smite from Player's Handbook II, Divine Counterspell from Complete Mage, Cursebreaker from Complete Mage, amongst others), which end up changing the Paladin into a useful, varied class. Thus, it's a bit trickier, but it can end up being quite powerful.

In the end, if you're just aiming for who's the best one to cover that slot...it depends on what you're looking at. A Crusader has a lot of staying power, but it generally ends up locked into very specific builds (either lockdown or...well, basically lockdown. Oh, maybe also being darn hard to kill), whereas the Paladin does phenomenally well with a specific build but can do fine if you attempt others (namely, if you attempt something other than a Ubercharger, while using feats and ACFs to work it out). The Crusader will be easier to build, though, so it becomes a better asset because it's easier to make useful regardless of optimization knowledge. However, in the end, the Paladin may just pull through with stuff that the Crusader might not, if only outside of battle: Detect Lies + Zone of Truth + Sense Motive is better than Sense Motive alone, in case you need to find the truth; another is how they get an innate detection skill usable at-will, which can enter play to avoid ambushes and even detect lingering evil auras from invisible opponents. I find the Paladin has slightly more utility outside of combat than a Crusader, in any case.

[Dudu]

Crusader.

Like other poster said before, Crusader was one of the last base classes implemented. At the time Crusader entered the game, people were aware of the huge gap between melee characters and full casters. As T.G. Oskar pointed, they believed full base attack was much hotter than it actually is.

So, while the Paladin goes for a full base attack with a few spells on his sleeve and a few class features of dubious power, the Crusader embrace a whole new mechanic of actions usable per combat. Plus, stances, he also use that. Iron Glare does exactly what a tank needs, Martial Spirit helps in the early levels and Thicket of Blades is wonderful for Lockdown builds.
Like many others said, his utility out of combat is smaller than pally. But when he's usefull, he can just mountain hammer his way through the sturdiest of the doors.

One thing that I'm not sure if was already mentioned, is that Crusader is wonderful to multiclass. That is another big difference. The role of a Crusader might be limited, but a Crusader/Warblade isn't so much. Or perhaps, if you're aiming for powerful prestige classes, who's better than Crusader to qualify for the Ruby Knight Vindicator? Just a few dips and you can give a lot of combat options to whatever character you wish, while people usually dip pally only for he's divine grace.

[silverwolfer]

Not that many high stats = crusader

High stats = crusader

Roleplay = They could fill the same role almost

More things to do in combat = crusader

Gear makes them better = Pally

Tank Build= crusader

Prc Choices = Pally

Damage Output Against a Variety of enemies = Crusader

Not Auto killing the rog = Crusader

What you enjoy most = priceless

[StreamOfTheSky]

Crusader is a much better class, but Paladin, like most core classes, got gobs of splat book love, so I'm not willing to dismiss the class completely. If you load up on Serenity, Battle Blessing, Devotion feats...
If nothing else, Paladin can outshine Crusader big damage charge attacks. At least till Crusader gets Warmaster's Charge, which is just better than anything the paladin could ever hope to do on a charge.


Smite Evil is useless because it requires a Standard action to use.

No, it doesn't. It's still pretty useless, but it's not THAT useless.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Wrong Substitution levels, you want Mystic Fire Knight, with the feat Sword of the Arcane Order

Required Splatbooks to make paladin Viable:

Champions of Valor (Sword of the Arcane Order and Mystic Fire Knight)
Dungeonscape (Divine Spirit, actually useful without 7 source books)
Dragon Magazine #***? (whatever one you need to replace Wis for Cha) or 306, P 100 (Serenity Feat, Sidebar)
Complete Champion (Battle Blessing)
This Forum Post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242100) (Measure of Conviction)

Combined? High Tier 3 paladin

Crusader? Never better then Low T3

As has been said, Crusaders have a high floor head start, but their ceiling is only at the same story. Paladins have a pretty low floor, and an elevator to the top of the trump tower.

I agree with most of what toapat has said here, especially the single floor potential of the Crusader.

Serenity is also presented in the Dragon Compendium.

[Big Fau]

No, it doesn't. It's still pretty useless, but it's not THAT useless.

RAW, it does. It's an SUA that doesn't specify an action type, thus it defaults to Standard. WotC overlooked this problem because they thought the intent of the ability was clear.

[silverwolfer]

Wrong Substitution levels, you want Mystic Fire Knight, with the feat Sword of the Arcane Order

Required Splatbooks to make paladin Viable:

Champions of Valor (Sword of the Arcane Order and Mystic Fire Knight)
Dungeonscape (Divine Spirit, actually useful without 7 source books)
Dragon Magazine #***? (whatever one you need to replace Wis for Cha) or 306, P 100 (Serenity Feat, Sidebar)
Complete Champion (Battle Blessing)
This Forum Post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242100) (Measure of Conviction)

Combined? High Tier 3 paladin

Crusader? Never better then Low T3

As has been said, Crusaders have a high floor head start, but their ceiling is only at the same story. Paladins have a pretty low floor, and an elevator to the top of the trump tower.

Crusaders are out of the box....what you have their, is asking alot of a DM

[T.G. Oskar]

Crusaders are out of the box....what you have their, is asking alot of a DM

Not really. Well, sort of.

Complete Champion is fine if you have Core + Completes (essentially the PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, plus all books with the Complete title in them), and that allows the paladin access to Divine feats, which aren't so bad. Battle Blessing is actually very nice, but not earth-shaking because you're still limited to a few spells.

Dungeonscape is a tad harder, but I agree that Divine Spirit is wonderful. I believe it has far more uses than a special mount, even if each spirit may only be used once per day. Had you gained the ability to choose any one spirit up to 4 times per day, it would have been even MORE powerful. A 20th level paladin would have collaborated in every one of the four recommended battles per day with the right spirit.

Champions of Valor is a harder catch (it's a setting book), but Mystic Fire Knight and Sword of the Arcane Order are more than worth it. For starters, you get more spell slots, and you get access to a wider set of spells, even if limited to 4th level. Between Enlarge Person, Haste, Keen Edge, amongst others, you can truly become a physical powerhouse. You'll be competing for 4th level spells, but you'll get a larger mileage out of 3rd level spells (which are the ones the paladin needs more help on).

It's on the Dragon Magazines AND the homebrew where I'm agreeing that it's asking too much from the DM.

The Serenity feat is nice, but the only way it can fly is if you agree to accept material from ALL Dragon magazines, or the DM agrees at least for the Dragon Compendium, which has it (and some other nice stuff, such as armor suitable for a paladin). It's only meant to make you less MAD, so it's more of a patch than anything else, so it's not so necessary.

Homebrew, however, is where I draw the line. You can't expect any DM to freely accept everything PLUS homebrew. AND, if you're expecting to have the DM accept homebrew, you have to expect the possibility that it'll agree to wider homebrew. You have a better chance for the DM to transplant the PF Paladin to the game than having the DM accept homebrew (and, given how it works, the PF Paladin already has Measure of Conviction apply; it just works differently).

It works if the DM isn't used to large or campaign-wide homebrew, but agrees to small-scale homebrew. Measure of Conviction is a feat, so it falls under the small-scale homebrew region, which shouldn't elicit a huge change (except when you fight a Blackguard that's a bit more pumped up than the party and it massacres someone because its smite applies to a full attack; peg that on "what works for me must work for them"). However, if the DM is not willing to agree on even small-scale homebrew, you're losing on that. Alternatively, if the DM agrees on just about ANY kind of homebrew, what's stopping the DM to accept OW4's variant, or the Knight-Paladin, or one of the many Paladins with Crusader maneuvers (which sorta defeats the point of making a Paladin OR a Crusader), or even *redacted to prevent shameless self-promotion; enjoy GenCola*!?

Even then, that doesn't make the Paladin Tier 3. At least not High Tier 3. In fact, just with Mystic Fire Knight + Sword of the Arcane Order you're approaching low Tier 3 because your spell list just expanded fivefold (or even tenfold!). The rest simply boost some of the Paladin's class abilities, but that doesn't mean it WILL add up to the character's power enough to make it step up a Tier.

[silverwolfer]

My counter argument if you use all that to make it tier 3, you suddenly make everyone else tier 2 or teir one with their wanting to equaly have access to all those sources.

[lsfreak]

My counter argument if you use all that to make it tier 3, you suddenly make everyone else tier 2 or teir one with their wanting to equaly have access to all those sources.

No, that's not how the tier system works. And the 2-3 barrier is something that's nearly impossible to overcome, because you have to gain something that's gamebreaking. Not just "this is sooo much damage," but multiple "no, I win" abilities.


RAW, it does. It's an SUA that doesn't specify an action type, thus it defaults to Standard. WotC overlooked this problem because they thought the intent of the ability was clear.
It already specifies the action, an attack. It doesn't say make an attack, you've already taken the action to attack and smite is a free action or non-action taken simultaneously with it.

[silverwolfer]

No, that's not how the tier system works. And the 2-3 barrier is something that's nearly impossible to overcome, because you have to gain something that's gamebreaking. Not just "this is sooo much damage," but multiple "no, I win" abilities.


It already specifies the action, an attack. It doesn't say make an attack, you've already taken the action to attack and smite is a free action or non-action taken simultaneously with it.



Binder, Martial Adepts, Mystic Ranger , Trip Master flex, shaman , ijustuit focused samurai

[Hiro Protagonest]

Binder, Martial Adepts, Mystic Ranger , Trip Master flex, shaman , ijustuit focused samurai

...What do all of those have in common? Because I have no idea.

Even with Iaijitsu Focus, an OA samurai is tier 4. It has weaker damage output than a rogue.

Martial adepts are always tier 3. The gamebreaking tricks don't shift them a tier, the crusader has the most powerful, and he only has two, and Idiot Crusader utilizes WRT to give yourself an extra turn, an action so obviously not RAI.

Mystic Ranger boosts ranger from 4 to 3. Sounds like you're supporting his argument.

I'm not even sure what "Trip Master flex" is...

[eggs]

My counter argument if you use all that to make it tier 3, you suddenly make everyone else tier 2 or teir one with their wanting to equaly have access to all those sources.
That's why I mentioned floors and ceilings in my first post.

The Crusader has really good stuff, but not much of it is supported elsewhere. The worst Crusader hitting something with White Raven Hammer is spending a Standard Action to whack something for 1d8+30ish damage+[Stun effect]; the best Crusader hitting something with White Raven Hammer is spending a standard action to whack for maybe 2d6+90ish damage+Stun effect. Maybe with a rider effect tossed on like Dreadful Wrath to soften up nearby enemies' saves. There's not a whole lot of difference - they're both good, but not gameshattering.

But the Paladin is in a different situation. The worst paladin is garbage. At the same levels as the above Crusader, he's running around, hitting things with his standard actions for the same 1d8+30ish damage, but without any status effects or bonus damage and without any more noncombat utility than its diplomacy roll. But the best Paladin is polymorphing himself and his poverty-avowed mount into an arrow demon and thoon elder brain respectively, teleporting around the battlefield with a splitting bow, making a combined 40-45 attacks per round for 30ish damage apiece dropping the occasional additional swift buff, sitting on nearly impenetrable saves and squeezing out a modifier on any skill check nearly as high as a mundane class with full rank investments.

For most practical purposes, you're not going to squeeze polymorph, teleports, a spell-sharing companion or a decent array of skills from a Crusader; you can from a Paladin. 5 years of support just gave the Paladin more to work with.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Binder, Martial Adepts, Mystic Ranger , Trip Master flex, shaman , ijustuit focused samurai

Of these, only the Binder has successfully broken through the Tier 2/3 barrier (with an online vestige). The shaman has arguably always been a T2 (Full caster with fairly flexible list), while the others are T3 (with the exception of the IF Samurai).

My google-fu failed to reveal what/who in the Realms Trip Master Flex is, though. Source?

[Augmental]

But the best Paladin is polymorphing himself and his poverty-avowed mount into an arrow demon and thoon elder brain respectively, teleporting around the battlefield with a splitting bow, making a combined 40-45 attacks per round for 30ish damage apiece dropping the occasional additional swift buff, sitting on nearly impenetrable saves and squeezing out a modifier on any skill check nearly as high as a mundane class with full rank investments.

Pun-Pun doesn't count.

[eggs]

Pun-Pun doesn't count.
Ohp, I only meant that Pazuzu comment as a throwaway. I'll edit that out to avoid confusion.

I was talking about an archer paladin with Sword of the Arcane Order and a couple CL boosts, which are carrying most of the weight there.

[Answerer]

Paladin is one of the most poorly-designed classes in all of 3.5. It has ability dependency problems, it has extremely poor scaling, a whole smorgasbord of useless features (including its signature move, Smite Evil).

The Crusader is one of the most elegant and well-designed classes in the game. It is balanced and consistent, with limited ability to be made overly poor or overly bad. It is flexible and versatile, and stands up well to most everything without completely overshadowing challenges.

[T.G. Oskar]

Paladin is one of the most poorly-designed classes in all of 3.5. It has ability dependency problems, it has extremely poor scaling, a whole smorgasbord of useless features (including its signature move, Smite Evil).

The Crusader is one of the most elegant and well-designed classes in the game. It is balanced and consistent, with limited ability to be made overly poor or overly bad. It is flexible and versatile, and stands up well to most everything without completely overshadowing challenges.

Again, you're comparing a class built at the very beginning of the 3rd Edition run to a class that was built almost at the end of its run. The first classes released were based on their 1st and 2nd Edition counterparts (the Monk is a victim of this, for example), whereas the Crusader and the Warblade had already about 5 years of solid development behind them.

That doesn't mean that all classes made near the end of 3.5's run were elegantly designed (re:Truenamer), but most of them DO (re:Binder, Dragonfire Adept). Even those made nearing that point were very good (re:Beguiler, Duskblade)

You want to see a very crucial change? I'll use a pretty interesting reference.

The Bard, at the beginning of 3.5's run, was considered worthless. The bonus it offers is pretty poor compared to spells, it has no native feats to enhance it (aside from, probably, Skill Focus because it's a skill monkey and metamagic feats because it's a caster, and if you want to be decent at melee you could get Weapon Finesse). The Inspire Courage bonus only got to a +4, whereas you could get higher bonuses through other classes, strictly speaking in Core. A 1st level Bard only has 0-level spells, 1 use of Bardic Music and doesn't have the benefits of a Rogue regarding sneak attack. A 20th level Bard using only Core (not even SRD!) has a solid collection of spells, multitude of uses in bardic music, but still can't fight for jack. If anything, the only useful thing that you could claim it has is innate support for Use Magic Device, arguably one of the most powerful skills ever made. However, face an undead creature, a construct, a plant, an ooze or a creature immune to mind-affecting abilities (or just a huge Will save) and you'll notice how the Bard fares badly. Oh, and if you want to keep the song? Tough luck, can't cast spells unless you drop the act!

5 years later? We get Words of Creation, Song of the Heart, Dragonfire Inspiration (and ways to customize it), a wealth of powerful spells (Inspirational Boost and Improvisation are fun ones, even if not powerful), varied ACFs, even more choices for Use Magic Device, the Vest of Legends (basically the Monk's Belt for the Bard), Bardic Music feats (including Metamagic Song and Talfirian Song), Melodic Casting (now you can cast spells and use bardic music at the same time!)... The Bard got a HUGE load of mileage from the recollection of 5 years worth of abilities.

The position in the Tier system? Tier 3. The Tier system was done near the end of 3.5s run, so it took a snapshot of the Bard having far more options than before. Done in Core only? It would threated a Tier 4 because it can do a lot of things, but not as good as others.

That's essentially what you're comparing. You're comparing a class straight from Core (without all of the material it possesses) with a class that has 5 years worth of system experience crammed into a single book. If you don't see elegance after that, you know you have a bad developer.

And coincidentally, you see the Truenamer, and you figure that point is proven almost by default. You couldn't have expected the balance of the Crusader during the beginning of the 3rd Edition run in terms of classes. You could have expected the fail of the Truenamer, but it was done right around the end of 3.5's run, so it's not like they automatically make better stuff with years of system experience and mastery.

When you mention that the Paladin is poorly designed, you're not considering the factors. The Truenamer is poorly designed, because the system is completely designed and tested throughly and it still fails. The Paladin? You can't expect perfectly designed classes during an edition shift.

[Lord_Gareth]

Oskar, I must respectfully say this - Answerer isn't actually wrong, bro. Paladin has a pretty good reason to be poorly designed, yes. That doesn't mean it's not poorly designed.

[Answerer]

Again, you're comparing a class built at the very beginning of the 3rd Edition run to a class that was built almost at the end of its run.
I didn't say its poor design was inexcusable. I merely stated that it exists. Which it does.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Smite Evil is useless because it requires a Standard action to use.

Isfreak beat me to the punch on the rebuttal for this comment.


One of the biggest problems I'm seeing in this discussion is that it's not so much comparing the classes themselves as the optimization/build potential of the two classes.

When comparing any two classes it's (probably) most accurate to compare only what's available to each class in the book it's printed in plus core, and add only one or two statements about which has the higher optimization potential if there's a noteable difference.

Not everyone has access to the entire 3.5 system, so the only sources that are guaranteed are the sources the classes are printed in and core.

You could maybe make an exception for the original completes. It seems that most tables have at least those four books, and the four are related to each other in that each is essentially a compilation and update of the options that were available for one of the four archetypes (skill monkey, arcanist, divine caster, and melee) that were originally printed in the books Sword and Fist, Tome and Blood, Defenders of the Faith, Masters of the Wild, and Oriental Adventures.

[Coidzor]

You want a killer pet, Paladin is one of the flavoring agents there.

You want to be killer, Crusader requires less work.

[toapat]

Not really. Well, sort of.

Complete Champion is fine if you have Core + Completes (essentially the PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, plus all books with the Complete title in them), and that allows the paladin access to Divine feats, which aren't so bad. Battle Blessing is actually very nice, but not earth-shaking because you're still limited to a few spells.

Dungeonscape is a tad harder, but I agree that Divine Spirit is wonderful. I believe it has far more uses than a special mount, even if each spirit may only be used once per day. Had you gained the ability to choose any one spirit up to 4 times per day, it would have been even MORE powerful. A 20th level paladin would have collaborated in every one of the four recommended battles per day with the right spirit.

Champions of Valor is a harder catch (it's a setting book), but Mystic Fire Knight and Sword of the Arcane Order are more than worth it. For starters, you get more spell slots, and you get access to a wider set of spells, even if limited to 4th level. Between Enlarge Person, Haste, Keen Edge, amongst others, you can truly become a physical powerhouse. You'll be competing for 4th level spells, but you'll get a larger mileage out of 3rd level spells (which are the ones the paladin needs more help on).

It's on the Dragon Magazines AND the homebrew where I'm agreeing that it's asking too much from the DM.

The Serenity feat is nice, but the only way it can fly is if you agree to accept material from ALL Dragon magazines, or the DM agrees at least for the Dragon Compendium, which has it (and some other nice stuff, such as armor suitable for a paladin). It's only meant to make you less MAD, so it's more of a patch than anything else, so it's not so necessary.

Homebrew, however, is where I draw the line. You can't expect any DM to freely accept everything PLUS homebrew. AND, if you're expecting to have the DM accept homebrew, you have to expect the possibility that it'll agree to wider homebrew. You have a better chance for the DM to transplant the PF Paladin to the game than having the DM accept homebrew (and, given how it works, the PF Paladin already has Measure of Conviction apply; it just works differently).

It works if the DM isn't used to large or campaign-wide homebrew, but agrees to small-scale homebrew. Measure of Conviction is a feat, so it falls under the small-scale homebrew region, which shouldn't elicit a huge change (except when you fight a Blackguard that's a bit more pumped up than the party and it massacres someone because its smite applies to a full attack; peg that on "what works for me must work for them"). However, if the DM is not willing to agree on even small-scale homebrew, you're losing on that. Alternatively, if the DM agrees on just about ANY kind of homebrew, what's stopping the DM to accept OW4's variant, or the Knight-Paladin, or one of the many Paladins with Crusader maneuvers (which sorta defeats the point of making a Paladin OR a Crusader), or even *redacted to prevent shameless self-promotion; enjoy GenCola*!?

Even then, that doesn't make the Paladin Tier 3. At least not High Tier 3. In fact, just with Mystic Fire Knight + Sword of the Arcane Order you're approaching low Tier 3 because your spell list just expanded fivefold (or even tenfold!). The rest simply boost some of the Paladin's class abilities, but that doesn't mean it WILL add up to the character's power enough to make it step up a Tier.

In order:

Champion: Divine Feats are not something worth writing home about (other then maybe Divine might). The fact is, keeping Turn undead, which is an expensive class feature for paladin to make use of, is somewhat less useful then Mystic Fire Knight's additional spell slots, especially with Sword of the Arcane Order.

DungeonScape: I would agree this is the issue, it is still a class feature that is useful without a dedicated build

Champions of Valor: If your DM doesnt allow this book, you basically cant do anything with paladin anyway, because Mystic Fire Knight is needed to actually give you class features, while sword of the arcane order itself is a Houserule hellhole. If there is a way to change Wizard spellcasting away from Int, then the value of Sword goes way up.

Dragon 306/Compendium: If your DM doesnt just houserule this, they are being mean, one of the well known problems is the MAD issue caused by the paladin's division of casting and feature skills. Sword of the Arcane Order's Manditory Int is also not helpful.

Homebrew: This isnt a fix i made for just paladin, it is a fix for everyone who gets smiting (other then clerics (Who really shouldnt get it anyway) and samurai (who get a skill named, but not actually, a smite)), because of what is wrong with Smiting. Smiting is supposed to be a superior Power Attack, and the simple fact is, a Standard action, which doesnt get multiplied, that only gets 1 attack, is significantly weaker then it should be. your counter arguement that if they allow small scale fixes, why not allow large ones, or sub in PF-Pally (which is a low T-4 with no potential), is the difference. That homebrew isnt looking to fix alot, but to correct the huge error in the system.

[Hiro Protagonest]

expecially

You know, I've heard it pronounced expecially, but... :smalltongue:

Yes, I did have to make a post just for that. Between my grammar nazi nature and watching a six-season show full of grammar jokes multiple times...

[Psyren]

Stop touting Pathfinder.

No.

What navar said.

If a thread doesn't specify "3.5-only," you'd better believe we'll point out if PF does something in a better/more fun way. In the Paladin's case, they knocked it clear out of the park. Casting is better, Smiting is better, LoH is better, mountless paladins are better... it's just plain better, and without needing to allow a bunch of band-aid splats to do it.

[silverwolfer]

-_- that is like saying shadowrun got magic better...

Let us not suggest things that are a separate system

[Answerer]

What navar said.

If a thread doesn't specify "3.5-only," you'd better believe we'll point out if PF does something in a better/more fun way. In the Paladin's case, they knocked it clear out of the park. Casting is better, Smiting is better, LoH is better, mountless paladins are better... it's just plain better, and without needing to allow a bunch of band-aid splats to do it.
"Better" doesn't mean "good;" Core PF Paladin is still quite a lot worse than the Crusader.

[Psyren]

-_- that is like saying shadowrun got magic better...

Let us not suggest things that are a separate system

I don't know anything about Shadowrun, but I do know that PF is pretty easy to convert. I can take their paladin, swap out the skills lists, and I'm more or less done. Much less effort than learning a whole new system, I'd say.

You can make it a binary situation if you want to ("separate" vs. "not separate") but that doesn't mean everyone has to follow along with such black-and-white thinking.


"Better" doesn't mean "good;" Core PF Paladin is still quite a lot worse than the Crusader.

Worse at what, though? You need to specify. Which one is better at archery? Mounted combat? Healing status effects as well as HP? I'm not an expert in either class by any means, nor was I attempting to to give a definitive answer to the main topic.

[jaybird]

-_- that is like saying shadowrun got magic better...

Let us not suggest things that are a separate system


There's a reason Pathfinder is often called 3.75. Hint: that reason is not because they are incompatible.

[Answerer]

Better designed. The Crusader is probably better designed than anything Paizo's ever put together. Though, honestly, that's not really much of a standard to hold it against, seeing as Paizo is full of awful designers.

The Paladin was one of their better efforts, without a doubt, and is better-designed than many 3.5 classes. Unfortunately, we're comparing it against what may very well be the best of 3.5 design.

[toapat]

Better designed. The Crusader is probably better designed than anything Paizo's ever put together. Though, honestly, that's not really much of a standard to hold it against, seeing as Paizo is full of awful designers.

The Paladin was one of their better efforts, without a doubt, and is better-designed than many 3.5 classes. Unfortunately, we're comparing it against what may very well be the best of 3.5 design.

It isnt really a paladin though, they went more with a Knight Commander in terms of mechanical additions. The spell list is smaller and has nothing not on the 3.5 one, the aura stack just feels like they forgot they were making paladin entirely, and Smite evil is more like WoW's Seals rather then a divine wrath ability.

the other problem is of course the mobility of a class. PF paladin doesnt have any mobility, and the "No mount paladin being better" is an outright lie. 3.5's paladin gets access to the most unique spell list of any class in the game, as well as the Wizard's spell list, can replace a number of their dead class features with viable ones, actually make LoH viable, and basically do everything the PF paladin does, but better. Entirely because 3.5 had more cocain pumped into it then PF ever will.

of course I have no real problem comparing them, the Paladin, PF paladin, and Crusader are a mixed bag of divine warrior, but even years of hindsight didnt give Pazio the ability to find the problem with paladin, and fix it. they dealt with alot of the problems of the game, made classes look more appealing, and piled depth inside them, but they simply didnt deal with one of the most significant paladin Problems, and that is that Paladins, have two interlocked build decisions. The mount, and the Divine Warrior. (the Gear bond is a horrible mistake, considering that the entire spell list just replaces whatever one you choose.)

[Knaight]

There's a reason Pathfinder is often called 3.75. Hint: that reason is not because they are incompatible.

The reason is mostly because 3.501 doesn't have a very good ring to it, despite being about what it is. Pathfinder is easily as compatible as 3.0 was, if not significantly more.

[Psyren]

It isnt really a paladin though

This is No True Scotsman fallacy. What you mean to say is that it doesn't fit your idea of what a paladin should be. But the fact that other players disagree, and that you even found examples of Paladins from other games with similar abilities (i.e. the WoW Paladin you mentioned) belies your assertion.

And I for one think that a "seal"-type ability has just as much "divine wrath" in it than the standard smite, if indeed we can quantify such a thing.



the "No mount paladin being better" is an outright lie. 3.5's paladin gets access to the most unique spell list of any class in the game, as well as the Wizard's spell list, can replace a number of their dead class features with viable ones, actually make LoH viable, and basically do everything the PF paladin does, but better. Entirely because 3.5 had more cocain pumped into it then PF ever will.

I find it ironic that you lambast the PF Paladin for "not really being a paladin," yet tout the 3.5 paladin's setting-specific ability to gain wizard spells as an advantage. I would argue that a paladin that needs wizardry to get ahead in life is the one that "isn't really a paladin."

As far as "LoH actually being viable" - even discounting the feats that boost the ability further, that's what Mercies are for.

[kardar233]

I'm actually a huge fan of the 3.5 Paladin as a starting point for a build (PF Paladin is better here, one of their good ideas). I'm specifically partial to the Paladin of Tyranny as not only is LE my favourite alignment it gives really fancy things like Aura of Despair.

I find 6 levels in Shadow Mystic Fire Cloak Knight Charging Smite (Divine Counterspell?) Paladin of Tyranny is a very good start to many kinds of assassin characters. Devoted Inquisitor gives you a SoL on a Sneak Attacking (Charging) Smite which synergizes well with any Sneak Attack carrier effects via Aura of Despair, and Shadow Cloak Knight gets you Shadowdancer HiPS at 6th level.

[Dictum Mortuum]

I'm actually a huge fan of the 3.5 Paladin as a starting point for a build (PF Paladin is better here, one of their good ideas). I'm specifically partial to the Paladin of Tyranny as not only is LE my favourite alignment it gives really fancy things like Aura of Despair.

I find 6 levels in Shadow Mystic Fire Cloak Knight Charging Smite (Divine Counterspell?) Paladin of Tyranny is a very good start to many kinds of assassin characters. Devoted Inquisitor gives you a SoL on a Sneak Attacking (Charging) Smite which synergizes well with any Sneak Attack carrier effects via Aura of Despair, and Shadow Cloak Knight gets you Shadowdancer HiPS at 6th level.

I'm under the impression that you can't be a mystic fire knight and variant paladins, but mystra is weird.

[kardar233]

Ehh, I'm playing a Tier 4 class and I usually specialize into sneaking/Fear effects anyway, so DMs can usually afford to throw me another Rhino's Rush daily.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Ehh, I'm playing a Tier 4 class and I usually specialize into sneaking/Fear effects anyway, so DMs can usually afford to throw me another Rhino's Rush daily.

Yeah, I'm not saying what you're doing is bad and/or overpowered; I just haven't figured out if it is actually legal or not. By the looks of it, if your deity is not good, it's probably fair deal.

[jaybird]

The reason is mostly because 3.501 doesn't have a very good ring to it, despite being about what it is. Pathfinder is easily as compatible as 3.0 was, if not significantly more.

This may be because I'm posting in the morning, but what? :smallconfused: I was saying that they ARE intercompatible...not sure what you mean.

[Knaight]

This may be because I'm posting in the morning, but what? :smallconfused: I was saying that they ARE intercompatible...not sure what you mean.

I'm agreeing with you. My point is that the degree to which they are compatible is understated significantly with the term 3.75, and that 3.501 would be more accurate.

[toapat]

This is No True Scotsman fallacy. What you mean to say is that it doesn't fit your idea of what a paladin should be. But the fact that other players disagree, and that you even found examples of Paladins from other games with similar abilities (i.e. the WoW Paladin you mentioned) belies your assertion.

And I for one think that a "seal"-type ability has just as much "divine wrath" in it than the standard smite, if indeed we can quantify such a thing.



I find it ironic that you lambast the PF Paladin for "not really being a paladin," yet tout the 3.5 paladin's setting-specific ability to gain wizard spells as an advantage. I would argue that a paladin that needs wizardry to get ahead in life is the one that "isn't really a paladin."

As far as "LoH actually being viable" - even discounting the feats that boost the ability further, that's what Mercies are for.

The "No true scottsman" falacy you cite, isnt in effect. the point is, except for LoH, the PF paladin has nothing that really cant be just taken and stripped of the alignment stuff while losing the feel.

You dont understand what a seal is then. WoW's Paladin seals are static 30 minute changes to how you deal damage, 1 heals/recharges on hit, 1 increases damage, 1 adds a useless debuff, and one applies DoTs. they are closer to permanant weapon enhancements in this game then to an all out attack.

where as 3.5's smite is more like the Hammer of Righeousness/Divine storm abilities of the Paladin in WoW. Big, Highpowered, and a bit effect.

the point with wizard spell access is that it improves the class, beyond the already much more complete spell list.

now, my personal opinion of paladin is that they should be sort of police for the mage classes (how Warcraft originally handled Paladin in lore is that the paladins were a decision of the Church of Light to train dedicated combat clerics in order to counteract the orc warlocks who were largely responsible for the destruction of Stormwind.). while Sword of the arcane order is a good feat, i feel it has better meaning as a form of measure for the corruption of a paladin falling to the lust of power to which they are supposed to oppose in order to defend the innocent.

One of the significant problems is that the paladin doesnt have a niche to fill, like how the monk doesnt, but unlike the rogue, fighter, ranger, knight, and barbarian. they get both divine warrior (which isnt a niche so much an outline of how a class works) and knight, which only works when you dedicate the class to that feel.

[Roderick_BR]

(...)
Required Splatbooks to make paladin Viable:

Champions of Valor (Sword of the Arcane Order and Mystic Fire Knight)
Dungeonscape (Divine Spirit, actually useful without 7 source books)
Dragon Magazine #***? (whatever one you need to replace Wis for Cha) or 306, P 100 (Serenity Feat, Sidebar)
Complete Champion (Battle Blessing)
This Forum Post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242100) (Measure of Conviction)

Combined? High Tier 3 paladin

Crusader? Never better then Low T3

As has been said, Crusaders have a high floor head start, but their ceiling is only at the same story. Paladins have a pretty low floor, and an elevator to the top of the trump tower.
In other words: you need a lot of splatbooks, including some obscure ones, and a lot of optimization to be competitive.

Crusader is better if you want something simple and quick. Paladin is better if you have all that and time and will to optmize.

[Psyren]

The "No true scottsman" falacy you cite, isnt in effect. the point is, except for LoH, the PF paladin has nothing that really cant be just taken and stripped of the alignment stuff while losing the feel.

I have no idea what you mean here. All of the PF Paladin's abilities are iconic to paladins - the mount, divine grace, LoH, auras, and of course Smite (even if it functions differently.) Even if the last of these "feels" more like a WoW Paladin than a 3.5 one, that doesn't change the fact that it's still something a paladin could reasonably/thematically do.



You dont understand what a seal is then.

No, I do actually - the Paladin marks a target and gets combat bonuses vs. that target. That's the basic form, and fits PF smiting just as much as it does WoW seals. The duration and specifics of said bonuses are unimportant to this concept, and 30 minutes (or even 5, as they used to be) is still longer than most D&D combats would last.



the point with wizard spell access is that it improves the class, beyond the already much more complete spell list.

An ability that depends on a very specific flavor of paladin in a very specific setting isn't a valid point of comparison between two systems.



now, my personal opinion of paladin is that they should be sort of police for the mage classes (how Warcraft originally handled Paladin in lore is that the paladins were a decision of the Church of Light to train dedicated combat clerics in order to counteract the orc warlocks who were largely responsible for the destruction of Stormwind.). while Sword of the arcane order is a good feat, i feel it has better meaning as a form of measure for the corruption of a paladin falling to the lust of power to which they are supposed to oppose in order to defend the innocent.

If you want to play that way that's fine, but that isn't the fluff of SotAO at all. It's very nearly the opposite of what you want it to be. SotAO's Wizard spells are a gift from the god/goddess of Magic, not "corruption." Similarly, Paladins weren't designed to be mage-hunters - the only real boon they get at that role are their high saving throws.

[Lord_Gareth]

Worse at what, though? You need to specify. Which one is better at archery? Mounted combat? Healing status effects as well as HP? I'm not an expert in either class by any means, nor was I attempting to to give a definitive answer to the main topic.

How about, 'Contributing meaningfully to a team,' and 'Championing their causes'? While we're at it, why don't we go for, 'Providing a dynamic gameplay experience'?

To wit:

- Both classes have the flaw of lacking inherent flight. Now, the Paladin can make up for this with the correct mount, and while this isn't as good as flying under his own power, it's actually a bit better than using an item or spell to fly (unless you wanna talk wing grafts). Advantage: Mounted paladin builds.

- Neither class has a lot of support for ranged attacks. IIRC, PF Paladin can Smite at range, but the trouble is that PF sliced a ton of support from archery. Crusader can't even do their thing at range at all, but given the total incompetence of bow builds in PF (even 3.PF) and how ill-suited the PF paladin is to ranged builds even with 3.5 content back-ported in, I consider this a non-issue. Advantage: None

- Working as part of a team is a big part of 3.PF, and this is the spot where Crusader really shines. Paladins (PF or otherwise) mostly excel in the 'dealing damage in melee' part of things, especially if they access the appropriate ACFs and/or are fighting evil-aligned opponents. The trouble is, they don't really do anything else. If a paladin stops to heal (either with Lay on Hands or a spell) they're not attacking. They don't have any ability to encourage an enemy to attack them rather than a more vulnerable party member, and have extremely limited capacity to penetrate defenses such as damage reduction or miss chances. Aside from aforementioned healing capacity, their ability to directly aid other party members is limited or nonexistent (depending on if they have buffs from Sword of the Arcane Order or not) and like all non-ToB melee classes (well, except for Incarnum) they have to soak up huge amounts of buffs from the casters in order to contribute.

Contrast this to the Crusader, who right off the bat gains some of the only abilities anywhere that permit melee to 'tank' (the first being Iron Guard's Glare, the second eventually being Thicket of Blades). Their maneuvers also mean that they deal solid damage every round, starting at low levels (a Crusader never worries about rolling a '1' on damage, lemme tell you). Crusaders don't have to choose between attacking and healing - their attacks are their heals - and can 'buff' the entire party with White Raven maneuvers that help them focus fire (and, of course, the ever-famous White Raven Tactics for super-haste). They gain native access to the Stone Power feat, which both leads into Shards of Granite (allowing them to ignore Damage Reduction on any of their attacks) and lets them soak up huge amounts of damage, soak that is only amplified by their native DR. Their ability to natively contribute on their own means that if buffs get tossed their way they get effectiveness that's above-average, not equal to it; a Hasted crusader is 50% more effective than a Hasted paladin, in other words.

Both classes have access to useful out-of-combat social skills and knowledges, though the Crusader also gains some limited mobility skills (such as Balance). Paladins don't really have a lot of PrCs (especially in PF-only) that increase their capabilities or alter their capabilities, whereas Crusaders can benefit from the Ruby Knight Vindicator, Master of Nine, Jade Phoenix Mage and Eternal Blade prestige classes to both expand their lists of maneuvers and their class skill lists. Advantage: Crusader.

- When it comes to championing their causes, Crusaders have less vulnerabilities than paladins. Aside from universal weaknesses (flight, teleportation) that all melee must deal with, Crusaders have a greater and easier capacity to overcome damage reduction, resist hostile magics (Mettle!), penetrate damage reduction and disrupt the tactical movements of their enemies. Admittedly, Evil-aligned Crusaders actually have a harder time of this (Celestials are tough customers) but they're better off than Paladins of Tyranny/Slaughter are. Advantage: Crusader.

- Finally, dynamic combat. Paladins are only as dynamic as their spell selection and feat choices permit them to be, and every time they cast a spell they're not attacking or stopping their enemies. Many of melee's feats that grant additional combat options are also nigh-unto-useless or else not appealing to use (Improved Overrun an example of the former, Improved Sunder the latter) which leaves them with 'charge' and 'full attack' as combat options. Simply by dint of having access to maneuvers, Crusaders enjoy a more dynamic combat experience. Since initiating a Strike is a standard action, Crusaders can afford to move through the battlefield and jockey for position without having to sacrifice their ability to deal damage, heal, or buff. Boosts give them something to do with their Swift actions and, again, don't prevent them from moving in an advantageous fashion. On top of all this, they have access to the same feats that paladins do (plus a few additional ones from Tome of Battle), meaning that they can take equal advantage of the few good melee feats such as Shock Trooper or Power Attack, as well as having access to the phenomenal Shards of Granite tactical feat. Advantage: Crusader

End Result: Crusaders suffer from some of the same weaknesses of paladins, mostly because they are both melee classes, but provide a more dynamic play experience and can stand on their own merits rather than needing to be carried by more-powerful party members like a cripple.

[Psyren]

What a surprise, Lord Gareth hates Pathfinder... :smalltongue:


How about, 'Contributing meaningfully to a team,' and 'Championing their causes'?

These are so vague as to be useless. PF Paladins can, in addition to frontlining, remove poison, diseases, curses, even raise the dead; are those meaningless contributions? And the second is mere empty fluff, even a rogue can "champion a cause."

To your points:

1) Even without a mount, PF Paladins can take a number of archetypes to gain flight, including summoning or binding something that can cast it on them. But I don't even consider that a major issue for either class, a magic item that grants flight really isn't that big a deal.

2) PF Paladins can smite at range and on a full-attack, automatically putting them in the lead as archers. And I'm not sure how familiar you are with PF, but archery is much improved over 3.5, with more ways to boost damage and overcome DR. (You did know that PF Smite automatically overcomes all DR, right? And that they can share it with the entire party for 10 rounds?)

3) The ability to heal while attacking is great, I'm not denying that. But in-combat healing isn't necessary anyway. So long as the party can start every fight patched up and debuffs removed, taking the enemy down faster is the primary concern.

4) Paladins gain numerous spells that (a) force enemies to attack them (or penalize them for attacking others), (b) let them reposition or switch places with allies, or (c) take incoming damage for allies. And not only are they Cha-SAD in PF, they even gain more base slots than in 3.5.

5) Lack of PrCs means nothing in PF, as archetypes were meant to replace them anyway. And really, RKV? JPM? That's like me comparing a Sorcadin to a Crusader - totally meaningless.

[toapat]

I have no idea what you mean here. All of the PF Paladin's abilities are iconic to paladins - the mount, divine grace, LoH, auras, and of course Smite (even if it functions differently.) Even if the last of these "feels" more like a WoW Paladin than a 3.5 one, that doesn't change the fact that it's still something a paladin could reasonably/thematically do.



No, I do actually - the Paladin marks a target and gets combat bonuses vs. that target. That's the basic form, and fits PF smiting just as much as it does WoW seals. The duration and specifics of said bonuses are unimportant to this concept, and 30 minutes (or even 5, as they used to be) is still longer than most D&D combats would last.

1: No, the only thing actually iconic to paladin on PFpally is Lay on Hands. everything else is a can of paintstripper (Renaming only) away from Knight-Commander. That, an Iconic class does not make.

2: No, they dont. The only seals that have done that are Seal of the Crusader, which doesnt exist anymore, Seal of Vengeance, which is a DoT, and Seal of Justice, which is useless. you are thinking of Judgements, which are more along the lines of using the Powerattack feat then Smite Evil anyway.

oh, and seals originally lasted 2 minutes, were consumed on use, and were vastly inferior.

3: The entire problem with paladin is supposedly iconic things being kept, and denying the class an actual niche in which to shine. Mystic Fire Knight is nigh-mandatory because it gives paladins an actual class feature (granted, it doesnt completely fix the fact that paladin was designed at the beginning of 3rd and thus completely screwed as a result). Smite evil is clearly supposed to be a superior to Power attack, but was significantly toned down without any perfect understanding of the system.

[Psyren]

1: No, the only thing actually iconic to paladin on PFpally is Lay on Hands.

No matter how much you apparently think so, you are not the authority on what makes paladins feel like paladins. Smiting, and Divine Grace are indeed iconic paladin abilities.

Wait, let's ask the Giant. "Well lad, she's got a smart horse, good saving throws, an' she just tried to smite evil. Sounds like a Paladin ta me." What do you know, LoH didn't even make the list.



You are thinking of Judgements,

This is hair-splitting. The point is that their paladin has a similar ability. I couldn't care less what name is actually used.



3: The entire problem with paladin is supposedly iconic things being kept, and denying the class an actual niche in which to shine.

The class is designed primarily to hit things, be hit, and as a secondary healer. It does all of those things. I fail to see the issue.

[toapat]

No matter how much you apparently think so, you are not the authority on what makes paladins feel like paladins. Smiting, and Divine Grace are indeed iconic paladin abilities.

Wait, let's ask the Giant. "Well lad, she's got a smart horse, good saving throws, an' she just tried to smite evil. Sounds like a Paladin ta me." What do you know, LoH didn't even make the list.

The class is designed primarily to hit things, be hit, and as a secondary healer. It does all of those things. I fail to see the issue.

Now you are just being Inane. that was specifically a character using a Knowledge (Meta) check to guess Miko's class. Oh, how about the fact that there is no way RAW to identify the class of a PC or NPC

Divine Grace is an uncommon ability, but nothing that couldnt be just renamed and re-attributed without alot of difference (IE, Noble's Endurance (EX): con version for knight.). Smiting is an in-name ability that is Paladincentric, but itself has no definition. PF smite is criticized for being a mark. Who else designates a target for a long period of time? A Knight. The pile of Auras all just contribute to my point that it isnt a Paladin, a Leader by Example, its a Commander, Leader by Charisma. The mount/Bond is actually a problem in terms of design, because it means that Paladin all of a sudden no longer just has to play nice with the cleric, but the Knight/Cavalier also, while again, Bound equipment is worthless because of the fact that you can get all of that anyway with the spell list.

Being able to Hit things with a side of healing is not a Niche, its a general survival thing. Barbarian does it by getting DR. Fighter by AC.

[Psyren]

Now you are just being Inane

Tsk, resorting to personal attacks? I think we're done here.

[Hiro Protagonest]

What navar said.

If a thread doesn't specify "3.5-only," you'd better believe we'll point out if PF does something in a better/more fun way. In the Paladin's case, they knocked it clear out of the park. Casting is better, Smiting is better, LoH is better, mountless paladins are better... it's just plain better, and without needing to allow a bunch of band-aid splats to do it.
PF did the paladin better. And the ranger. And maybe monk. It did nothing else better. It is, as Knaight says:

I'm agreeing with you. My point is that the degree to which they are compatible is understated significantly with the term 3.75, and that 3.501 would be more accurate.
practically interchangeable with 3.5. Now I'm not saying 3.P is bad, I'm saying Pathfinder, the game as a whole, is bad. It has some gems. 3.5 also has gems. Yet I have seen Navar saying how he loooves Pathfinder and 3.5 disappointed him. Both systems disappoint me. I'm also pretty apathetic towards 3.P, but that's because of some basic design fundamentals that no variant of 3.5 has - decent, detailed (but not totally and completely roll-on-three-tables comprehensive) rules for things other than small-scale combat.

What a surprise, Lord Gareth hates Pathfinder... :smalltongue:

I don't like Pathfinder either. But I also don't like Legend. However, I do agree with Gareth that Pathfinder didn't fix any of 3.5's big problems. On the other hand, Legend only fixed one. Balance.

But non-combat/dungeon exploration stuff just doesn't seem to be the thing of D&D, regardless of edition. There are other system's I've found that I like more.

[Scow2]

Now you are just being Inane. that was specifically a character using a Knowledge (Meta) check to guess Miko's class. Oh, how about the fact that there is no way RAW to identify the class of a PC or NPC

Divine Grace is an uncommon ability, but nothing that couldnt be just renamed and re-attributed without alot of difference (IE, Noble's Endurance (EX): con version for knight.). Smiting is an in-name ability that is Paladincentric, but itself has no definition. PF smite is criticized for being a mark. Who else designates a target for a long period of time? A Knight. The pile of Auras all just contribute to my point that it isnt a Paladin, a Leader by Example, its a Commander, Leader by Charisma. The mount/Bond is actually a problem in terms of design, because it means that Paladin all of a sudden no longer just has to play nice with the cleric, but the Knight/Cavalier also, while again, Bound equipment is worthless because of the fact that you can get all of that anyway with the spell list.

Being able to Hit things with a side of healing is not a Niche, its a general survival thing. Barbarian does it by getting DR. Fighter by AC.Smite Evil, Code of Conduct, Special Mount, Aura of Courage, and Aura of Good all identify a Paladin.

Furthermore - how are Auras not an iconic Paladin ability? The first aura in the game that wasn't a spell is the VERY iconic Aura of Courage. Paladins get both, AC and DR, just like the Fighter.

Ultimately, though, anyone who thinks Paladins are worthless haven't had enough run-ins with Mummies.

[TopCheese]

Paladin is one of the most poorly-designed classes in all of 3.5. It has ability dependency problems, it has extremely poor scaling, a whole smorgasbord of useless features (including its signature move, Smite Evil).

The Crusader is one of the most elegant and well-designed classes in the game. It is balanced and consistent, with limited ability to be made overly poor or overly bad. It is flexible and versatile, and stands up well to most everything without completely overshadowing challenges.

And yet they were.. badasses complete and utter badasses in 2e... Well if you had the stats :p

I guess they thought they were to powerful?

Also I agree with many people and say the Crusader beats out the Paladin. However I don't think you should add in ACF or PrCs since then you don't have a straight up Paladin or Crusader (RKV is not a crusader but a guy who used to be).

It is kinda like saying a Fighter vs. Whatever when you only have 2 levels of Fighter -_-.

Anyways I think what happened with ToB was they finally got together and said "ok oopse we messed up, how can we fix the Monk, Fighter, and Paladin without admitting we messed up?"

Out came ToB.

I've played in games where the Paladin was banned and the Crusader got some of their stuff (cha to all saves for one and mount that the player didn't want). The DM called it the Paladin to this new player and well the player loved the Paladin feel (this guy was a 2e player back in the day and never played 3e only 4e). So between this and other things I can't help but say the Crusader is the the paladin with his big boy pants on.

Edit: Where are the guys of "Deadliest Warrior" at when you need them?

[Hiro Protagonest]

It is kinda like saying a Fighter vs. Whatever when you only have 2 levels of Fighter -_-.

No, it's not. That would be a sorcadin. ACFed paladin is like saying fighter when it's actually a Dungeoncrasher Zhentarim Soldier Thug. Which I consider a fighter.

(although when you get into the arcane spellcasting thing on a paladin...)

[Morbis Meh]

These threads never fail to amuse me... though when it comes down to it, preference is all subjective. If you look at it mechanically then out of the box, crusader is vastly superior to paladin; however, if you dig around and have a lenient DM then Paladin can become much more versatile via the use of arcane magic but IMO it is no longer a paladin more like a duskblade with smit lol

[Kelb_Panthera]

While deadliest warrior was an entertaining show that did a fine job of comparing the equipment of various warriors throughout the world and history, there're some hiccups in their assumptions about the warriors themselves.

Watch, enjoy, but don't take it as hard-science when they regularly make glaring errors in assumption.

On topic: The paladin's ability to heal by spell, and buff his allies is brought down to swift action status by CC's battle blessing feat. If you can finagle a domain on the paladin, which isn't at all difficult though it requires more splats, imbued healing can even make healing and buffing the same spell.

But again, I don't think it's really a comparison of crusader V paladin to take all sources into account. That's comparing paladin's op capacity V crusader's op capacity. On that front, there's only one thing to say: the paladin has the lower op floor and the higher op ceiling.

If you actually do the math, there is only a small difference in power between the two. The crusader is more mechanically versatile in the tactical sense, which can be interesting in and of itself, but his overall versatility in a campaign isn't any better than a paladin's. Similar skill lists and the fact that neither has any native utility functions (buffing is not utility, it's power.) puts them both very solidly in the role of beatstick/face.

The paladin is the more strategically versatile warrior by far, having native access to spells and a variety of mounts to choose from, many of which can give access to powers otherwise beyond the paladin, though that use of the mount is much more subject to DM fiat and goes more toward comparing optimization potential rather than the classes themselves again. Even a bog-standard celestial warhorse mount gives some advantages that the crusader doesn't have however, e.g. always having the +1 for higher ground, increasing reach, creating a seperate pool of hp for the enemy to target; that you can negate once each round with mounted combat; and the ability to move freely while making a ranged full attack.

The paladin also has vastly greater build versatility. With even just a handful of splats it becomes possible for a dozen paladins to be made in a way that no two are alike. Crusaders on the otherhand are pretty cookie cutter, and will be identifiable as either a Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon, or White Raven crusader. This is, however, a subset of the optimization potential comparison, rather than part of the comparison of the classes themselves.


TL;DR: There are a myriad of perfectly valid reasons to pick paladin over crusader.

(and deadliest warrior isn't good science)

[eggs]

Even without worshipping Mystra, the Paladin isn't necessarily outclassed by the Crusader. Domain Feats give it things to play with like swift movement, fly and big numbers; the mount can't be stressed enough; Milil and various feats open Inspire Courage/Greatness buffs with all their associated +numbers goodness; Paladin and Sanctified spells include a good array of immunities, flight, extra attacks, skill bonuses, healing/recovery spells and +numbers buffs like Righteous Fury, Divine Favor, Rhino's Rush and Fell the Greatest Foe; and various supplements have given the Paladin a bunch of more niche possibilities like Turn-based counterspeller or Evil debuffer.

It's still way more work than making a good Crusader (that's already been stressed, but it could use more), and still lots of digging up splatbooks, but the point is that the favorable upper-end comparison doesn't hinge on just one build or resources available to followers of just one deity.

[Psyren]

PF did the paladin better. And the ranger. And maybe monk. It did nothing else better.

Well, the psionics are all better, but we can't really credit Paizo with that :smalltongue:

But they did more than that right, I'd say. I'll hand it to them for the upgrades to Dragon Disciple, Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight though. And they came up with two fun gish-in-a-cans via Magus and Alchemist. Crafting is better too, and I like the changes to negative levels. The CMB/CMD system is brilliant. Finally, CoDzilla needed the nerfslap they gave it.



Now I'm not saying 3.P is bad, I'm saying Pathfinder, the game as a whole, is bad. It has some gems. 3.5 also has gems. Yet I have seen Navar saying how he loooves Pathfinder and 3.5 disappointed him. Both systems disappoint me. I'm also pretty apathetic towards 3.P, but that's because of some basic design fundamentals that no variant of 3.5 has - decent, detailed (but not totally and completely roll-on-three-tables comprehensive) rules for things other than small-scale combat.

We're all entitled to our own opinions, naturally. I'm just glad PF has achieved so much success, because I have a blast playing it.

I'll agree that 3.5/PF don't do too well at low-combat games. But there are other systems for those.

[toapat]

Even without worshipping Mystra, the Paladin isn't necessarily outclassed by the Crusader. Domain Feats give it things to play with like swift movement, fly and big numbers; the mount can't be stressed enough; Milil and various feats open Inspire Courage/Greatness buffs with all their associated +numbers goodness; Paladin and Sanctified spells include a good array of immunities, flight, extra attacks, skill bonuses, healing/recovery spells and +numbers buffs like Righteous Fury, Divine Favor, Rhino's Rush and Fell the Greatest Foe; and various supplements have given the Paladin a bunch of more niche possibilities like Turn-based counterspeller or Evil debuffer.

It's still way more work than making a good Crusader (that's already been stressed, but it could use more), and still lots of digging up splatbooks, but the point is that the favorable upper-end comparison doesn't hinge on just one build or resources available to followers of just one deity.

the point of being bound to Mystra is the fact that the second and third levels of MFK both are completely cost free. you get free anti-caster smiting, and you get to replace the completely worthless remove disease with an actually useful saveless Greater Dispell Magic. sure, you can dodge MKF 1, but the cost of the divine feats is a bit high for their value (1 feat, keeping Turn Undead), when compared to extra spellslots.


Smite Evil, Code of Conduct, Special Mount, Aura of Courage, and Aura of Good all identify a Paladin.

Furthermore - how are Auras not an iconic Paladin ability? The first aura in the game that wasn't a spell is the VERY iconic Aura of Courage. Paladins get both, AC and DR, just like the Fighter.

Ultimately, though, anyone who thinks Paladins are worthless haven't had enough run-ins with Mummies.

the Aura Stack POs me because each one is doing something different and simultaneously, like how the Martial works in 3.5. The 3.5 Pally has 1 highly appropriate aura, the PF paladin has 5. having 1 is iconic, having 5 is a mess. also the point is that sometimes, what you develop can be renamed without issue, its not a signature. Im not going to say that DG wouldnt PO people if they gave it to someone other then the paladin and blackguard, im just saying that the PF paladin doesnt have enough Signature to be ID'd from Mechanics only as paladin. Strike out the names, the descriptors (and Lay on Hands), you will suspect its a pally, but cant narrow it down beyond Mystic Knight.

[TopCheese]

No, it's not. That would be a sorcadin. ACFed paladin is like saying fighter when it's actually a Dungeoncrasher Zhentarim Soldier Thug. Which I consider a fighter.

(although when you get into the arcane spellcasting thing on a paladin...)

All I really mean is that how they originally created the Paladin (before realizing it needed other things to keep people intersted) versus how they made the Crusader (and then making 4e.. Which I'm sure ToB must have been a sneak peak :p ).

Once you start adding other people's ideas onto the base then it changes the original concept and idea since you know.. No 2 people think the same.

Heck I'm sure the original Paladin creator would be mortified at what it has become :P

[navar100]

PF did the paladin better. And the ranger. And maybe monk. It did nothing else better. It is, as Knaight says:

practically interchangeable with 3.5. Now I'm not saying 3.P is bad, I'm saying Pathfinder, the game as a whole, is bad. It has some gems. 3.5 also has gems. Yet I have seen Navar saying how he loooves Pathfinder and 3.5 disappointed him. Both systems disappoint me. I'm also pretty apathetic towards 3.P, but that's because of some basic design fundamentals that no variant of 3.5 has - decent, detailed (but not totally and completely roll-on-three-tables comprehensive) rules for things other than small-scale combat.


I don't like Pathfinder either. But I also don't like Legend. However, I do agree with Gareth that Pathfinder didn't fix any of 3.5's big problems. On the other hand, Legend only fixed one. Balance.

But non-combat/dungeon exploration stuff just doesn't seem to be the thing of D&D, regardless of edition. There are other system's I've found that I like more.

I never said 3.5 "disappointed" me. 3E was terrific. Pathfinder improved it. Warriors are given nice things. Spellcasters can no longer knee-jerk into a prestige class. Spells are toned down. There are a lot of interesting feats. If it bothers you so much I '"loooove" Pathfinder, tough noogies.

[toapat]

All I really mean is that how they originally created the Paladin (before realizing it needed other things to keep people intersted) versus how they made the Crusader (and then making 4e.. Which I'm sure ToB must have been a sneak peak :p ).

Once you start adding other people's ideas onto the base then it changes the original concept and idea since you know.. No 2 people think the same.

Heck I'm sure the original Paladin creator would be mortified at what it has become :P

I believe Charlemagne would have loved mythos of his inner council to be like that, even if 3.5 Palladin sucks

[TopCheese]

I never said 3.5 "disappointed" me. 3E was terrific. Pathfinder improved it. Warriors are given nice things. Spellcasters can no longer knee-jerk into a prestige class. Spells are toned down. There are a lot of interesting feats. If it bothers you so much I '"loooove" Pathfinder, tough noogies.

Warriors in 3.e versus Pathfinder

It is kinda like having a box filled with shredded paper (Warriors in 3.e) and then Paizo came along and shoved MORE shredded paper into said box (pathfinder). The Warriors are still paper compared to arcane/divine casters but there is just more paper in the box.

EDIT: 3.e core + some other books. Obviously ToB don't count haha :P

EDIT 2: Also mundane warriors got shafted in Pathfinder... To properly trip you need 3 feats not 1 -_-;;;

[Knaight]

While deadliest warrior was an entertaining show that did a fine job of comparing the equipment of various warriors throughout the world and history, there're some hiccups in their assumptions about the warriors themselves.
It did a lot of things. A fine job of this wasn't one of them. The equipment is frequently substandard (butted mail) assigned in an extremely odd fashion (the gladiator got a sling where the apache warrior didn't in the gladiator vs. apache episode, despite there actually being a slinging style called apache style), and pulled from the wrong era (most every episode). There were also cases where the comparison just got weird. In short, it did a bad job of comparing something that looks vaguely like the equipment that was actually wielded by someone completely different than the hypothetical warriors. It did this time and time again, and if anything it's been getting worse.

[TopCheese]

It did a lot of things. A fine job of this wasn't one of them. The equipment is frequently substandard (butted mail) assigned in an extremely odd fashion (the gladiator got a sling where the apache warrior didn't in the gladiator vs. apache episode, despite there actually being a slinging style called apache style), and pulled from the wrong era (most every episode). There were also cases where the comparison just got weird. In short, it did a bad job of comparing something that looks vaguely like the equipment that was actually wielded by someone completely different than the hypothetical warriors. It did this time and time again, and if anything it's been getting worse.

Yuuup

I find the show entertaining but even the guy on the side of the ninja pointed out that a ninja would't fight a spartan head on.. He would wait and then poison him later.

Also I found that usually the results are biased but hey whatever. It's kinda like watching cheesy B rated movies.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Yuuup

I find the show entertaining but even the guy on the side of the ninja pointed out that a ninja would't fight a spartan head on.. He would wait and then poison him later.

Also I found that usually the results are biased but hey whatever. It's kinda like watching cheesy B rated movies.

Of course, those are some of the best movies. I mean, come one, Evil Dead and Starship Troopers? Can I get a Hells yeah?

[TopCheese]

Of course, those are some of the best movies. I mean, come one, Evil Dead and Starship Troopers? Can I get a Hells yeah?

Hell Yeah!

[Kelb_Panthera]

It did a lot of things. A fine job of this wasn't one of them. The equipment is frequently substandard (butted mail) assigned in an extremely odd fashion (the gladiator got a sling where the apache warrior didn't in the gladiator vs. apache episode, despite there actually being a slinging style called apache style), and pulled from the wrong era (most every episode). There were also cases where the comparison just got weird. In short, it did a bad job of comparing something that looks vaguely like the equipment that was actually wielded by someone completely different than the hypothetical warriors. It did this time and time again, and if anything it's been getting worse.

Now that I think on it, you're right. I'm not sure why I said that.

It is at least entertaining though. You've gotta love the fact that most of their "experts" don't even know how to wield the weapons they've brought to the studio properly.

Except the guy with the bow from samurai V viking. Those were some nasty shots, even if he was a little close.

[Knaight]

It is at least entertaining though.
This is undeniably true. If it weren't for people considering the show valid information about anything, I'd be all for it.

[TopCheese]

This is undeniably true. If it weren't for people considering the show valid information about anything, I'd be all for it.

What we need to do is have a ton of fan mail (like annoyingly so) go to the creators/producers/host so they can put up a Crusader vs. Paladin episode...

Then we will finally have our undeniably true answer!

:D

[Kuulvheysoon]

Hell Yeah!

Roll on, brother!

[Kelb_Panthera]

What we need to do is have a ton of fan mail (like annoyingly so) go to the creators/producers/host so they can put up a Crusader vs. Paladin episode...

Then we will finally have our undeniably true answer!

:D

That's a terrible idea. Those chowder heads would build both characters wrong, and then where would we be? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[T.G. Oskar]

That's a terrible idea. Those chowder heads would build both characters wrong, and then where would we be? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Doing exactly what we're doing now? I mean, the first thing we'd be protesting is that they used a) the 3.5 Paladin and thus is/not fair, b) the PF Paladin and thus choosing a worthy version/catering to the new crowd/failing because of sucky rules, or c) using a blend of the two and just going nuts over the atrocity. (Or d), which is using homebrew, which everyone would claim as cheating).

Though, I'd be fun to hear the "experts" ranting about how their side is better. It'd be fun as well to see the battle develop, and how they'll have to build a heck of SPX for the spells and maneuvers alone.

That said: why this suddenly turned into a PF-bashing thread? I'm not a fan of PF, but when I spoke of how the comparison was a bit skewed because both classes were developed at the extremes of the edition's run, I didn't had to mention PF one bit. That said, Gareth and Answerer: the way the latter posits the bad design of the Paladin sorta suggests WotC could have done better. That's not the intent, no matter how many people insist: there's no adaptation section to make Crusaders act and behave like Paladins (like the unarmed Swordsage adaptation does), and the fluff insists that Paladins and Crusaders coexist within one another. It's exactly the same with Soulborn and Divine Minds: they're equivalents of a Paladin using different mechanics.

Speaking of Soulborn and Divine Mind: the Soulborn was done right at the middle of 3.5's run, where the mechanics began to improve a bit, and the Soulborn still failed to deliver. The Divine Mind was done pretty close to the end of 3.5's run, and it also failed. The former doesn't feel at all like a Paladin, and is not meant to improve one; in fact, it is "balanced" regarding a Paladin. The Divine Mind is the one mind-boggling example that comes to matter: it is an example of truly bad design, meant to echo the Paladin with a psionic feel but balanced against it AND the Psionic Warrior, done at a moment where mechanics were pretty well known. I could argue without any problem that the Divine Mind was horribly designed, as it could have been a worthy competitor, but ended up being worse than the PW (a Tier 3 class) because it couldn't feel more powerful than the Paladin. I'll admit it has good moves, but the execution is done horribly.

However, saying a Paladin is badly designed is the equivalent of saying the Model T is badly designed compared to, say, a Taurus or Escape (sorry if I don't know the Euro equivalents, guys). I presume a Model T should be functional right about now, but it takes a lot of work for it to be done, and perhaps some refurbishing. However, being a precursor, it can't really be blamed for its shoddy, inefficient design (not that I imply the Model T is badly designed; however, by today's standards, it probably is). Thing is, it invites a suggestion that one model is a replacement of the other. That, as I mentioned, wasn't WotC's intention (barring that the relaunchs of 3.5 content with full errata included ALSO replace the Paladin with the Crusader, in which case that was their intention altogether). To keep with the allegory, WotC did the following: think of Ford releasing the Model T alongside its newer models, but gave the owners of the Model T a set of refurbishing kits in order to alter it to whatever they want (new tires, new engine, a way to make a closed interior and then add radio/AC, etc), so that by choosing all of the kits, you do something that might not be considered a Model T anymore.

It's probably the thing that irks me the most, that people suggest that. Given that WotC never stopped releasing material for the Paladin (and in fact, even in Tome of Battle, it referenced the paladin by name and suggested that Paladins could take benefits from using feats but never gave them an ACF that replaced their spellcasting progression with maneuvers), saying that the Crusader replaced the Paladin is entirely absurd. There is no doubt that the Crusader is better designed, but it was never meant to be a replacement; it simply overlaps with the Paladin's archetypes, covering a wider range of archetypes (the Soulborn also covers archetypes a Paladin wouldn't, and so does the Divine Mind, even if neither of them were well designed). Think of it as the Crusader being the martial arm, the Paladin the divine arm, the Soulborn being the arm infused with Incarnum, and the Divine Mind being the psionic arm: all work for the same goals, but with different tools. Perhaps it would have been better if they had made it in the way archetypes in PF are represented instead of different classes, because that way there would be no ambiguity about the matter, but WotC went with different classes.

As a final point: have the Paladin lose its spells, and the Crusader its maneuvers. Which would be the strongest, then?

[Kelb_Panthera]

@T.G. Oskar:

If you remove spells and maneuvers, the paladin becomes unambiguously better at combat, but at that point, even I would say they both suck the chrome off of bumpers.

The comment you quoted was mostly in jest anyway. There is no "wrong way" to build a character, but that doesn't stop people from saying, "You're doing it wrong, you chowder head!" The poor science the show has used in the past makes it almost compulsory to make fun.

Incidentally, I've only seen a few comments that directly bash PF. Toapat's distaste doesn't appear to be for PF itself as much as for the PF paladin in particular, though she can correct me if I'm wrong about that, and the only other complaints I've seen are just statements of distaste, not really bashing per-se.

I'm personally not a fan of PF, but that's in no small part because, IMO, the magnitude of 3.5's imbalance is grossly overstated most of the time. There is unquestionably an imbalance between the casters and the mundanes, but this can be diminished greatly by limiting splat access and limiting or eliminating problem spells and items, which are relatively few in number. PF's attempts to fix the balance were largely aimed in the wrong direction to my understanding. I'm the kind of guy that goes by "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," and "If it can't be fixed with duct tape, it's probably more trouble than its worth."

I'll put my duct tape band-aid on 3.5 before I go for total overhaul any day of the week.

Note that I adhere to those ideas in a fairly loose sense. I do enjoy tinkering with things that work just fine, and I'd never try to fix something in my car's engine compartment with duct tape, unless that was the appropriate method of repair.

[toapat]

Incidentally, I've only seen a few comments that directly bash PF. Toapat's distaste doesn't appear to be for PF itself as much as for the PF paladin in particular, though she can correct me if I'm wrong about that, and the only other complaints I've seen are just statements of distaste, not really bashing per-se.

Im not saying it is bad design, i cant really judge because i havent picked PF apart. What i am saying is that the PF paladin, is a Paladin in Name and Lay on Hands only. most of the new stuff they gave it makes it moreso a magical Martial who cares for Cha instead of Int.

those who argue you have to take the comparison at their core rulebook only, the paladin still wins, for this simple fact: Paladin works (granted, very badly) with only it's core rulebook. you cant play a Crusader with only the Tome of Battle, you need the DMG and the PHB. thus, you have to take each class in their entirety. those who say keep the classes on equal ground are hypocritical then because they assume the Crusader is allowed material from the PHB, while paladin is denied any of their material from outside the PHB.

hell, id consider Dragon highly relevant to the conversation, considering that Dragon was a Sanctioned periodical.


Asto the comparison: PF knight Commander is solid (if rather non-mobile) out of the box, 3.5 Paladin is a complete flop, but their vast number of additional material compensates for them, and outright allows you to deal with their problems (granted, id still like to see if there is a mirror of Serenity, considering that Serenity removes one of the more powerful Paladin options.). Crusader is also Solid out of the box, but only has a pool options unlike the paladin's ocean to make themselves useful party members.

The problem of course is that where as Crusader was designed first and foremost as a tank, the Paladin never had a design Philosophy behind them. The Mount is basically useless if you dont want to go Ubercharger, the spellcasting is in core more useful to roleplay then gameplay, and smite evil was originally designed as a better power attack, but nerfed so that it wasnt so sexy that it made the other melee characters useless(which for a use limited class feature, is a huge problem.)

[darkdragoon]

Paladin has better immunities, although it is certainly possible to acquire Aura of Courage elsewhere. Disease can be significant, but it can also be a non-factor.
Remove Disease is best off being traded for slightly less narrow alternatives like Cursebreaker.

Turning can be acquired elsewhere. Smite Evil has a few specific boosters but of course, the whole "evil" thing, and again, it is not exclusive to Paladins.

Both can make do with a bag full of unicorn pendants, although Paladins get a boost from it Crusaders don't. Caduceus Bracers don't work with Martial Spirit and are arguably the best use for Lay on Hands anyway.

[Augmental]

those who argue you have to take the comparison at their core rulebook only, the paladin still wins, for this simple fact: Paladin works (granted, very badly) with only it's core rulebook. you cant play a Crusader with only the Tome of Battle, you need the DMG and the PHB. thus, you have to take each class in their entirety. those who say keep the classes on equal ground are hypocritical then because they assume the Crusader is allowed material from the PHB, while paladin is denied any of their material from outside the PHB.

The thing is almost every table allows core.

[toapat]

The thing is almost every table allows core.

that isnt the point, the point is, Crusader is allowed all their supporting material in these arguments, and paladin isnt. Yes, paladin doesnt get alot of love in any one place (other then Heros of Valor), The Crusader on the other hand got one lovefilled splatbook that completely dominates the other melee material.

[Scow2]

the point of being bound to Mystra is the fact that the second and third levels of MFK both are completely cost free. you get free anti-caster smiting, and you get to replace the completely worthless remove disease with an actually useful saveless Greater Dispell Magic. sure, you can dodge MKF 1, but the cost of the divine feats is a bit high for their value (1 feat, keeping Turn Undead), when compared to extra spellslots.



the Aura Stack POs me because each one is doing something different and simultaneously, like how the Martial works in 3.5. The 3.5 Pally has 1 highly appropriate aura, the PF paladin has 5. having 1 is iconic, having 5 is a mess. also the point is that sometimes, what you develop can be renamed without issue, its not a signature. Im not going to say that DG wouldnt PO people if they gave it to someone other then the paladin and blackguard, im just saying that the PF paladin doesnt have enough Signature to be ID'd from Mechanics only as paladin. Strike out the names, the descriptors (and Lay on Hands), you will suspect its a pally, but cant narrow it down beyond Mystic Knight.

Have you even read the Pathfinder Paladin auras? They don't function Anything like the Marshall's auras. And yes, you CAN narrow it down to "Paladin"

Smite Evil is recognizable as such, even though it is a Mark now instead of a single whiffable-strike. When a Paladin chooses to smite evil, he becomes a divine, unstoppable juggernaut of Lawful Good that will bring that evildoer DOWN - You cannot avoid his justice forever. If the original Paladin's Smite Evil was a Holy Smite spell attached to the Smite Evil ability, you'd have a point to say that the new Smite Evil doesn't feel like such. As it is, though, the PF Smite Evil is as much a Smite Evil as the 3.5's.


Unlike the Auras of a Marshal or Dragon Shaman, the Paladin's auras are meant to be a cohesive force tailored to a specific Paladin-only goal - Defending against the special attacks of and striking down the forces of Evil. Unlike a Marshal or Dragon Shaman's auras, they are largely useless outside of that scope - Aura of Faith is only doing something if your enemies have DR/good (Which only evil outsiders, and maybe some Undead and VERY specific Evil divine characters(Which might as well be demons/devils themselves) have). Aura of Courage is only usable against enemies with Fear effects (Which is overwhelmingly the domain of Necromancers and Evil Outsiders). Aura of Good does nothing but say "This guy is as strong for the forces of good as a Cleric!". Aura of Justice is only usable against Evil characters (and most effective against Evil Outsiders/Undead), and has very limited uses per day.

My problem with Pathfinder's paladins is that they dropped the ball on the auras by splitting Aura of Resolve's effect between levels 8 and 17 (Seriously, it should have protected against both Charms AND Compulsions at level 8), and NOT giving them an aura that resists level and ability drain.

[TopCheese]

those who argue you have to take the comparison at their core rulebook only, the paladin still wins, for this simple fact: Paladin works (granted, very badly) with only it's core rulebook. you cant play a Crusader with only the Tome of Battle, you need the DMG and the PHB. thus, you have to take each class in their entirety. those who say keep the classes on equal ground are hypocritical then because they assume the Crusader is allowed material from the PHB, while paladin is denied any of their material from outside the PHB.


I think I may be reading your statement wrong but..

Are you saying that because you need the core rules for the game that are in another book, that one class is worse than the other? So instead of "class vs. class" it is "core rule book vs. ToB".

So you saying that because I don't have grapple or trip rules (plus all the other rules) spelled out in ToB that the Crusader just doesn't work? I'm kinda confused bout the logic in this.

What if the paladin was printed outside core... Does that mean the paladin magically becomes obsolete because it doesn't have the core rule book along with it?

I'm actually confused about the statement.

EDIT:

I actually love the Paladin from Pathfinder but I hate Pathfinder. The Paladin is about the only thing they did right (Tier 3 Warrior? Hell Yes).

[Hiro Protagonest]

EDIT:

I actually love the Paladin from Pathfinder but I hate Pathfinder. The Paladin is about the only thing they did right (Tier 3 Warrior? Hell Yes).

...PF paladin is decidedly tier 4.

I still maintain that they should've made Smite Evil a self-targeting buff that lasts 'til the end of the encounter and applies its effects against all evil creatures. Then you could really call it "going Super Saiyan".

[TopCheese]

...PF paladin is decidedly tier 4.

I still maintain that they should've made Smite Evil a self-targeting buff that lasts 'til the end of the encounter and applies its effects against all evil creatures. Then you could really call it "going Super Saiyan".

I've seen arguments both ways.

But I like your idea of a Self-Targeting Buff.

[eggs]

Even trying to keep sources available to each class on even ground, I don't see why it's "All Rulebooks" v. "Core only" instead of things like "Core + 10," which would be much closer to the environments I've seen at most tables (where maybe one guy has the Magic Item and Spell compendiums, someone else has the original completes, someone else has expanded psionics and complete scoundrel, etc.).

[TopCheese]

Even trying to keep sources available to each class on even ground, I don't see why it's "All Rulebooks" v. "Core only" instead of things like "Core + 10," which would be much closer to the environments I've seen at most tables (where maybe one guy has the Magic Item and Spell compendiums, someone else has the original completes, someone else has expanded psionics and complete scoundrel, etc.).

I've been thinking of "Paladin vs. Crusader" not rulebooks, not who gets better feats, and not ACF's.

To make the Core Paladin better you have to go outside of its original creation and add stuff to it (wither it is feats or ACF's).

As created the Paladin is pretty shoddy class unless you specialize in... Charging... Yeah....

The Crusader however is a pretty solid class because you don't have to specialize. Yeah making a lock down Crusader is fun and easy... Mainly because it is so hard to do that with any other class.

Heck look at the tiers, Paladin (tier 5) vs. Crusader (tier 3) :).

[toapat]

*snip*

yes, i have read PF paladin. I havent particularly read Marshal, but i know enough to understand that Auras represent leadership commands. The point is the PF paladin gets 5 auras, not 1. Marshals get a few they can use simultaineously, and that is the point. PF paladins do have an offensive one at that.

and Smite Evil as a Mark clearly shows that it isnt a super-attack like it should be, its more like an offensive version of Knight's Challenge.


@Top Cheese: No, im calling out the "you cant use paladin extra material because the Crusader doesnt have any" people because they are not judging the classes on equal ground. Paladin only getting Core is unfair so long as Crusader gets Core + ToB. and if ToB is only allowed to the crusader, the fact that there are no rules in ToB for combat means that the ToB is useless without core. Im providing a point that cant be argued because its a fact. Imbalance of splatbooks isnt significant when one has an entire splatbook to themselves, while the other has to share their splatbooks consistantly with ranger, cleric, and wizard, and only once got a book really for them alone (Champions of Valor (while every class has material in this book, Paladin most of all gets to benefit from it)).

[eggs]

I've been thinking of "Paladin vs. Crusader" not rulebooks, not who gets better feats, and not ACF's.
Yeah, I was more refering to toapat's comment. Players who are willing to dumpster-dive the whole of 3e and piece things together is a really misleading baseline, because we're really not the norm.

Heck look at the tiers, Paladin (tier 5) vs. Crusader (tier 3) :).This is why I don't put much stock in the premise of a class Tier system. Put Animal and Travel Devotions on that paladin and T5 placement is unduly low. Try to make an archer out of the Crusader and neglect WRT, and its placement is overgenerous. Individual differences matter, and a poorly-defined handwavey "equal optimization" clause does not address them.

[Big Fau]

Y
This is why I don't put much stock in the premise of a class Tier system. Put Animal and Travel Devotions on that paladin and T5 placement is unduly low. Try to make an archer out of the Crusader and neglect WRT, and its placement is overgenerous. Individual differences matter, and a poorly-defined handwavey "equal optimization" clause does not address them.

You are overlooking several issues; most notably you are confusing "class" with "build". An archer is a build, a Crusader is the class. Animal Devotion and Travel Devotion are feats, Paladin is a class. JaronK states in the Tiers thread that the Tiers look at what the class itself is largely capable of (and accounting for spellcasting/variant spellcasting systems). Feats, PrCs, magic items, and everything else involved in character creation affects the base Tier.

By your example, a Crusader Archer that lacks WRT is still a Crusader, and still has Tier 3 abilities even if his build is geared towards something his class does not directly support. Unless he specifically never uses his maneuvers that Crusader is still capable of far more than the Paladin can do.

The Paladin with the Devotion feats, however, has only 2 new tricks. Both of those tricks are open for the Crusader; the only thing the Paladin has going for him is uses/day. Those tricks allow him to overcome some weaknesses (MAD/Flight for Animal Devotion, mobility for Travel Devotion), but those abilities do not change how the class plays. The Paladin is still going to try and move up so he can hit things and play diplomat. The Archer Crusader, however, is capable of either moving up and hitting things or using ranged combat proficiently, or can play diplomat by virtue of his class skills, or play support using other White Raven maneuvers.


Your issue with the Tiers is actually an issue with optimization.

[Hiro Protagonest]

@Top Cheese: No, im calling out the "you cant use paladin extra material because the Crusader doesnt have any" people because they are not judging the classes on equal ground. Paladin only getting Core is unfair so long as Crusader gets Core + ToB. and if ToB is only allowed to the crusader, the fact that there are no rules in ToB for combat means that the ToB is useless without core. Im providing a point that cant be argued because its a fact. Imbalance of splatbooks isnt significant when one has an entire splatbook to themselves, while the other has to share their splatbooks consistantly with ranger, cleric, and wizard, and only once got a book really for them alone (Champions of Valor (while every class has material in this book, Paladin most of all gets to benefit from it)).

Alright. Paladin gets one splatbook for support. Any first party. Still doesn't equal the crusader.

[TopCheese]

You are overlooking several issues; most notably you are confusing "class" with "build". An archer is a build, a Crusader is the class. Animal Devotion and Travel Devotion are feats, Paladin is a class. JaronK states in the Tiers thread that the Tiers look at what the class itself is largely capable of (and accounting for spellcasting/variant spellcasting systems). Feats, PrCs, magic items, and everything else involved in character creation affects the base Tier.

By your example, a Crusader Archer that lacks WRT is still a Crusader, and still has Tier 3 abilities even if his build is geared towards something his class does not directly support. Unless he specifically never uses his maneuvers that Crusader is still capable of far more than the Paladin can do.

The Paladin with the Devotion feats, however, has only 2 new tricks. Both of those tricks are open for the Crusader; the only thing the Paladin has going for him is uses/day. Those tricks allow him to overcome some weaknesses (MAD/Flight for Animal Devotion, mobility for Travel Devotion), but those abilities do not change how the class plays. The Paladin is still going to try and move up so he can hit things and play diplomat. The Archer Crusader, however, is capable of either moving up and hitting things or using ranged combat proficiently, or can play diplomat by virtue of his class skills, or play support using other White Raven maneuvers.


Your issue with the Tiers is actually an issue with optimization.

I was going to say something like this but it wouldn't have been as good.

Good thing I checked before posting :).

[Answerer]

Put Animal and Travel Devotions on that paladin and T5 placement is unduly low.
Not particularly true, IMO; the Paladin needs more than just flight and some mobility. Hell, taking Travel Devotion eliminates one of the best Paladin options (Battle Blessing).

Irrelevant anyway, since the Tier list explicitly states that you can build a class roughly +/- 1 of its Tier relative to other players by optimizing more or less than they do.


Try to make an archer out of the Crusader [...] and its placement is overgenerous.
Wut. That doesn't even begin to make sense. The Crusader gets no class features that support archery and myriad class features that explicitly ban archery. You could say that an Int 8 Wizard is Tier 6, but it'd be entirely meaningless.

To say that the Tier system is useless on this basis is to indicate that you do not understand what the Tier system is, what it does, and what it is used for.

[toapat]

Irrelevant anyway, since the Tier list explicitly states that you can build a class roughly +/- 1 of its Tier relative to other players by optimizing more or less than they do.

Paladin is low Tier 4 then, because paladin has some dedicated feats that might as well be ACFs or class features. The only reason they are down at T5 is that huge issue where wisdom is used for spellcasting.

[Answerer]

Generally speaking, if there's only one thing that will save you from being a lower Tier, you are that lower Tier. I mean, OK, Serenity exists, but for every Paladin who doesn't have Serenity (and that's a lot of them), MADness is a huge issue. Hell, even with Serenity, Paladins are hardly SAD.

[TopCheese]

Paladin is low Tier 4 then, because paladin has some dedicated feats that might as well be ACFs or class features. The only reason they are down at T5 is that huge issue where wisdom is used for spellcasting.

Tier 5 actually.

Sure if you optimize you will hit tier 4. But then again straight out of the box a crusader is tier 3... And really it is hard to mess them up.

So if you have two players, one who optimizes the crap out of the paladin iand another that purposely hinders the crusader (and even then taking bad feats isn't enough...) then you *might* have them on equal footing.

So we pimp the paladin and gimp the crusader and we *might* have the same tier of class BUT crusader still gets maneuvers like White Raven Tactics that doesn't matter what your ability scores are or anything to be useful.

Also even if you pick Crusader maneuvers at random you are bound to get some really good ones.


TKO Paladin is on the floor seeing stars.

[toapat]

TKO Paladin is on the floor seeing stars.

Tempest Stormwind says you are wrong. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29110689)

[kardar233]

Tempest Stormwind says you are wrong. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29110689)

That build has some issues; Aeshkrau sigil only changes your stat for bonus spells, so he still needs WIS 10+Spell Level for his Paladin spells.

[TuggyNE]

One thing I've long desired is an expanded Tier List with both floors and ceilings (at some kind of "95% of builds are greater/less than this tier", or whatever), rather than just the mode. I don't personally have the know-how to put that together, though.

[eggs]

You are overlooking several issues; most notably you are confusing "class" with "build". An archer is a build, a Crusader is the class. Animal Devotion and Travel Devotion are feats, Paladin is a class. JaronK states in the Tiers thread that the Tiers look at what the class itself is largely capable of (and accounting for spellcasting/variant spellcasting systems). Feats, PrCs, magic items, and everything else involved in character creation affects the base Tier.
I am not confused; that distinction is exactly my point.

If I build a Paladin with marginal effort involved in optimization and my buddy who is new at the game puts in equally little effort, my Paladin is going to be playable; his won't.

The practical use of a class-based tier system is to assess a character's power and versatility based on the class used. Even disregarding how strongly 3e discourages single-classed builds and how wrong-headed that makes the concept to begin with, if there are individual differences in the power of two builds within the same class as pronounced as the differences in 3e, character class carries little information about build capabilities.

JaronK tried to handwave that with statements of "equal optimization," but with no objective measure of optimization and individuals having different levels of familiarity or skill or drawing different lines for cheesiness or distaste, optimization isn't something that can be standardized or measured as equal.

So bringing that back to the class/build distinction, my point was that tiering classes is silly, because it is not informative about the individual characters that it is designed to assess (the characters who may or may not need to have bones thrown to them or their options restricted, as recommended in that Tier thread itself); assessing the individual builds is actually going to be informative.

The Paladin with the Devotion feats, however, has only 2 new tricks. Both of those tricks are open for the Crusader; the only thing the Paladin has going for him is uses/day. Those tricks allow him to overcome some weaknesses (MAD/Flight for Animal Devotion, mobility for Travel Devotion), but those abilities do not change how the class plays.Half of T4's abilities are variations on "run around and whack things," and between making a full melee attack every round and dragging a second character in tow, Paladin is much better at that than most of them. Or if making skill rolls is enough, a Paladin with even a passing interest in its caster level is going to be getting high modifiers on most rolls through Divine Insight, which is precisely the thing that holds Scouts and Marshals in that group.

I'm not arguing that it's stronger or more versatile that the Psion or Sorcerer; I'm arguing that Paladin has options available to it that can make it stronger and more versatile than classes with little more than numbers to build off, like the Swashbuckler or Marshal.

[T.G. Oskar]

Tier 5 actually.

Sure if you optimize you will hit tier 4. But then again straight out of the box a crusader is tier 3... And really it is hard to mess them up.

So if you have two players, one who optimizes the crap out of the paladin iand another that purposely hinders the crusader (and even then taking bad feats isn't enough...) then you *might* have them on equal footing.

So we pimp the paladin and gimp the crusader and we *might* have the same tier of class BUT crusader still gets maneuvers like White Raven Tactics that doesn't matter what your ability scores are or anything to be useful.

Also even if you pick Crusader maneuvers at random you are bound to get some really good ones.


TKO Paladin is on the floor seeing stars.

Erm...the whole point of the Tier system assumes one key point: with all characters having the same level of optimization, the classes organize into their specific themes because of their options.

Wizards aren't Tier 1 because of Time Stop, or Greater Celerity. Wizards are Tier 1 because they can use those spells AND Gate AND Plane Shift AND Shapechange AND many, many more spells. Crusader isn't Tier 3 because of White Raven Tactics; it is Tier 3 because it has the equivalent of full spellcasting which allows it to act in one thing VERY WELL (aka, tanking) while not neglecting on others (healing, damage dealing). The Paladin is Tier 5 because it requires a lot to pull off essentially one super-trick (either ubercharging, or swift-action spellcasting of Paladin and Wizard spells, or super-smiting, etc.)

That said: there are some options that are so transcendental to the class, that they alone can offer up a Tier increase. Such is the example of the Binder, which with Summon Monster increases a whole Tier. Mystic Ranger is another, because it gets 6th level spells. None of them gets that one maneuver or spell that surpasses in utility to all others, but they're still Tier 3.

My impression is that you're misunderstanding the meaning of the Tiers. A Paladin that optimizes a lot won't increase one Tier because, using the same optimization ability, you can take another class and increase it the same Tier. That doesn't mean the premise might be flawed (it assumes all classes have the same optimization floors and ceilings, thus applying the same degree of optimization will end up with the same results every time), but you don't increase a class' Tier by showcasing one single build. That doesn't go for TopCheese, but it's something I noticed. However, it does apply if you think that Crusader is good because of WRT alone. Swordsage is likewise Tier 3 and it lacks a fast recovery mechanic, Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics. It has access to the only two supernatural disciplines, which have teleportation and a method of flight, resistance, amongst others, but Swordsages are not very good buffers (as the Warblade and Crusader do). Optimize a Crusader to the fabled 1d2 infinite damage build, and it STILL remains Tier 3 because it has one ridiculously good build, but it DOESN'T achieve what a Wizard can do. In fact, if you're not of a specific alignment, you can't even pull that off.

In any case, the Crusader, if open to all books, can't take much advantage of them. It still has some of the Paladin's flaws (particularly feat starvation), but it has maneuvers to cover for some of them. Thicket of Blades is nice, but you can't do jack with it without Combat Reflexes (and Dex over 13) and a reach weapon, Improved Trip and perhaps Stand Still, because that's what a Fighter would be doing in any case (except you neglect some of the ways to bypass the danger of being in a threatened area). Aside from that build and White Raven Tactics, what else does the Crusader has to offer? Or, to phrase it better: what can you do with a Crusader that doesn't imply either lockdown OR using WRT (you can use other White Raven maneuvers, just not WRT)? Most of the recommendations I've seen with Crusader insist on its tanking capabilities, and there's no better tanking than trip-based lockdown (which, in theory, should be the specialization of the Swordsage as Setting Sun uses trip in a much more varied way). That answer should guide why the Crusader is Tier 3, instead of just repeating the nicer tricks of the Crusader.

After all, it's one reason why we Paladin fans and admirers are going for all guns. The Crusader has all books at its disposal. Go nuts.

[Coidzor]

Mystic Ranger gets 0 to 5th level spells, IIRC. And starts having spells at 1st level, even if they're just 0th level ones.

[toapat]

One thing I've long desired is an expanded Tier List with both floors and ceilings (at some kind of "95% of builds are greater/less than this tier", or whatever), rather than just the mode. I don't personally have the know-how to put that together, though.

I agree, the list leaves alot to be desired. On the other hand, Floors is pretty much a given for everyone. Any class can be played as a T6


Erm...the whole point of the Tier system assumes one key point: with all characters having the same level of optimization, the classes organize into their specific themes because of their options.

That said: there are some options that are so transcendental to the class, that they alone can offer up a Tier increase. Such is the example of the Binder, which with Summon Monster increases a whole Tier. Mystic Ranger is another, because it gets 6th level spells. None of them gets that one maneuver or spell that surpasses in utility to all others, but they're still Tier 3.

My impression is that you're misunderstanding the meaning of the Tiers. A Paladin that optimizes a lot won't increase one Tier because, using the same optimization ability, you can take another class and increase it the same Tier.

After all, it's one reason why we Paladin fans and admirers are going for all guns. The Crusader has all books at its disposal. Go nuts.

The only problem with that Assumption: Each class optimizes with a different efficiency. Paladins move up with Optimization in leaps and bounds (Having 3 feats and an ACF that all push Paladin into T4), the ToB classes hover at their places in T3 regardless of how hard you try to push them.

your last line is a bit confusing

[T.G. Oskar]

The only problem with that Assumption: Each class optimizes with a different efficiency. Paladins move up with Optimization in leaps and bounds (Having 3 feats and an ACF that all push Paladin into T4), the ToB classes hover at their places in T3 regardless of how hard you try to push them.

It IS the underlying assumption regarding the Tier system. When Jaron built it, it used as a frame that everyone in a hypothetical table had the same skill at optimization. Thus, he didn't used ease of optimization to define the Tiers, but rather, if everyone applied the same amount of optimization, classes would approach those Tiers normally. Which is why builds are not considered as important for defining where do you land in a Tier; the contents and options of the class do. Three feats don't count: the ACFs do.

It is, incidentally, why the Binder with Zceryll and the Erudite with Spell-to-Power (neither of which are feats) ends up a Tier higher: because the options are not based on feats but rather on obscure but completely mind-boggling options (the former) or ACFs (the latter). In fact, strictly going by the way Tiers were defined, neither choice should take the class higher, because it is ONE option, generally obscure (both come from web enhancements, which are a tad hard to find [barring Google] and harder to be approved by the DM), which basically changes everything. Druids are powerful despite Natural Spell, not because of it. Otherwise, you'd have to evaluate the Paladin as if it ALWAYS had Battle Blessing, because only Paladins can get it and changes entirely how the Paladin does spells. That way, you could add Battle Blessing to the mix. You can't, however, add Sword of the Arcane Order because Rangers can pull it off as well, so it's not Paladin-exclusive (and Sword of the Arcane Order with Mystic Ranger, if evaluated correctly, would take the Mystic Ranger borderline Tier 2, at least for the first 10 levels).

I'm of the line of thought that Paladin spellcasting is always undermined. Really undermined. Despite having a poor CL, you get Greater Magic Weapon, plus you get both Holy Sword and Lawful Sword. You get a way to heal people that's somewhat more economical regarding actions (Healing Spirit), it has some surprising buffs (Silverbeard, Righteous Fury, Draconic Might, Sacred Haven, Glory of the Martyr) and some interesting spells that can be used effectively out of combat. Indeed, the Paladin gets spells VERY slowly, but used effectively you can take a good mileage out of it. I rarely replace spellcasting if I play a Paladin unless I have a VERY good reason (generally if I intend to get another form of spellcasting to advance), because just the wands and scrolls are great.


your last line is a bit confusing

I didn't intend to write that last line in order to bash the Crusader or anything. It's just that the argument I read from TopCheese suggested that Crusader is Tier 3 because of White Raven Tactics alone (that would make it Tier 4, because it has one good trick but doesn't necessarily has other nice tricks; it is the opposite because it has other maneuvers that expand its capabilities). What I seek is for him, and to an extent other people, to prove why the Crusader is Tier 3, using the same amount of materials as the Paladin. That would be testing its optimization ceiling: if it takes just a little to reach something that could be considered Tier 3, then it is Tier 3 by nature and not by optimization skill; however, it doesn't take advantage of other books like, say, Wizards or Clerics or Druids do (which get spells nearly every new book). Crusaders in that regard are pretty self-contained: they play phenomenally well out of the box with little tweaking, but if they only rely on a few books, you don't get many builds out of it, so most Crusaders will end up playing the same. Does that clear it up?

[Augmental]

There's one major thing that people seem to be forgetting about the paladin: their Code of Conduct. He's going to lose all his class features and be a Fighter-Without-Bonus-Feats if he ever commits an evil act, even if it's a "lesser of two evils situation. The Crusader has more freedom in that area, in that they don't lose absolutely everything making them a decent warrior if they commit a morally dubious act for any reason.

[TopCheese]

One thing is for certain... They should have ported the 2e over to 3.X better.

Scary thing those 2e Paladins.

The reason why I like the Crusader so much is the fact that it is the Paladin I so wanted when I first got into 3.5.

My first game I was pushed into the role of Clericzilla, but on my second time around I wanted to be a Paladin... Only to find the class lacking in many areas I was hoping to excel at.

ToB came out and I had everything to be a Paladin once more. I even had a Lay on Hands type feature I could use to heal my allies or myself... Sure I had to you know lay my hands on an enemy (Crusader's Strike) to heal my ally but still it got the job done :P.

I actually fluff the Crusader's healing to be more of a ... I'm doing such a good job my god (or some random god watching) was impressed that he showers my allies or myself with healing. Somewhat like in 4e when you crit a bullywug, you gain free healing from the universe :D

I wish wish wish the Paladin would have been a good class but it really just was nothing to brag about and I don't want to have to go running around 20 books to make one class actually capable of doing its job. I didn't buy my car and then have to go buy 10 other parts just to get it to go and stop, it was factory built to do its job.

Also on the note of Crusader needs dex 13, combat reflexes, and stand still. Stand still is nice and yes it is a good feat to have though not really needed (though I never leave home without it... but I could). Dex 13 and Combat Reflexes are not needed at all since you can build a lockdown character that focuses on one creature. And hey if said creature uses a double move to get away from you... Well it just gave you a charging lane >:D

I had a Crusader that didn't have more than 1 AoO and he did great lockdown versus one creature. Besides Thicket of Blades keeps enemies from running away. (I think that is the stance I'm thinking about).

Someone in a handbook once said something along the lines "Ignore me and I'll make you pay, don't ignore me and I make you pay harder" with regards to the Crusader.

But y'all have fun with this.

EDIT: In response to the tier question. I didn't mean WRT alone made the Crusader tier 3. The class itself is tier 3 and you actually have to try to make it a lesser tier because it has such a good design (as with all ToB classes) that it is tier 3 right out of the box. The Paladin however you have to try to make it above the tier 5 mark, with many many books.

Also there is a reason why ToB doesn't have as much splat support. ToB was a playtest of sorts for 4e (they were making 4e when ToB came out and you can see a ton of stuff that made it into 4e). 4e came out after ToB thus they stop supporting 3.5 and well some of the greatest things WoTC made got very very very little support (Binder, Totemist, Incarnate, Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader, etc).

[toapat]

*snip*

Of the 3 feats in refference, only Sword of the Arcane Order is not Paladin Exclusive. Both "From Smite to Song" and Battle Blessing are. the ACF in question is of course Divine Spirit (DS is a dual buff. You no longer have to spend feats on the horse, and you get some new class features.)

edit: Went back and understood what you mean. Crusaders have a low ceiling, where as you can look alot for paladin and find alot of material. on the other hand, all that paladin material is either in spells, or in 4 splatbooks. (Complete Champion, Champions of Valor, Unearthed Arcana, and Dragon Compendium/Dragon 306)

im currently looking at the 2nd ed pally to see what all the rage is. apparently they got good reflex saves

[T.G. Oskar]

Of the 3 feats in refference, only Sword of the Arcane Order is not Paladin Exclusive. Both "From Smite to Song" and Battle Blessing are. the ACF in question is of course Divine Spirit (DS is a dual buff. You no longer have to spend feats on the horse, and you get some new class features.)

Perhaps it's me, but I prefer Harmonious Knight over From Smite to Song. Both grant Inspire Courage, but while you have to sacrifice a daily use of Smite Evil and a feat slot for the latter, you need only sacrifice Detect Evil for the former. There's ways to get Detect Evil (or at least a Detect spell), so having Detect Evil isn't that important. Furthermore, if you're going with all resources, you can take way more advantage with the Dead Levels article and using Sense Motive to detect evil intentions.

I absolutely love Divine Spirit. I think I mentioned it. The only thing I lament is that you can only use each spirit once, instead of getting up to 4 uses per day with the ability to choose which spirit to summon. For example, Spirit of Healing basically combines your Healing Spirit with Lay on Hands, so you get a pretty potent healing ability in the midst of combat. Spirit of the Fallen pretty much doubles for Immortal Fortitude. The other two are not slouches either.

The horse isn't bad, but it's not usually my taste. If I really wanted a mount, I'd get one for travel, but not necessarily for combat. My feat slots are too important to waste on a feat tree just to make charging attacks viable (Mounted Combat -> Ride-by Attack -> Spirited Charge), but I can't deny riding a Gryphon is really awesome.


i meant your last line, which didnt really make sense, and you didnt really explain it. Do you mean like how im arguing that not allowing at least one Pally splatbook means you are not judging the classes on equal ground?

Lemme see if I can make it easier. I didn't meant that last line to judge both classes on equal ground. Allowing all splats means the Paladin has pretty much all of its options open, but so does the Crusader. What I meant was that the Paladin gets much more love from splats than the Crusader. The way I intended to make this point was by opening all the splats to the Crusader and then suggesting people throw up builds using as much splats as it would take for a Paladin to become competitive. Most of the utility of the Crusader is concentrated on the Tome of Battle and the Player's Handbook, with some other splats offering solid options (such as the XPH offering Stand Still). The Crusader has the advantage that it doesn't need much digging to be good; on the other hand, because of that, you'll end up seeing many Crusaders that look and act the same, in comparison with Paladins which may end up with entirely different builds just by mixing and matching ACFs and feats and spells.


im currently looking at the 2nd ed pally to see what all the rage is. apparently they got good reflex saves

I'm just as curious. I reckon that 2nd Edition Paladins had similar traits as a 2nd Edition Fighter, except they couldn't reach Grandmaster Weapon Specialization; on the other hand, IIRC from a DM I had, they always had their quests for Holy Avengers and Paladin swords of power, which made them extremely awesome. I don't remember if the Holy Avenger in 2nd Edition was the same as with 1st Edition (+5, +10 against Evil Outsiders, a magic circle that negates spells cast by characters of the same or lower level than the Paladin, and the ability to dispel magic with a touch); I recall 1st Edition had more swords of power. However, the Code in 2nd Edition was downright cruel (do evil once, you lose your powers FOREVER; no Atonement, no way to reclaim them). I have the impression that Paladins in AD&D 1st Edition were a tad better, more if they used the Unearthed Arcana rules (in which they were a sub-class of the Cavalier and thus had access to the Armiger 0-levels).

[toapat]

Perhaps it's me, but I prefer Harmonious Knight over From Smite to Song. Both grant Inspire Courage, but while you have to sacrifice a daily use of Smite Evil and a feat slot for the latter, you need only sacrifice Detect Evil for the former. There's ways to get Detect Evil (or at least a Detect spell), so having Detect Evil isn't that important. Furthermore, if you're going with all resources, you can take way more advantage with the Dead Levels article and using Sense Motive to detect evil intentions.

I absolutely love Divine Spirit. I think I mentioned it. The only thing I lament is that you can only use each spirit once, instead of getting up to 4 uses per day with the ability to choose which spirit to summon. For example, Spirit of Healing basically combines your Healing Spirit with Lay on Hands, so you get a pretty potent healing ability in the midst of combat. Spirit of the Fallen pretty much doubles for Immortal Fortitude. The other two are not slouches either.

The horse isn't bad, but it's not usually my taste. If I really wanted a mount, I'd get one for travel, but not necessarily for combat. My feat slots are too important to waste on a feat tree just to make charging attacks viable (Mounted Combat -> Ride-by Attack -> Spirited Charge), but I can't deny riding a Gryphon is really awesome.

You need Harmonious Knight levels to take From Smite To Song anyway, so i can see the point. Personally im not too big for the Bardadin though.

ya, that is the only real problem with DS, im currently working on a sort of midpoint between my original Templar, and the paladin - nonbrew, i just outright threw out the mount because of the problem ive re-iterated a few times in here. Paladin only has a (rather chaotic) flavor niche, not a role niche.

I did give a Gryphon to my Paladin Non-brew, it was a fun exercise in seeing how far you can push paladin without using any real homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13572756#post13572756).

[TuggyNE]

I agree, the list leaves alot to be desired. On the other hand, Floors is pretty much a given for everyone. Any class can be played as a T6

This is trivially true, but not helpful for the discussion. There's a real sense in which it is vastly easier to mess up a Wizard build (pick the wrong spells, mostly) than a Crusader build (because nearly all the options are good). The fact that it is always at least theoretically possible to utterly deoptimize a given class in a certain build is irrelevant (an 8 Int wizard); also irrelevant is the fact that a given build can be played far under its actual potential (e.g. a Natural Spell Druid who uses foolish wild shape choices and picks unhelpful spells each day could, on any given day, make different choices and shoot far up immediately).

So the useful things to consider are, I think, the minimum common build effectiveness (or floor) and the maximum common build effectiveness (or ceiling), for whatever definition of common.

[navar100]

Thicket of Blades is a nice stance, but it's not as if you are The Suck if you don't have it. A Crusader is not required by some Cosmic Law of Gamedom to be Lockdown. He can be an excellent charger. He can just go hog wild on damage going with the best defense is a better offense. He can also take lots of punishment but just . . . won't . . . die . . . eventually winning a drawn out war of hit point attrition. I wouldn't be surprised if two crusaders using that tactic fighting each other would battle for eternity, except perhaps by luck one of them rolls a 1 at the most inopportune time or a crit threat and confirm at the most opportune time.

[T.G. Oskar]

You need Harmonious Knight levels to take From Smite To Song anyway, so i can see the point. Personally im not too big for the Bardadin though.

Erm, no. You need to be a member of the Harmonious Order. The Harmonious Knight is automatically assumed to be part of the Harmonious Order, but you don't need to take the substitution levels to get From Smite to Song. It makes it awfully easy, though.

While it dabbles on the Bard, Inspire Courage isn't necessarily a bad thing for the Paladin. In fact, it fits, because you can start providing a decent buff to attack and damage rolls right from 1st level and then use that bonus to attack, and make your smite hit harder. Inspire Competence is a bit of a stretch, but it grants a competence bonus to skills, which isn't a bad idea (the bad idea is limiting it to once per day). Inspire Greatness works wonders as a self-buff which can be extended for all day if you simply don't stop singing.

I'd say just go for the 1st substitution level and ignore the rest if you feel like it. It's not going to be as strong as From Smite to Song, but you'll get Perform for free and your daily uses of IC will depend on your paladin level. The only problem is that it won't progress any further, so the +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls will quickly stop being useful (particularly if you don't find a way to sing and cast spells at the same time).


ya, that is the only real problem with DS, im currently working on a sort of midpoint between my original Templar, and the paladin - nonbrew, i just outright threw out the mount because of the problem ive re-iterated a few times in here. Paladin only has a (rather chaotic) flavor niche, not a role niche.

The mount can be nice, but it should be an alternative, not a forced choice. The best you can do is reverse-engineer the idea behind ACFs; essentially, replace a class feature with one of equal power. Whenever you find that the class feature is balanced enough regarding a mount, use it for your 'brew and then make the mount an ACF. I find it works better, because it keeps the idea of having mounts for those who find them iconic but doesn't force you to do so. PF had a good idea there, but lacked a variety of options (which then tackled through archetypes).

In fact, I actually did that, but since I'm not a fan of shameless self-promotion...


I did give a Gryphon to my Paladin Non-brew, it was a fun exercise in seeing how far you can push paladin without using any real homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13572756#post13572756).

It's not easy to push paladin and keep the flavor (no matter what jiriku says), because it's gonna mess something, and people will still have some problems regarding that. Having a gryphon is awesome; what if the character just wants a horse and that's it? Or what if it wants a different avian (say, a Chocobo or a PecoPeco...erm, Grand Peco)? Or what if the campaign is entirely aquatic? The DMG works wonders granting options for alternate mounts, actually (it's a development of the idea within Defenders of the Faith).

[T.G. Oskar]

You need Harmonious Knight levels to take From Smite To Song anyway, so i can see the point. Personally im not too big for the Bardadin though.

Erm, no. You need to be a member of the Harmonious Order. The Harmonious Knight is automatically assumed to be part of the Harmonious Order, but you don't need to take the substitution levels to get From Smite to Song. It makes it awfully easy, though.

While it dabbles on the Bard, Inspire Courage isn't necessarily a bad thing for the Paladin. In fact, it fits, because you can start providing a decent buff to attack and damage rolls right from 1st level and then use that bonus to attack, and make your smite hit harder. Inspire Competence is a bit of a stretch, but it grants a competence bonus to skills, which isn't a bad idea (the bad idea is limiting it to once per day). Inspire Greatness works wonders as a self-buff which can be extended for all day if you simply don't stop singing.

I'd say just go for the 1st substitution level and ignore the rest if you feel like it. It's not going to be as strong as From Smite to Song, but you'll get Perform for free and your daily uses of IC will depend on your paladin level. The only problem is that it won't progress any further, so the +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls will quickly stop being useful (particularly if you don't find a way to sing and cast spells at the same time).


ya, that is the only real problem with DS, im currently working on a sort of midpoint between my original Templar, and the paladin - nonbrew, i just outright threw out the mount because of the problem ive re-iterated a few times in here. Paladin only has a (rather chaotic) flavor niche, not a role niche.

The mount can be nice, but it should be an alternative, not a forced choice. The best you can do is reverse-engineer the idea behind ACFs; essentially, replace a class feature with one of equal power. Whenever you find that the class feature is balanced enough regarding a mount, use it for your 'brew and then make the mount an ACF. I find it works better, because it keeps the idea of having mounts for those who find them iconic but doesn't force you to do so. PF had a good idea there, but lacked a variety of options (which then tackled through archetypes).

In fact, I actually did that, but since I'm not a fan of shameless self-promotion...


I did give a Gryphon to my Paladin Non-brew, it was a fun exercise in seeing how far you can push paladin without using any real homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13572756#post13572756).

It's not easy to push paladin and keep the flavor (no matter what jiriku says), because it's gonna mess something, and people will still have some problems regarding that. Having a gryphon is awesome; what if the character just wants a horse and that's it? Or what if it wants a different avian (say, a Chocobo or a PecoPeco...erm, Grand Peco)? Or what if the campaign is entirely aquatic? The DMG works wonders granting options for alternate mounts, actually (it's a development of the idea within Defenders of the Faith).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think my point about limiting the books available in a class V class comparison has been misunderstood.

I'm not saying paladin should only look through core and crusader should only look through ToB. I'm saying that if those two are the classes being compared, you should look at the options available to both in the sum of Core + ToB. A paladin can have WRT too, it's just a bigger investment for him.

Assuming the whole of 3.5 is being considered is folly. Few if any tables actually have access to everything in the system.

Erring on the most conservative collection of options is most useful because anyone interested in comparing the two classes is likely trying to decide which to play and is only guaranteed to have access to core + the books the classes are in.

Further in comparing the two classes, PrC's and multiclassing in general should be disregarded, because at that point you're comparing builds instead of the classes.

The strictest version of class comparison would disregard anything that's not a class feature of one class or the other, and any options available to both classes. This is the most academic comparison, in that it includes only the classes themselves. It's not necessarily the most useful comparison, however, even if you include most of 3.5, because it doesn't usually account for everything either class might need to overcome the challenges it will likely face.

Comparing all the options available to both classes, that is: comparing their optimization potential, is certainly interesting. It's also largely a purely academic matter, unless you actually have access to all the options available for both classes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

On a personal note: While it's hardly an optimal choice, I actually like the feel of blending the two.

Paladin 4/crusader 1/Ruby Knight Vindicator X can make for a fairly entertaining character, especially if you try to keep the default fluff attached to RKV.

[toapat]

It's not easy to push paladin and keep the flavor (no matter what jiriku says), because it's gonna mess something, and people will still have some problems regarding that. Having a gryphon is awesome; what if the character just wants a horse and that's it? Or what if it wants a different avian (say, a Chocobo or a PecoPeco...erm, Grand Peco)? Or what if the campaign is entirely aquatic? The DMG works wonders granting options for alternate mounts, actually (it's a development of the idea within Defenders of the Faith).

Jiriku's Knight-paladin is more what happens when you just decide that the problem is that the choice that the company to keep the paladin and Knight archetypes separate, while keeping the paladin's bleedover from the knight, instead of recognizing the problem as the fact that they are keeping aspects of the knight archetype. also, Serenity becomes a complete feat tax there.

Seerow's paladin is a little too dismissive of the paladin spell list.

My work has sofar been respectively a bit underinformed or intentionally inhibited

your work, while good, is disincentivising because of the significant lack of options for gameplay (might as well use Tower shield+Spiked chain, too many incentives to use anything else.)

@ kelb: the point is, judging each that way is entirely one sided. Paladin makes its home in the book for T1, while Crusader only share's its turf with 2 other classes and all the content for itself.

[Scow2]

From my understanding... Paladins don't need much Wisdom at all for spellcasting (Just a 14, which can be attained with a base 10, and a +WIS item when they reach spellcasting level).

Being a spellcaster, even a gimped one, comes with some pretty awesome abilities - and almost free use of scrolls and activation of wands can be very valuable.

People mock the magical bicycle. Do not underestimate the extraplanar bicycle - it kicks ass during the medium levels.

Also - anyone who diss's paladins doesn't fight enough undead.

[toapat]

People mock the magical bicycle. Do not underestimate the extraplanar bicycle - it kicks ass during the medium levels.

Also - anyone who diss's paladins doesn't fight enough undead.

here is the problem: That bicycle needs a different build from the undead devastator

[navar100]

From my understanding... Paladins don't need much Wisdom at all for spellcasting (Just a 14, which can be attained with a base 10, and a +WIS item when they reach spellcasting level).

Being a spellcaster, even a gimped one, comes with some pretty awesome abilities - and almost free use of scrolls and activation of wands can be very valuable.

People mock the magical bicycle. Do not underestimate the extraplanar bicycle - it kicks ass during the medium levels.

Also - anyone who diss's paladins doesn't fight enough undead.

What happens if he doesn't get a Wisdom +4 item by then? I find it poor form to have your character depend on having one specific magic item or else he's The Suck.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ toapat: Which way?

I admit the second and third method I listed; strictly what's available to each class, and all potential choices, given the entirety of 3.5; were mostly academic, but how is keeping a comparison of crusader and paladin to core + ToB one sided?

Mathematically, both are about even for busting heads, which is their primary role. They're about even for acting as party face. Both can boost their allies, though paladin does it through buffing spells boosting his allies' numbers, while crusader does it through white raven maneuvers granting extra actions but only rarely extra damage or to-hit.

If anything the crusader is at a bit of a disadvantage. While the paladin has access to all of his toys, the crusader simply doesn't get enough maneuvers known to get mid and high level maneuvers from two disciplines, much less all three.

With only those sources, which are the only ones guaranteed to be in play if you've got both a paladin and a crusader, the two break about even.

I really don't know what to make of your comment about T1's. They have nothing to do with this comparison.

[toapat]

@ toapat: Which way?

simple: ToB has minimal value for paladin. about the only useful thing to paladin is Eternal Blade, and that is because, paladin doesnt have the option to rebuke undead, and as a result, cant actually get RKV levels (most people just ignore that part though because its pendantic about minor wording.).

[T.G. Oskar]

your work, while good, is disincentivising because of the significant lack of options for gameplay (might as well use Tower shield+Spiked chain, too many incentives to use anything else.)

Might want to explain? I understand the idea on using a shield, because I wanted Sword & Board to be useful, but there's reasons why to go Str>Con with a two-handed or reach weapon. The most important would be that smite DCs are based on Strength, so if you want to stun or blind or blast away your opponents reliably, you want a decent Strength score, which is just what you need for a 2-hander.

Tower Shield + Spiked Chain (or Tower Shield + Guisarme) is only effective around 11th level if you're to choose Girallon's Blessing as a spell. That said, you can do fine just going 2-hander or S&B.


From my understanding... Paladins don't need much Wisdom at all for spellcasting (Just a 14, which can be attained with a base 10, and a +WIS item when they reach spellcasting level).

Being a spellcaster, even a gimped one, comes with some pretty awesome abilities - and almost free use of scrolls and activation of wands can be very valuable.

People mock the magical bicycle. Do not underestimate the extraplanar bicycle - it kicks ass during the medium levels.

Also - anyone who diss's paladins doesn't fight enough undead.

I'm all for Paladin supporters, but this argument is a bit shaky. Paladin spellcasting is underrated, but that doesn't mean it's OMGWTFBBQ awesome. It's...somewhat lacking, but with some effort, you can make it a powerhouse (Sword of the Arcane Order + Battle Blessing), and even in its own isn't that bad. It's progression is what really hurts me, even though I fully support and endorse spellcasting based on 4 levels.

Besides, you don't have to face undead exclusively. That's one of their foci. Battling evil outsiders (particularly demons/tanar'ri) is their ultimate goal. A cavalier is also a reasonable build (and for some, the only worthwhile build). The Crusader doesn't lack weapons against the undead; it just uses the same weapons it uses against the living. The Crusader is much better at constructs as it has Mountain Hammer AND Foehammer within the same class.


I admit the second and third method I listed; strictly what's available to each class, and all potential choices, given the entirety of 3.5; were mostly academic, but how is keeping a comparison of crusader and paladin to core + ToB one sided?

Mathematically, both are about even for busting heads, which is their primary role. They're about even for acting as party face. Both can boost their allies, though paladin does it through buffing spells boosting his allies' numbers, while crusader does it through white raven maneuvers granting extra actions but only rarely extra damage or to-hit.

If anything the crusader is at a bit of a disadvantage. While the paladin has access to all of his toys, the crusader simply doesn't get enough maneuvers known to get mid and high level maneuvers from two disciplines, much less all three.

With only those sources, which are the only ones guaranteed to be in play if you've got both a paladin and a crusader, the two break about even.

Again: I'm all for Paladin support, but here I'll have to play the other side.

At 1st level, the Crusader gets Steely Resolve, Furious Counterstrike, maneuvers and stances, whereas the Paladin only has smite evil and detect evil. At 1st level, the Crusader is mathematically better than the Paladin because it has better healing abilities (because having one healing ability is better than none), better tanking abilities (because Iron Guard's Glare is a superb tanking ability) and better damage potential (again, because of maneuvers, though you may want to add Leading the Charge as a stance that boosts damage).

At 5th level, the Crusader gets a few more maneuvers, while the Paladin gets its first spells, Lay on Hands, its second use of Smite, and the mount (or Charging Smite, or Divine Spirit, etc.) Just going Core + ToB, the Paladin is at a disadvantage. The Crusader has reliable in-combat healing whereas the Paladin can achieve better out-of-combat healing (wands of CLW which it can use, plus Lay on Hands and a spell slot for CLW if the thing gets real rough), but its tanking potential is a bit limited (the Crusader has the chance, in a moment, to get Thicket of Blades, while the Paladin relies on the same reach tactic which can be bypassed a bit easier now). Damage-wise, the Crusader starts adding direct damage maneuvers whereas the Paladin depends on landing the smites and perhaps use Divine Favor. The Paladin breaks even regarding survival because it already gets all of the better saves plus the immunities.

At 10th level, the Crusader gets even more maneuvers, a smite ability, but it has the same access to feats and whatnot. The Paladin gets access to 2nd level spells and thus stuff like Bull's Strength or Eagle's Splendor. Things are starting to look less grim to the Paladin with 14 Wisdom. The Crusader holds the edge if it manages to get White Raven Tactics, which only needs one White Raven maneuver: Douse the Flames is pretty nice against people using your same skill, and you can eventually replace it for Covering Strike which is twice as good. Plus, the Crusader gets Diehard for free...at 10th level, where it stops being actually useful. Well, until you gain Immortal Fortitude.

At 15th level the Crusader gets very powerful maneuvers such as Rallying Strike, Castigating Strike, Clarion Call, Flanking Maneuver, Irresistible Mountain Strike, amongst others. The Paladin gets its first 4th level spell, which contains all of the good ones: Holy Sword, Lawful Sword, Glory of the Martyr, Sacred Haven, Righteous Aura, etc. Except, of all I mentioned, only Holy Sword applies because it's Core; however, you do get Break Enchantment and Death Ward as well (and Neutralize Poison) so it's no biggie. The Paladin racks up immunities, but the Crusader gets better maneuvers.

At 20th level, the Paladin gets spells by the boatload, while the Crusader got its last maneuver one level ago (and gains its last readied slot this level). The Crusader has 7 readied maneuvers and 4 stances against the...well, 12 spells of the Paladin. That's 7 abilities usable per encounter against 12 abilities used per day, plus one ability usable at-will.

...I still don't see how, going Core + ToB, the Paladin has the mathematical advantage. Both are feat-starved (the Crusader has more feats to choose, but the Paladin can dabble in some of them if chosen carefully), both have the same amount of BAB and hit points (if they have the same Constitution score and their rolls end up exactly as the average HP for a 20th level character) and the same Will scores (though the Crusader might have a slightly lower score because it doesn't depend on Charisma). Item-wise, the Paladin has a serious advantage, but that can be equaled (Holy Avenger vs. Faithful Avenger or Blade of the Last Citadel).

If anything, using Core + ToB only means the Crusader has essentially all the support it needs, but the Paladin doesn't. It also shows the Crusader is competent with less books, whereas the Paladin is more competent with more books (because of all the world of content on various splatbooks). Now, while it may seem "academic", it's important to notice how the Paladin behaves when all splats are open, because the Crusader doesn't get the same advantage of a variety of options as the Paladin gets; its self-containment in terms of abilities is both a boon (it requires less feats) and a curse (the builds will look quite the same). I certainly don't see it as "academic", because if the options you need for your Paladin build are within the allowed set of books, then you don't need to have ALL books. Note that the Crusader may take a serious advantage out of stuff from other books, such as the XPH (Stand Still + Thicket of Blades + reach weapon) or the MoI (they also get a smite ability, so they're viable for Sapphire Smite) or Complete Champion (ditto for Awesome Smite, using Stone Power instead of Power Attack).

[navar100]

If anything the crusader is at a bit of a disadvantage. While the paladin has access to all of his toys, the crusader simply doesn't get enough maneuvers known to get mid and high level maneuvers from two disciplines, much less all three.


1) It depends on the maneuvers wanted. Crusaders do know plenty.

2) A maneuver does not need to be high level to be worth having. They get to swap out any low levels ones that are obsolete anyway for higher ones. That's how can get a lot of mid and high level maneuvers.

3) Stone Dragon's Level 9 has no prerequisites, RAW, so a Crusader can get all his level 9's by level 20 thanks to swapping. A Crusader doesn't need all his level 9's. A Crusader doesn't need to have maneuvers of all his disciplines. He can have them, but he's not suddenly The Suck if he only uses two. Level 12 he has 6 maneuvers readied, maximum level 6. He can know two 6th level maneuvers as he swapped for one upon reaching 12th level. Devoted Spirit - Radiant Charge, Divine Surge, Revitalizing Strike. White Raven - Order Forged From Chaos, War Leader's Charge, White Raven Tactics. Stances - Iron Guard's Glare, Leading the Charge, Tactics of the Wolf. Spent 12th level feat for Aura of Perfect Order. This Crusader likes to charge and will do lots of damage. Has some healing for emergencies. Enables party members to get better positioning and do more stuff in a round. Can also just bash his opponent for lots of damage. I'm sure there are more efficient maneuver combos and feat choices, but I'd play this Crusader without a second thought. He's not missing Stone Dragon at all, not that there's anything wrong with Stone Dragon despite some people not liking the arbitrary restriction of must be touching the ground. This Crusader does just fine in battle. That's two 6th level maneuvers, one 5th level, two fourths, and a third.

[toapat]

Might want to explain? I understand the idea on using a shield, because I wanted Sword & Board to be useful, but there's reasons why to go Str>Con with a two-handed or reach weapon. The most important would be that smite DCs are based on Strength, so if you want to stun or blind or blast away your opponents reliably, you want a decent Strength score, which is just what you need for a 2-hander.

going Sword and Board essentially makes your paladin re-write contract a badass case of SAD, sure, it has the issue that you dont get 1.5 times Cha to damage, and the Smite plugin DCs are Str based, but you dont balance Cha hard enough for it to matter.

I dont remember off the top of my head, but i remember you made more then just Protector's Might incentivise SnB


my next homebrew im hovering between giving the paladin 3-5 times level during the smite. Smite is after all a better power attack, but i dont want the wording to get incredibly complex. or the smite to completely outshine everyone else. I am keeping it pretty weak till you take 7 paladin levels.

[Kelb_Panthera]

simple: ToB has minimal value for paladin. about the only useful thing to paladin is Eternal Blade, and that is because, paladin doesnt have the option to rebuke undead, and as a result, cant actually get RKV levels (most people just ignore that part though because its pendantic about minor wording.).As I said, once you're comparing PrC's you're not comparing a crusader and a paladin anymore. You're comparing builds, or at least potential builds that might even be better off with neither class. Also, see the comment following the quote of T.G. Oskar.


Might want to explain? I understand the idea on using a shield, because I wanted Sword & Board to be useful, but there's reasons why to go Str>Con with a two-handed or reach weapon. The most important would be that smite DCs are based on Strength, so if you want to stun or blind or blast away your opponents reliably, you want a decent Strength score, which is just what you need for a 2-hander.

Tower Shield + Spiked Chain (or Tower Shield + Guisarme) is only effective around 11th level if you're to choose Girallon's Blessing as a spell. That said, you can do fine just going 2-hander or S&B.



I'm all for Paladin supporters, but this argument is a bit shaky. Paladin spellcasting is underrated, but that doesn't mean it's OMGWTFBBQ awesome. It's...somewhat lacking, but with some effort, you can make it a powerhouse (Sword of the Arcane Order + Battle Blessing), and even in its own isn't that bad. It's progression is what really hurts me, even though I fully support and endorse spellcasting based on 4 levels.

Besides, you don't have to face undead exclusively. That's one of their foci. Battling evil outsiders (particularly demons/tanar'ri) is their ultimate goal. A cavalier is also a reasonable build (and for some, the only worthwhile build). The Crusader doesn't lack weapons against the undead; it just uses the same weapons it uses against the living. The Crusader is much better at constructs as it has Mountain Hammer AND Foehammer within the same class.



Again: I'm all for Paladin support, but here I'll have to play the other side.

At 1st level, the Crusader gets Steely Resolve, Furious Counterstrike, maneuvers and stances, whereas the Paladin only has smite evil and detect evil. At 1st level, the Crusader is mathematically better than the Paladin because it has better healing abilities (because having one healing ability is better than none), better tanking abilities (because Iron Guard's Glare is a superb tanking ability) and better damage potential (again, because of maneuvers, though you may want to add Leading the Charge as a stance that boosts damage).

At 5th level, the Crusader gets a few more maneuvers, while the Paladin gets its first spells, Lay on Hands, its second use of Smite, and the mount (or Charging Smite, or Divine Spirit, etc.) Just going Core + ToB, the Paladin is at a disadvantage. The Crusader has reliable in-combat healing whereas the Paladin can achieve better out-of-combat healing (wands of CLW which it can use, plus Lay on Hands and a spell slot for CLW if the thing gets real rough), but its tanking potential is a bit limited (the Crusader has the chance, in a moment, to get Thicket of Blades, while the Paladin relies on the same reach tactic which can be bypassed a bit easier now). Damage-wise, the Crusader starts adding direct damage maneuvers whereas the Paladin depends on landing the smites and perhaps use Divine Favor. The Paladin breaks even regarding survival because it already gets all of the better saves plus the immunities.

At 10th level, the Crusader gets even more maneuvers, a smite ability, but it has the same access to feats and whatnot. The Paladin gets access to 2nd level spells and thus stuff like Bull's Strength or Eagle's Splendor. Things are starting to look less grim to the Paladin with 14 Wisdom. The Crusader holds the edge if it manages to get White Raven Tactics, which only needs one White Raven maneuver: Douse the Flames is pretty nice against people using your same skill, and you can eventually replace it for Covering Strike which is twice as good. Plus, the Crusader gets Diehard for free...at 10th level, where it stops being actually useful. Well, until you gain Immortal Fortitude.

At 15th level the Crusader gets very powerful maneuvers such as Rallying Strike, Castigating Strike, Clarion Call, Flanking Maneuver, Irresistible Mountain Strike, amongst others. The Paladin gets its first 4th level spell, which contains all of the good ones: Holy Sword, Lawful Sword, Glory of the Martyr, Sacred Haven, Righteous Aura, etc. Except, of all I mentioned, only Holy Sword applies because it's Core; however, you do get Break Enchantment and Death Ward as well (and Neutralize Poison) so it's no biggie. The Paladin racks up immunities, but the Crusader gets better maneuvers.

At 20th level, the Paladin gets spells by the boatload, while the Crusader got its last maneuver one level ago (and gains its last readied slot this level). The Crusader has 7 readied maneuvers and 4 stances against the...well, 12 spells of the Paladin. That's 7 abilities usable per encounter against 12 abilities used per day, plus one ability usable at-will.

...I still don't see how, going Core + ToB, the Paladin has the mathematical advantage. Both are feat-starved (the Crusader has more feats to choose, but the Paladin can dabble in some of them if chosen carefully), both have the same amount of BAB and hit points (if they have the same Constitution score and their rolls end up exactly as the average HP for a 20th level character) and the same Will scores (though the Crusader might have a slightly lower score because it doesn't depend on Charisma). Item-wise, the Paladin has a serious advantage, but that can be equaled (Holy Avenger vs. Faithful Avenger or Blade of the Last Citadel).

If anything, using Core + ToB only means the Crusader has essentially all the support it needs, but the Paladin doesn't. It also shows the Crusader is competent with less books, whereas the Paladin is more competent with more books (because of all the world of content on various splatbooks). Now, while it may seem "academic", it's important to notice how the Paladin behaves when all splats are open, because the Crusader doesn't get the same advantage of a variety of options as the Paladin gets; its self-containment in terms of abilities is both a boon (it requires less feats) and a curse (the builds will look quite the same). I certainly don't see it as "academic", because if the options you need for your Paladin build are within the allowed set of books, then you don't need to have ALL books. Note that the Crusader may take a serious advantage out of stuff from other books, such as the XPH (Stand Still + Thicket of Blades + reach weapon) or the MoI (they also get a smite ability, so they're viable for Sapphire Smite) or Complete Champion (ditto for Awesome Smite, using Stone Power instead of Power Attack).

The mathematical equality for head breaking comes from comparing strikes with full attacks. Only on the first round of combat, or the round after a foe is dropped will the paladin be unable to full attack. With the notable exception of divine surge, there's no point where a strike will consistently do notably more damage than a full attack. Some of the higher level strikes you listed even come at a penalty for the crusader or require a full round action to deliver a single attack.

If you want to bring items into the mix, the paladin has a huge advantage: crown of the white raven. A paladin can pick up many of the crusader's tricks for a bit of gp. The crusader can't do the same. Funny how that little tidbit gets left out of this comparison so often. Don't you think?

[T.G. Oskar]

going Sword and Board essentially makes your paladin re-write contract a badass case of SAD, sure, it has the issue that you dont get 1.5 times Cha to damage, and the Smite plugin DCs are Str based, but you dont balance Cha hard enough for it to matter.

I dont remember off the top of my head, but i remember you made more then just Protector's Might incentivise SnB

I was really aiming for DAD, sorta like in 4e. Charisma is the Paladin's primary score, whereas you had the choice for Strength (and a more offensive Paladin) or Constitution (for a more defensive Paladin). Divine Punishment and Divine Deterrence are also Strength-based.

The other incentives to S&B I presume are the Auras, because each of them are improved if you wield a shield. But you can only have one aura at a time, and Divine Deterrence implies you deactivate your aura to activate this ability.

That said, in order to keep discussion on-topic: if you have any further comments, mind doing it on the homebrew thread? Again, I don't like self-promotion that much, so you'll have to dig the link, but since the tangent involves comparing homebrews, I feel it'd be better if we do it on the respective threads. I checked yours, but since I wasn't sure if it'd imply thread necromancy (or if you were still interested, given that you're suggesting a revision to your 'brew), I didn't answer.

That said, to retake the topic: I guess all I can say is that arguing that the Crusader is better than the Paladin won't end up right. I feel it's best if you play the Crusader and the Paladin as separate things, instead of trying to justify by all means that one is meant to be the replacement of the other. There's so much content for Paladins out there that suddenly having a contained class replace 5 years worth of content for one class feels like an insult, particularly with some of the content (such as Battle Blessing and Divine Spirit, for example, the latter which I love and find very creative, if only on the wrong book as I would have liked it as part of Complete Champion, switched with Underdark Knight). The Paladin isn't well designed, but that doesn't mean it's bad to use it; you just need a good deal of system mastery in order to make it worthwhile to play, in case you don't want to use a Crusader. Insisting on replacing one class for another in all instances will lead to madness.


The mathematical equality for head breaking comes from comparing strikes with full attacks. Only on the first round of combat, or the round after a foe is dropped will the paladin be unable to full attack. With the notable exception of divine surge, there's no point where a strike will consistently do notably more damage than a full attack. Some of the higher level strikes you listed even come at a penalty for the crusader or require a full round action to deliver a single attack.

If you want to bring items into the mix, the paladin has a huge advantage: crown of the white raven. A paladin can pick up many of the crusader's tricks for a bit of gp. The crusader can't do the same. Funny how that little tidbit gets left out of this comparison so often. Don't you think?

Mathematically speaking, any attack after the first has a smaller chance of success.

The first attack is at full attack bonus, so it has the highest chance of hitting. The second attack is at a -5 penalty, the third at a -10 and the fourth at a -15. Assuming the same AC for all the attacks, and a base 50% chance of success (you hit on a 11 or higher), hitting once has a 50% chance of success, two hits have a 37.5% chance of success, three hits have a 25% chance and all four hits have a 12.5% chance. That's 1 turn in 8, if my calculations aren't wrong, that you hit all four strikes. Meanwhile, the Crusader deals an extra amount of damage with one attack at a 50% chance, if guided by the same parameters. If your attack bonus is high enough, then you'll notice that the chances of success for landing 4 hits increase. You'll never get higher than 95% (you always fail on a natural 1 roll), so the best you can hope is for a bonus to attack rolls of +20 (essentially True Strike for 1 round) or a way to reduce AC in order for a full attack to deal as much damage as a strike maneuver.

Perhaps this is an exaggeration, but the idea is sound even if you minimize all factors to something a bit more reasonable. Assume that you're using the same weapon: so as long as the weapon you use is a greatsword or another weapon with a damage average of 7 or greater, a full attack with 2 hits will be better than both Mountain Hammer and Foehammer; a full attack with 3 hits will probably be better than, say, Bonecrusher, Elder Mountain Hammer, or White Raven Strike; four successful hits on a full attack may exceed the damage from a Divine Surge, but not necessarily an Ancient Mountain Hammer or White Raven Hammer. All these maneuvers have rider effects which a full attack lacks, and you already have a smaller chance of landing all four hits. That goes without mentioning that you need some sort of movement option (which doesn't exist in Core, and only through Pouncing Charge or Shadow Blink in ToB) in order to use that full attack option. That is why a strike maneuver is usually better than a full attack. That doesn't mean the full attack option isn't a good idea: with Power Attack and a way to get insane attack bonuses, you can do damage overflow, and what you need is to deal exactly enough damage to beat the opponent (essentially optimizing, mathematically speaking, the damage you deal). In Core, those options are limited if speaking strictly regarding the Paladin, because only a few spells help it (Divine Favor granting up to a +3 luck bonus, Greater Magic Weapon enchanting the chosen weapon into a +3 weapon, Holy Sword temporarily making the weapon into a +5 holy weapon, Bull's Strength granting a +4 temporary enhancement bonus to Strength). Note that all of these also grant a bonus to damage rolls, so at the end, it sorta balances out (+3 from DF, +5 and 2d6 against evil creatures from Holy Sword, +2/+3 from the enhancement to Strength for a total of 2d6+10 per blow against evil creatures); however, the Crusader gets to stun enemies, bypass their DR, heal while attacking, buff while attacking...that's mostly the main reason why it's considered Tier 3.

In short: 4 ([W] + Str) (or, four times the sum of weapon damage plus Strength) at one-fourth the chance of success, even on average, won't compare to the full damage from some of the strikes of the Crusader.

Regarding the crown of the White Raven, the Crusader actually takes a better advantage from the item than the Paladin. The Paladin still needs to fulfill the requirement of the maneuver in order to use it (including knowing one or more maneuvers from the school and having the right initiator level), whereas the Crusader achieves this by default. I don't see how this is an advantage for the Paladin; quite the contrary, this is a way for a Crusader to push just enough to have all three 9th level maneuvers from the schools it has access to, even if Stone Dragon's 9th level maneuver has no requirement (which is a boon for ANYONE, not just the Paladin). The advantage the Paladin has is that it can use the maneuver on its self-enchanted Holy Sword after a suite of full buffs, which the Crusader can't pull off. That, and it has access to various wands, but that leads to how the Paladin makes better use of WBL than the Crusader (or rather, why WBL is so good in 3.5).

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ T.G. Oskar:


Your use of probability looks questionable at best there. I mean no insult, but it really does.
50% is LOW for a full BAB class's to-hit chance at anything but the lowest level of play. Full base attack and a +2 str bonus alone virtually guarantees you'll have at least a 50% to-hit from level 1, given the typical AC for everything in the MM is CR +13 give or take a point. The instant npc tables in the DMG typically put npc humanoids at an even lower ac.

Let's do a couple of samples.

Equipment listed for each level will be the same for both characters. Both characters start with a 15 in str, and wield a greatsword.

Level 6: +1 weapon.
Str +3, Weapon +1, Bab +6 = +10
Enemy AC =19
Hitting on a 9 means 60% hit rate.

Average base damage = 7(average of 2d6) +1(enhancement) +4(str) = 12 damage on a hit.

Paladin full attack = (.6X12)+(.35X12)= 11.4 damage/round average OR 22.75% to do 24 damage, and 51.25% chance to do 12 damage. 74% total chance to do damage.

Crusader using Mountain Hammer= 60% chance to do 19 damage, bypassing DR. OR .6X19 = 11.4 damage/round.

Result = Same average damage, but the paladin is 14% more likely to get at least some damage. Paladin also has the higher maximum damage.

Level 11: Guantlets of ogre power, +2 weapon
+4str(+3base) +2(weapn) +11 BAB = 17
Target AC = 24
Hitting on 7 means 70% hit rate.

Average base damage = 7 +2(enhancement) +6(str) = 15 damage.

Paladin full attack: (.7X15)+(.45X15)+(.2X15)=20.25 average damage/round OR 6.3% chance to do 45, 32.8% chance to do 30, and 47.7% chance at 15. Total chance to hit 86.8%

Crusader using Elder Mountain Hammer:

.7X(15+21[average of 6d6]) = 25.2 average damage OR 70% chance to do 36 damage.

Result: Crusader has higher average damage, but the paladin has the higher potential damage and is more likely to deliver at least some damage.

Level 17: +6 girdle of giant's str, +4 weapon
+7str(+4base) +4(weapon) +17Bab = +28 to hit
Target AC = 30
Hitting on 2 makes 95% hit rate.

Average damage = 7 +10(str) +4(enhancement) = 21 base damage.

Paladin full attack:

(.95X21)+(.7X21)+(.45X21)+(.2X21)= 48.3 average damage/round. OR 5.9% chance to do 84 damage, 34.14% to do 63, 41.31% to do 42 and 17.99% to do 21. Overall 99.34% chance to do at least some damage.

Crusader using Ancient Mountain Hammer:

.95X(21+42[average of 12d6])= 59.85 average damage.

Result: Once again, the crusader has the higher average, but the paladin has the higher potential and is more likely to deliver at least some damage.

Reasons for specific choices made:

Moutain Hammers were chosen because all other level appropriate Crusader strikes either did less damage and attached a status effect, or caused some drawback to the crusader.

No crusader strike grants a full attack, and all charge based strikes were disregarded because I'm not challenging the crusader's ability to do more damage on a charge.

Smites were left off because both classes have a smite that can be used to boost to-hit and damage. The only difference in smiting is that the paladin does it more often, and has nothing to disincentivise its use.

The use of Power Attack will shuffle the numbers around, but they'll favor the paladin because the loss of to-hit is mitigated, by multiple attacks, for average damage.

Divine Surge wasn't used in the 11th level block because it's an aberation. It does dramatically more damage at its level than any other strike in the book. Divine surge would give the crusader still higher average damage on the level 11 set and even a slightly higher maximum, but it wouldn't change the fact the paladin has the chance to do partial damage while the crusader does not.

Equipment was chosen as level appropriate based on the magic item compendium's table 6-3 item levels by price.

Str 15 was chosen because it's dramatically more likely to come up on rolled stats than 18, it's also the highest number the designers ran play-testing with, and the highest point in an elite array. In short, it's the number the system was balanced around. Increasing to 18 or even 20 won't change the numbers much, though.

Further points:

In fact, most boosts will favor the paladin. Haste means an extra attack, that the crusader can't use with his strikes, bigger numbers favor the paladin by increasing his average quadratically while the crusader's numbers increase in a linear fashion, and effects that break the action economy affect both equally.

Between this, and the fact that the paladin can pick up Martial Spirit, Crusader's Strike, and Revitalizing Strike either through feats or items, while there is no way for a crusader to pick up lay on hands or cure spells, makes a paladin an outright better healer than the crusader, period.

When you take everything in core + ToB into account, the crusader and paladin are very, very close to equal in overall ability. They just each do some things better than the other.

[eggs]

Mathematically speaking, any attack after the first has a smaller chance of success.

The first attack is at full attack bonus, so it has the highest chance of hitting. The second attack is at a -5 penalty, the third at a -10 and the fourth at a -15. Assuming the same AC for all the attacks, and a base 50% chance of success (you hit on a 11 or higher), hitting once has a 50% chance of success, two hits have a 37.5% chance of success, three hits have a 25% chance and all four hits have a 12.5% chance. That's 1 turn in 8, if my calculations aren't wrong, that you hit all four strikes. Meanwhile, the Crusader deals an extra amount of damage with one attack at a 50% chance, if guided by the same parameters. If your attack bonus is high enough, then you'll notice that the chances of success for landing 4 hits increase. You'll never get higher than 95% (you always fail on a natural 1 roll), so the best you can hope is for a bonus to attack rolls of +20 (essentially True Strike for 1 round) or a way to reduce AC in order for a full attack to deal as much damage as a strike maneuver.
I'm not weighing in on any side right now, but this is flawed.

Firstly, if the probability of the first hit is .5 [11,20], the probability of the second will be .25 [6,10], the third .05 {20}, and the fourth .05 {20}. The probability of 1 hit would be ~.49, 2 hits ~.16, 3 hits ~.01, 4 hits basically 0. So with a 50% hit chance on the first attack, you'd expect to do .85*attack damage with a full round attack (disregarding criticals for the moment), compared to .5*(attack+strike damage/rider effect) for a strike.

But secondly, 50% is a very low estimate for the first attack.Since we're talking about 4 attacks, I'll assume we're talking level 20. Armor class averages hover around 35, which means just from weapon enhancement + base attack + 30 strength, we're usually starting at a .95 probability of that first attack landing; and with any buffs, situational bonuses, etc., that .95 probability can hold through to the third attack without much trouble. Plus by this point, it's usually safe to assume a haste effect, which swings this further.

So revising this with pretty conservative assumptions (+5 weapon, +2 attack from a buff/charge/positioning/whatever, +10 strength), you're looking at +37/+32/+27/+22 attack without haste, +38/+38/+33/+28/+23 with haste, for an expected 2.92*damage full attack w/o Haste, 4.00*damage w/ Haste; and you're comparing to .95*(damage+strike damage/rider effect), which is usually much more favorable to the full attack.

[MukkTB]

The Paladin has a built in self destruct system and the crusader does not. The Crusader's maneuvers and stances make combat more interesting. However the Crusader doesn't do all that much out of combat. Only a few of its stances and maneuvers are useful without something to hit. The paladin get a few things to do outside of combat. Furthermore the paladin has a decent optimization ceiling if you include all the things for it wizards have published.

If I knew I was going into a game that wasn't too combat centered with a lenient DM I'd play the paladin. If I was going in with a strict DM I wouldn't touch the paladin with a 20 foot pole. If I knew the campaign was a hack and slash grind fest I would revel in the Crusaders stances and maneuvers. If I didn't know what I was getting into I'd opt for the crusader. Take away the idiot code for the paladin and I'd have something different to say.

[eggs]

@Kelb - Good breakdown, but I have a couple nitpicks:

Equipment was chosen as level appropriate based on the magic item compendium's table 6-3 item levels by price.
The MIC's item levels shoot low, and often in less cost-effective ways than players will. The weapons with only enhancement bonuses are conspicuous examples. Even within the same price range, if the +4 weapon (32k) could be swapped out for a +1 Holy weapon, a crystal of energy assault and pearl of power III or +2 weapon, augment crystal and a Tooth of Leraje (30k or 31k, respectively), which would be an advantage to both characters, but which would swing the average damage dynamic in the paladin's favor.

Just running off your level 17 example, Holy+Lesser Energy Assault would bump the full-round attack damage up to 72.45, but leave the Crusader's damage at 69.83. This is still a low estimate for the resources that can be invested, and the more damage boosts and extra attacks are added, the more pronounced the full attack advantage becomes.



The use of Power Attack will shuffle the numbers around, but they'll favor the paladin because the loss of to-hit is mitigated, by multiple attacks, for average damage.
This isn't how it usually works. Take what might be a slightly more minmaxed example at level 11:
Crusader 11
Equipment: +1 Holy Greatsword boosted to +5 with a tooth of Leraje.
Strength: 18 base + 2 levels + 4 enhancement = 24
Attack = 11 BA + 7 Str + 5 weapon = 23 before misc. bonuses
Damage = 7 + 13 enhancements + 10 Str = 30 base

By your CR+13 estimate, AC is around 24, so probabilities of hits are at .95/.8/.55. On a full attack, expected damage is 69; on an Elder Mountain Hammer, expected damage is 48.45.

But because power attacking on the standard action strike doesn't suffer the negative repercussions of the power attack action (attack bonus+2>target AC), it tends to deal with PA better (unless Shock Trooper+pounce or huge attack bonuses are thrown into the mix). So with the example character, Power Attacking for 2 points raises the expected damage strike damage by 3.8 (probability to hit is still .95, but damage goes up to 34+21), but only raises the expected damage of the full attack by 2.4 (off-set by the lowered hit chance in iteratives - probabilities become .95/.7/.45 while damage goes up to 34).

EDIT:
This is still ignoring criticals, which slightly favor full attacks, but which are a pain to track, don't change much and don't always apply.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Kelb - Good breakdown, but I have a couple nitpicks:

The MIC's item levels shoot low, and often in less cost-effective ways than players will. The weapons with only enhancement bonuses are conspicuous examples. Even within the same price range, if the +4 weapon (32k) could be swapped out for a +1 Holy weapon, a crystal of energy assault and pearl of power III or +2 weapon, augment crystal and a Tooth of Leraje (30k or 31k, respectively), which would be an advantage to both characters, but which would swing the average damage dynamic in the paladin's favor.

Just running off your level 17 example, Holy+Lesser Energy Assault would bump the full-round attack damage up to 72.45, but leave the Crusader's damage at 69.83. This is still a low estimate for the resources that can be invested, and the more damage boosts and extra attacks are added, the more pronounced the full attack advantage becomes.


This isn't how it usually works. Take what might be a slightly more minmaxed example at level 11:
Crusader 11
Equipment: +1 Holy Greatsword boosted to +5 with a tooth of Leraje.
Strength: 18 base + 2 levels + 4 enhancement = 24
Attack = 11 BA + 7 Str + 5 weapon = 23 before misc. bonuses
Damage = 7 + 13 enhancements + 10 Str = 30 base

By your CR+13 estimate, AC is around 24, so probabilities of hits are at .95/.8/.55. On a full attack, expected damage is 69; on an Elder Mountain Hammer, expected damage is 48.45.

But because power attacking on the standard action strike doesn't suffer the negative repercussions of the power attack action (attack bonus+2>target AC), it tends to deal with PA better (unless Shock Trooper+pounce or huge attack bonuses are thrown into the mix). So with the example character, Power Attacking for 2 points raises the expected damage strike damage by 3.8 (probability to hit is still .95, but damage goes up to 34+21), but only raises the expected damage of the full attack by 2.4 (off-set by the lowered hit chance in iteratives - probabilities become .95/.7/.45 while damage goes up to 34).

EDIT:
This is still ignoring criticals, which slightly favor full attacks, but which are a pain to track, don't change much and don't always apply.

A big part of why I listed more than just average damage in those calculations is because a character never does average damage. They do average base damage, or they do no damage, on any given attack. Averages are great for long-term performance, but it's important to look at the numbers for individual battles too.

In your retooled level 11 example, the character will do 30, 60, or 90 damage without PA, and will do 34, 68, or 102 with it. After the 2 points for PA its an 81% to do either 68 or 102, and is virtually guaranteed to hit at least once, doing at minimum 34, at a 99.18% chance.

The crusader will either do his 55 or he won't, albeit at a 95% chance.

The full attack is much more reliable, IMO, especially given the crusader's refresh mechanic.


I do agree that crit's aren't worth the extra effort to calculate if you're not discussing crit fishers though. For a greatsword they have a fairly minimal impact on average damage, and they're just too unlikely to take as a serious consideration in individual battles.

Btw, CR +13 isn't an estimate. It's the nearest whole number to the actuall average. I'll see if I can find a link to where someone's done the math.

It's also the target AC the MM gives for creating your own creature.

[eggs]

The full attack is much more reliable, IMO, especially given the crusader's refresh mechanic.
The full attack more reliably deals damage, which is different than reliably benefiting from Power Attack.

On that full-round attack with 2-point PA, there is a 81% chance that one of the second two attacks won't miss because of power attack. The other 19% of the time, PA will actually be hurting the user.

The standard action strike will never miss because of power attack. There's a 5% chance it won't gain anything, but that's much less likely and much less detrimental than the full-attacker invoking PA's penalty.

And I've seen those numbers, you don't need to dig them up. I called it an estimate, because like you said, the average is an easy representation, not the relevant value itself.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The full attack more reliably deals damage, which is different than reliably benefiting from Power Attack.

On that full-round attack with 2-point PA, there is a 81% chance that one of the second two attacks won't miss because of power attack. The other 19% of the time, PA will actually be hurting the user.

The standard action strike will never miss because of power attack. There's a 5% chance it won't gain anything, but that's much less likely and much less detrimental than the full-attacker invoking PA's penalty.

And I've seen those numbers, you don't need to dig them up. I called it an estimate, because like you said, the average is an easy representation, not the relevant value itself.

Actually the 81% accounts for both the possibility of hitting with any 2 of the three attacks, plus the chance of all 3 hitting. It's actually about even odds that you'll hit with any 2 of the three. There's only an 8.25% chance of all three missing. Meaning the other 10.75% is the chance he'll hit once.

An 81% chance to do at least 24% more damage than the crusader will do 95% of the time is nothing to scoff at. Considering that 11 of the remaining 19% of the time he'll still do 65% of the crusader's damage and the fact that he's 4.18% more likely to hit overall, it's just a better deal.

In the long run, the numbers for individual battles, the % chance of doing the actual damage numbers, is more important than the overall averages, because if you don't survive this battle, you won't see the next one and your performance won't have the chance to trend toward average. In other words, while the paladin is gaining 1.4 damage less on the average, he's gaining 8 or 12 damage 81% of the time while the crusader is only gaining 4 damage 95% of the time. Moreover, the paladin is gaining at least as much as the crusader 99.18% of the time.

The lower average is less important than the actual damage gained.

[eggs]

Actually the 81% accounts for both the possibility of hitting with any 2 of the three attacks, plus the chance of all 3 hitting.
You misunderstand. .9 chance of not missing due to the second attack's power attack * .9 chance of not missing due to the third's. Either of those costs more damage than the other two attacks that round can offset with +4 damage from the feat.

[darkdragoon]

simple: ToB has minimal value for paladin. about the only useful thing to paladin is Eternal Blade, and that is because, paladin doesnt have the option to rebuke undead, and as a result, cant actually get RKV levels (most people just ignore that part though because its pendantic about minor wording.).


Martial Study
Martial Stance

Devoted Spirit amulet both as maneuver storage and a conveniently placed holy symbol (reading entire descriptions is super secret tech!)

To a lesser degree, Divine Spirit, Song of White Raven (Bardadins)

They're one of the few that can actually do something with Avenging Strike, for that matter.

While perhaps not quite as nice as Complete Champion or Complete Divine (both of which arguably are bigger boosts for Clerics), that's still some decent options.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You misunderstand. .9 chance of not missing due to the second attack's power attack * .9 chance of not missing due to the third's. Either of those costs more damage than the other two attacks that round can offset with +4 damage from the feat.

You've lost me here.

There's a 29.93% chance of hitting with all three attacks, and a 51.01% chance to hit with any two of the three; total 80.94%

I guess I shouldn't've rounded it off. Maybe that's the source of confusion?

[toapat]

Martial Study
Martial Stance

Devoted Spirit amulet both as maneuver storage and a conveniently placed holy symbol (reading entire descriptions is super secret tech!)

To a lesser degree, Divine Spirit, Song of White Raven (Bardadins)

They're one of the few that can actually do something with Avenging Strike, for that matter.

While perhaps not quite as nice as Complete Champion or Complete Divine (both of which arguably are bigger boosts for Clerics), that's still some decent options.

Avenging Strike is nigh useless, Martial Study costs way too much for a class that is positively destroyed by feat starvation.

[eggs]

You've lost me here.

There's a 29.93% chance of hitting with all three attacks, and a 51.01% chance to hit with any two of the three; total 80.94%

I guess I shouldn't've rounded it off. Maybe that's the source of confusion?
I'm sorry. I could have laid this out better. I'm not referring to your numbers.

Only one attack in this scenario has a hit chance which is unaffected by the power attack penalty (the first of the three). The other two have their individual failure chances increased by 10 percentage points.

On both the second and third individual rolls, there is a 1 in 10 chance of rolling values which would have otherwise been hits. These are rolls in which using power attack has decreased the damage output for the round (the 30 base damage for a hit is effectively lost for a maximum 8 damage returned from power attack).

The probability that an individual roll does not hit the damage-decreasing values is .9.

The probability that neither of the two rolls decreases the round's damage output through power attack is .9*.9=.81.

This means there is an 81% chance of power attack increasing the damage per round or leaving it unaltered, and a 19% chance of PA decreasing the round's damage, compared to the single strike's 95% chance of benefit and 5% chance of no change.

The point is that Power Attacking for a full attack is more likely to do some damage at all than a single attack, and the full attack has a higher potential for Power Attack return (I'm not arguing either of those), but the full attack use of the feat is much less reliably beneficial than the single attack and has less expected return.

It's easier for the full attacker to pretend PA's not there than the strike-user - especially since in the context of a Paladin/Crusader discussion, the strike-user is very good at AoOs (a second situation in which Power Attack is either beneficial or neutral for its user).

EDIT: Mounted Charges flip this completely, but I was more focusing on the tactics than classes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, now I follow.

I personally think the 1:5 chance of doing less damage in a given round is worth the 4:5 chance of a net gain, but YMMV. I also think the 99% consistent damage is better than the 95% either/or situation, but again that's just personal preference.

Then again, if the crusader doesn't have a high damage strike appropriate to the situation granted, the numbers become identical. This also helps to level the playing field.

Numbers don't lie. The crusader and paladin are close to equal in head-breaking. The crusader just has the more mechanically interesting way to do it. I think that, and the fact that many people either don't know how or just don't bother to run the numbers, is a big portion of why so many people say, "Crusader > Paladin." It's not at all as unambiguous as it's made out to be.

[navar100]

The mathematical equality for head breaking comes from comparing strikes with full attacks. Only on the first round of combat, or the round after a foe is dropped will the paladin be unable to full attack. With the notable exception of divine surge, there's no point where a strike will consistently do notably more damage than a full attack. Some of the higher level strikes you listed even come at a penalty for the crusader or require a full round action to deliver a single attack.

If you want to bring items into the mix, the paladin has a huge advantage: crown of the white raven. A paladin can pick up many of the crusader's tricks for a bit of gp. The crusader can't do the same. Funny how that little tidbit gets left out of this comparison so often. Don't you think?

But the paladin needs to do a full attack which is not consistent. The crusader gets to move more than 5 ft and still do something awesome. That's the game's fault in overvaluing making an attack, not the paladin's, but that's the point. Tome of Battle in general is to allow warriors do cool things without having to do a full attack, which requires staying in one place and get pounded. Full attacks are great, but sometimes a warrior needs to move more than 5 ft. Paladins, like other non-Tome of Magic warriors, are punished for that offensively. As much as I like 3E I recognize that's unfortunate. There are things a warrior can do while moving more than 5 ft, even if just the staple of tripping, disarming, or bull rushing, but the crusader, along with warblade and swordsage, can do so much more. Damage is great. Barbarians can outdamage warblades easily. However, there's more to combat than just damage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Navar:

I recognize the fact that the martial adepts are a bit more mobile than the non-adepts. That's not as big a deal as it's made out to be either though. Unless you're either consistently mowing through sword-fodder enemies, or min-maxed to the point of 1-shotting all of your enemies, you're going to be in a position to full-attack alot more than you're going to be moving around, and as I said before, martial maneuvers are not solely the province of martial adepts. Martial scripts, crown of the white raven, and martial study/stance all make maneuvers generally available, albeit at a significantly lower rate and level.

As for the assertion that damage isn't the entirety of combat: While this is true to an extent, ultimately all martial adepts are geared to do damage. Virtually all martial characters are geared for damage. That's their purpose. It's nice that the adepts (and anyone else that picks up a few maneuvers) get to do status effects as well, but those status effects aren't what kill the enemy. The damage is what kills them, with only a couple of notable exceptions.

@eggs:

Another point about those probabilities: If you continue to increase the attack bonus, while using PA to scale it back to the 95% hit rate on the primary attack, the percentages don't change while the difference in damage for the 19% shrinks. At the extreme of being able to PA the entire base attack, the paladin's damage ratings become 44 damage 19% of the time and 88 or 132 80% of the time; to the crusader's 62 damage 95% of the time.

The crusader misses altogether 4X more often than the paladin does 67% of the crusader's average damage, and 4:5 times the paladin does between 35% and 103% more damage.

The crusader's biggest advantage in damage is that, since it comes all at once, it will start triggering massive damage saves at an earlier level.

[eggs]

Yeah, Shock Trooper and Wraithstrike turn PA into a gimme


But the paladin needs to do a full attack which is not consistent.
This is one area where the paladin isn't actually at such a disadvantage. In-class, it has Turning and a charisma priority, which makes Travel Devotion easily usable; it has Knight's Move on its spell list and potentially in its wand chambers; it has access to Sword of the Arcane Order, which can give it tricks like Polymorph, Benign Transposition (quickened with a rod or circlet of rapid casting) or Lesser Celerity + Favor of the Martyr (again, in-class). Plus its spell list and class features make mounted charge builds very easy and effective, decreasing the need for a full attack.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, Shock Trooper and Wraithstrike turn PA into a gimme


This is one area where the paladin isn't actually at such a disadvantage. In-class, it has Turning and a charisma priority, which makes Travel Devotion easily usable; it has Knight's Move on its spell list and potentially in its wand chambers; it has access to Sword of the Arcane Order, which can give it tricks like Polymorph, Benign Transposition (quickened with a rod or circlet of rapid casting) or Lesser Celerity + Favor of the Martyr (again, in-class). Plus its spell list and class features make mounted charge builds very easy and effective, decreasing the need for a full attack.

Bear in mind that the only one of those that's a given is the mounted charging ability. Everything else listed requires more than just Core + ToB. If all of that is available, the paladin's op ceiling is notably higher, but even with just core + ToB the two are very comparable in ability. The ability to move in combat is often dramatically over-emphasized. It's a very useful ability -sometimes- but, as I said previously, it's a smaller factor in the character's ability than his ability to deal damage or otherwise hinder the enemy.

Also consider this: in a Core + ToB game, mounted archery isn't an entirely useless combat style. Most of the massive damage boosters aren't available and a paladin using a longbow from horse back can move freely about the battlefield while making full attacks. With PA as a non-option his damage potential becomes somewhat less than the crusader, but his maneuverability is enhanced tremendously by going around the action economy. This can even be supplemented with spirited charge or power attack, and a lance, for situations where long-range combat isn't an option. Archery also means that if an enemy drops in the middle of a full attack, fire can be redirected immediately, with no need to move.

[Lans]

Is their a rule that prevents his horse/wombat/dragon from walking over and him full attacking?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is their a rule that prevents his horse/wombat/dragon from walking over and him full attacking?

Unfortunately yes. The rules in the mounted combat section of the combat chapter of the PHB say quite plainly that you can only make a single attack if your mount moves more than 5ft.

There are PrC's that allow full attacks after a mount moves, or even charges, but if they aren't available the mounted paladin can only make a single melee attack after a move.

In any case, the mount does create another pool of HP for enemies to target, potentially increasing the paladin's staying power by a dramatic degree. The decision of whether the paladin or his mount is the greater portion of the threat will vary from one enemy to the next, depending on that foe's combat capabilities and intelligence.

[Lans]

I suppose a player could give the mount throw rocks and hurl allies feats:smallbiggrin:

The mount also gives a mobility option, as it can move its full move(ie run) with out a penalty to the paladin, plus options for flying, burrowing, or swimming mounts.

[Eldariel]

Unfortunately yes. The rules in the mounted combat section of the combat chapter of the PHB say quite plainly that you can only make a single attack if your mount moves more than 5ft.

There are PrC's that allow full attacks after a mount moves, or even charges, but if they aren't available the mounted paladin can only make a single melee attack after a move.

In any case, the mount does create another pool of HP for enemies to target, potentially increasing the paladin's staying power by a dramatic degree. The decision of whether the paladin or his mount is the greater portion of the threat will vary from one enemy to the next, depending on that foe's combat capabilities and intelligence.

Pally has Shield Other available soon enough after getting his Mount anyways so he can effectively combine his HP pool with the Mount's if he so desires.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Pally has Shield Other available soon enough after getting his Mount anyways so he can effectively combine his HP pool with the Mount's if he so desires.

Good catch. I forgot about that.

[LordBlades]

The ability to move in combat is often dramatically over-emphasized. It's a very useful ability -sometimes- but, as I said previously, it's a smaller factor in the character's ability than his ability to deal damage or otherwise hinder the enemy.


TBH, I think the ability to move in combat comes up relatively often(speaking in general, not necessarily paladin here). The way I see it, there are mainly 2 categories of circumstances in which a character will have it's ability to full attack hindered:

1)Opponent specifics. Some opponents just don't want to stand still and trade full attacks usually because they can do their shtick as a standard action and/or while moving/from range (casters, ToB classes, warlocks, DFA, most binders, chargers, archers etc.) and they have the possibility to do so (ranks in tumble, move/swift action teleports, superior speed that makes closing up really hard, hit&run builds etc.). This comes up quite often in higher optimization campaigns, but I'm willing to bet the 'average campaign' usually takes monsters straight out of MMs, and the DM doesn't do too much (if any)optimization on them. And most monsters either don't want to avoid trading full attacks because their own full attack is strong/they usually suffer even bigger damage problems than the PCs when they can't full attack (although IMO at least pounce became way more common in later monsters) or they lack the possibility to get away (not many non-melee monsters posses ranks in tumble and/or non-standard action teleports).

2)First round of combat. Usually combat doesn't start with enemies adjacent. If player goes first: he can charge/move (so no full attack without further class features/spells/feats investment), ready action (again no full attack) or delay (which leads to next situation). If monster goes first: he either charges/approaches the PC, case in which he gets to full attack on his turn, or he doesn't (approaches somebody else, does something else from his current position etc.). I believe it's fair assessment to say that you usually won't get to full attack on the first combat round.

How often that comes up is directly related to how long combats take . If your average combat lasts 1 round, it means you almost never get to full attack. If it lasts 10 rounds, it's not a big deal (you don't get to full attack 10% of the time).

Using your DPR numbers from a previous post and average HP per CR from here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869122/Optimization_By_The_Numbers) I'll try to estimate the length of an average combat (4 PCs vs. 1 equal CR opponent). I know the math is not 100% accurate (not all PCs will be identical melee builds, some will hit harder, other not so much) but I don't expect the actual numbers in game to deviate too much.

Level 6: 11.4 DPR, average monster HP 69.12. Combat length=1.5 rounds.
Level 11: (20.25 DPR), average monster HP 163.83. Combat length=2.02 rounds.
Level 17: (48.3 DPR), average monster HP 244.86. Combat length=1.26 rounds.

Even assuming that a combat lasts on average 3 rounds in practice means that you won't be able to full attack roughly 1/3rd of the time. Even if we assume it takes double in practice, it means 1 round out of 4.

I wouldn't say something that comes up about as often as a dragon's breath weapon is 'dramatically over-emphasized'

[Kelb_Panthera]

In a party of mostly damage dealing melee characters, yes paladin is probably not the best choice if martial adepts are on the table, for exactly the reason you've presented.

However, the "typical" party is assumed to have only 1 or 2 characters dedicated to damage (martial + Skillmonkey), 1 buffing character (cleric or wizard), and 1 utility character (wizard or skillmonkey).

It is probably well enough known at this point that the "typical" party make-up is completely uneccesary and is, consequently, by no means typical, but it's still fairly unlikely that the entire party will be dedicated solely to dealing damage. More likely, the crusader or paladin will be dealing damage, while the cleric or wizard is buffing/debuffing, and the rogue is flanking with sneak attacks and/or the wizard is manipulating the battlefield. This would, on average, double the above figures*. 3-ish rounds at 6, 4-ish rounds at 11, and back to 3-ish rounds at 17.

In any case, single monster challenges are well known to be somewhat less than challenging, with the possible exception of true dragons. A group of enemies comprised of 2-4 enemies of a CR 2-4 points lower than party's average level is, IMO, probably more common. In that case, the paladin or crusader may end up with an enemy to himself. This will make the battles even longer, but may include a round or two of moving between fallen and still active enemies.


*I'm only estimating here as I'm about to go to bed, I may come back and actually do the math later.

[Snowbluff]

@Kelb_Panthera

Except that anyone with a wand can replicate every spell in the Paladin List. Including their healing spells. Crusaders are so great due to the fact that healing doesn't deal significant harm to their action economy.

Also, it is unacceptable to ignore Divine Surge. If that is how Crusader's deal damage, then deal with it. Greater Divine Surge might be outside the realm of possibility for some (except those with Incarnate dips, cleric spell list, or Undead Crusaders), though.

[JBento]

All math aside, the Crusader is superior to the Paladin on the basis that it does not come attached to a retarded Code of Conduct based on a poorly designed alignment system.

Remember, kids - if the party Rogue lies a lot or cheats at games of chance, you can't be in the same party as it. If the Druid likes to cast Poison (and it should, because it's a good spell), that's a no-no, too. Ambushes? Not allowed.

For the record, if you outnumber (at the start of the fight) your opponents of similar physiology, as in, another humanoid (for standard adventuring parties), that is construed as "not acting wiht honor" in many/most cultures, and could very well constitute a breach of the Paladin's Code of Conduct.

Paladins: For when you weren't going to use tactics anyway.

[Snowbluff]

Paladins: For when you weren't going to use tactics anyway.

Which can make being a Paladin of the Red Knight really awkward sometimes. :smallredface:

[T.G. Oskar]

All math aside, the Crusader is superior to the Paladin on the basis that it does not come attached to a retarded Code of Conduct based on a poorly designed alignment system.

Remember, kids - if the party Rogue lies a lot or cheats at games of chance, you can't be in the same party as it. If the Druid likes to cast Poison (and it should, because it's a good spell), that's a no-no, too. Ambushes? Not allowed.

For the record, if you outnumber (at the start of the fight) your opponents of similar physiology, as in, another humanoid (for standard adventuring parties), that is construed as "not acting wiht honor" in many/most cultures, and could very well constitute a breach of the Paladin's Code of Conduct.

Paladins: For when you weren't going to use tactics anyway.

That's a gross misunderstanding.

For starters, Paladins aren't necessarily strangers to ambushes. They are knights, after all, and well versed in the lore of tactics. Personally, they will attempt to act with honor both inside and outside of combat, but they are quite willing to flank, for example, in mass-combat situations. In fact, if the best way to handle the enemy is by an ambush (likely because facing them head-on would needlessly endanger the party), that's no less honorable. That'd be akin to say the paladin can't do sneak attack, since there isn't something that explicitly negates it.

Second, that bit about "outnumbering"...if you outnumber someone whose CR is 4 or more points higher, and you have the Paladin withdraw from battle because it is a "breach of honor", that Paladin is more than likely to fall than if he participates. If the enemy is weaker, he surely has the prerogative to parley, but if the opponent insists, backing down from battle is likewise a breach. Thing is, we can be debating that all day, but it ends up specifically as a question of interpretation. I, as a DM or as a player, may interpret the Code differently than how you or any of the people here may interpret the Code, as a DM or as a player. That is the reason why it's best to speak with the DM before trying to play a Paladin, because it's essentially a roleplay question.

Third: if that is what makes the Paladin inferior, then the Cleric (and to an extent, the Druid) should likewise be inferior. The Cleric has a code as well, but that code is easier: "please your deity". All deities are supposed to have a code of conduct; if you grossly violate it (note it's the same language used as for the Paladin's code), you're liable to lose your powers until you Atone. If, for example, you follow Heironeous (or Tyr, or Dol Arrah) and you act against your deity's code, you lose your powers just like a Paladin does. That code? Well, in Heironeous' case, it's basically the Code of Chivalry from the Medieval age but altered to reflect its focus towards Heironeous. That code is pretty similar to what the Paladin has to follow, but a bit more stringent. Thing is, the Code is a roleplay tool turned into a mechanic. When the Tier system was implemented, the least that was considered for the Paladin was its Code of Conduct; when people play the Crusader, they focus on the whole package, not whether the Paladin has a code or not.

That's not saying that the Paladin has a disadvantage because of the Code. What I try to convey is that the Crusader is usually considered better because of the whole package. The last bit of this thread has shown that, with the same numbers in play, the Paladin can equal or surpass the Crusader's damage output in a reasonable amount of times, using only full attack; that is a considerable claim, given all the existing data. However, it is the closed optimization boundaries of the Crusader compared to the wide optimization boundaries of the Paladin that make the difference. The Code is merely a point to consider, not the point to end the discussion.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Kelb_Panthera

Except that anyone with a wand can replicate every spell in the Paladin List. Including their healing spells. Crusaders are so great due to the fact that healing doesn't deal significant harm to their action economy.

Also, it is unacceptable to ignore Divine Surge. If that is how Crusader's deal damage, then deal with it. Greater Divine Surge might be outside the realm of possibility for some (except those with Incarnate dips, cleric spell list, or Undead Crusaders), though.

Again, multiclassing isn't comparing the two classes anymore. It's comparing builds, and 1 level dip suggestions presupposes that either human is the only race played or that multiclassing xp penalties are thrown out. This is ignoring RAW. Ignoring RAW is okay, even sometimes necessary, for an actual game, but it's in poor form when discussing the game on the internet.

Use of wands requires either a dip, or UMD. Nevermind how expensive wands get in the long-run. Then there's the fact that a paladin can take martial study for crusader's strike at level 1, revitalizing strike at 12, or divine surge at 15, the former two giving the paladin the ability to heal without affecting his action economy and the latter giving him the most overpowered* of the bonus damage strikes in ToB, though realistically, he'd be much better off picking up crusader's strike at 1st and the other two via CotWR. Then of course there's something as simple as a martial script of martial spirit, healing with every successful attack when he makes as many as 4 times as many attacks as the crusader.

The crusader -could- take cc ranks in umd and buy wands of paladin spells, but there's no magic item to emulate divine grace or lay on hands. If he doesn't want to "waste" skill ranks on UMD, he's stuck with potions, which quickly become expensive and can't be used on someone else with anything resembling efficiency.

The paladin can much more easily nab crusader tricks than vice-versa.

*Divine surge is overpowered in the sense that it is, as previously noted, dramatically more damaging than even many higher level maneuvers. I'm confident that, if errata is ever published, it will be nerfed.

[MukkTB]

The paladin code is so totally open to interpretation that any action you take can be called into suspicion. It just depends on your DM. You can easily fall because your moral code is simply a bit different than the DM's. Railroading or other nastier motives make things infinitely worse.

You essentially need to rule 0 away the paladin's code except in very obvious breaches or the class is unplayable.

[Snowbluff]

Again, multiclassing isn't comparing the two classes anymore. It's comparing builds, and 1 level dip suggestions presupposes that either human is the only race played or that multiclassing xp penalties are thrown out. This is ignoring RAW. Ignoring RAW is okay, even sometimes necessary, for an actual game, but it's in poor form when discussing the game on the internet.

Still doesn't change the possibility of Necropolitan Crusaders, who maybe use Greater Divine Surge ad nauseum.

Then again, we aren't comparing builds due tp the fact that Paladin dips are strictly inferior to both Cleric and Crusader dips, and that the Crusader's IL naturally scales with other classes.


Use of wands requires either a dip, or UMD. Nevermind how expensive wands get in the long-run. Then there's the fact that a paladin can take martial study for crusader's strike at level 1, revitalizing strike at 12, or divine surge at 15, the former two giving the paladin the ability to heal without affecting his action economy and the latter giving him the most overpowered* of the bonus damage strikes in ToB, though realistically, he'd be much better off picking up crusader's strike at 1st and the other two via CotWR. Then of course there's something as simple as a martial script of martial spirit, healing with every successful attack when he makes as many as 4 times as many attacks as the crusader.

Except with out a proper recovery method, the feats are largely wasted unless you are going for Martial Stance. Alas, according to you, we are not comparing builds here. :smallamused:


The crusader -could- take cc ranks in umd and buy wands of paladin spells, but there's no magic item to emulate divine grace or lay on hands. If he doesn't want to "waste" skill ranks on UMD, he's stuck with potions, which quickly become expensive and can't be used on someone else with anything resembling efficiency.

The paladin can much more easily nab crusader tricks than vice-versa.

UMD ranks are never wasted. Ever.

Concerning the Lay on Hands. It only heals, and thus can replicated by a Wand of CLW/Lesser Vigor.

Wands of said spells are insanely cheap and cost effective. Constantly buying scripts will wear out your WBL a lot more quickly.

Martial Spirit isn't very effective later on. Just that. 8 healthy/round at level 16 is simply pathetic. Even Aura of Triumph simply doesn't put out an appropriate amount of healing at that level.

Crusader has Mettle. It helps saves, except it doesn't require any form of MAD. I would say, at the very least, the two class features cancel each other out.

[toapat]

*snip*

ok, so the paladin takes 3 feats to get 3 things the Crusader gets while leveling up. Oh, and the Crusader gets more use out of because the paladin can only use each one once per day.

the Crusader gets to take 7 feats, the paladin gets 4 in this comparison.

Simply put, you are wrong that ToB has any value to paladin.

[Sjlver]

I have played in campaigns where I was a rogue and there was a paladin in the group. Tensions quickly rose because of the CoC the paladin has. I does make it difficult to play in a diverse group. I've also had several experience where paladins were allowed to break that CoC and that made things worse than having a CoC. All in all, unless you have a good DM, the CoC makes the paladin a stupidly hard class to play without many perks to make up for it.

I have never played a paladin but I have played a crusader and they are very fun. Being allowed to be any alignment is very helpful and allows for a diverse group that a paladin would not allow. All in all, from a role playing standpoint, crusader is better and does not restrict much in terms of party composition.

[Kelb_Panthera]

ok, so the paladin takes 3 feats to get 3 things the Crusader gets while leveling up. Oh, and the Crusader gets more use out of because the paladin can only use each one once per day.

the Crusader gets to take 7 feats, the paladin gets 4 in this comparison.

Simply put, you are wrong that ToB has any value to paladin.

No, of course not. The paladin takes any one of those maneuvers as a feat. That's even in my previous post. Also, reread martial study and CotWR, the paladin gets those abilities once/encounter, same as the crusader, be it by feat or crown. He just doesn't get a refresh, though with the crusader only getting a refresh at the beginning of every 4th round, 3rd if he takes a feat, he likely won't get to use the maneuver more than once in an encounter either.

I've also only brought up martial scripts once. Taking them into account, any character; paladin, crusader, or other; can use any martial maneuver or stance. They cost twice as much as potions, but they aren't limited to low level effects. By RAW, once you're in a stance you're in it until you decide not to be or are rendered helpless, which makes scripts of stances a steal. The one hour limit between using the script and activating the maneuver, and the limitation of having only one script read at a time do make them noteably less useful than the CotWR, but they're a far cry from useless.

Even if a paladin did spend an inordinate amount of resources on emulating a crusader; martial study 3 times, martial stance for a couple more feats, and CotWR items left and right, with a few martial scripts for backup; he'd make a not-to-shabby facsimile of a crusader that still has his paladin abilities.

A crusader would have to spend practically his entire WBL to get ahold of a significant portion of the paladin's spell list, in the form of expendable items, and he simply can't emulate the special mount at all without multiclassing, nor can he emulate divine grace, or divine health. Mettle is nice, but you have to make the save for it to have any effect; while many, if not most, fort and will save effects are already all or nothing affairs. Disease isn't usually a serious problem but, when it is, it really is (see mummy rot and lycanthropy).

Not optimal =/= useless.

Of course, if all you have is core + ToB, spending resources picking up martial maneuvers is optimal. It just becomes less and less optimal as you add more and more paladin friendly sources.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I have played in campaigns where I was a rogue and there was a paladin in the group. Tensions quickly rose because of the CoC the paladin has. I does make it difficult to play in a diverse group. I've also had several experience where paladins were allowed to break that CoC and that made things worse than having a CoC. All in all, unless you have a good DM, the CoC makes the paladin a stupidly hard class to play without many perks to make up for it.

I have never played a paladin but I have played a crusader and they are very fun. Being allowed to be any alignment is very helpful and allows for a diverse group that a paladin would not allow. All in all, from a role playing standpoint, crusader is better and does not restrict much in terms of party composition.

I normally ignore these kinds of comments, but this one just rubbed me the wrong way.

Having played with paladin's on both sides of the screen, I can tell you that a good DM doesn't use the CoC against the paladin and a well played paladin doesn't use his CoC against the other players. A rogue doesn't have to always be a shady, backstabbing, kleptomaniac with an inclination to mercilessly kill everything in sight, just like a paladin doesn't have to be an uptight, self-righteous, mothering stick in the mud with an inclination to smite anything that pings his evil-dar.

If your group has a problem with the CoC, or as an extension the alignment system in general, that's a problem with your group. It doesn't mean that either the CoC or the alignment system is inherently unusable.

Edit: Misread Sjilver's post. It is true that a poor DM or a player that misuses the CoC can be a major sticking point for playing a paladin. The diversity thing is crap though. Evil is part of an alignment, not a character concept. There's no reason at all that a paladin and a warlock can't get along just fine, or a paladin and a rogue, or a paladin and a binder.

[toapat]

Not optimal =/= useless.

oh, then Toughness is worth taking?

face it, your argument is a strawman in an ocean of lava. Tome is useless to the non-Innitiators, Non-Chucks of the game. The material is well written, it doesnt mean it plays nicely at all with anyone else.

[JBento]

That's a gross misunderstanding.

For starters, Paladins aren't necessarily strangers to ambushes. They are knights, after all, and well versed in the lore of tactics. Personally, they will attempt to act with honor both inside and outside of combat, but they are quite willing to flank, for example, in mass-combat situations. In fact, if the best way to handle the enemy is by an ambush (likely because facing them head-on would needlessly endanger the party), that's no less honorable. That'd be akin to say the paladin can't do sneak attack, since there isn't something that explicitly negates it.

Second, that bit about "outnumbering"...if you outnumber someone whose CR is 4 or more points higher, and you have the Paladin withdraw from battle because it is a "breach of honor", that Paladin is more than likely to fall than if he participates. If the enemy is weaker, he surely has the prerogative to parley, but if the opponent insists, backing down from battle is likewise a breach. Thing is, we can be debating that all day, but it ends up specifically as a question of interpretation. I, as a DM or as a player, may interpret the Code differently than how you or any of the people here may interpret the Code, as a DM or as a player. That is the reason why it's best to speak with the DM before trying to play a Paladin, because it's essentially a roleplay question.

Third: if that is what makes the Paladin inferior, then the Cleric (and to an extent, the Druid) should likewise be inferior. The Cleric has a code as well, but that code is easier: "please your deity". All deities are supposed to have a code of conduct; if you grossly violate it (note it's the same language used as for the Paladin's code), you're liable to lose your powers until you Atone. If, for example, you follow Heironeous (or Tyr, or Dol Arrah) and you act against your deity's code, you lose your powers just like a Paladin does. That code? Well, in Heironeous' case, it's basically the Code of Chivalry from the Medieval age but altered to reflect its focus towards Heironeous. That code is pretty similar to what the Paladin has to follow, but a bit more stringent. Thing is, the Code is a roleplay tool turned into a mechanic. When the Tier system was implemented, the least that was considered for the Paladin was its Code of Conduct; when people play the Crusader, they focus on the whole package, not whether the Paladin has a code or not.

That's not saying that the Paladin has a disadvantage because of the Code. What I try to convey is that the Crusader is usually considered better because of the whole package. The last bit of this thread has shown that, with the same numbers in play, the Paladin can equal or surpass the Crusader's damage output in a reasonable amount of times, using only full attack; that is a considerable claim, given all the existing data. However, it is the closed optimization boundaries of the Crusader compared to the wide optimization boundaries of the Paladin that make the difference. The Code is merely a point to consider, not the point to end the discussion.

Paladins are not, indeed, strangers to ambushes. They know what they are. They just can't do them. An ambush is, by nature, dishonorable, as your opponent does not know you're there and has not had time to prepare. I hadn't mentioned it but, by the same measure, a Paladin cannot strike in the surprise round.

There is no way to determine CR in-world (and CR grossly misestimates challenge anyway).

Actually, a Cleric doesn't need a deity. He can just as well be a cleric of practicality and effectiveness, and do whatever he thinks is most practical in the situation. Even if it weren't, please your deity can just as well be accomplished by lavishing praises upon them, and converting people to their worship.

Wether you like it or not, the CoC is part of the Paladin package. But, you see, my biggest problem with the Paladin's CoC is not the restrictions it imposes upon the Paladin (who, presumably, goes into it with his eyes open), but the restriction it imposes on the rest of the party, who have to follow it as well if the Paladin is to continue maintaining his powers. If for that alone, the Crusader is superior in that he does not restrict the behaviour of other party members.

EDIT: At Kelb Panthera: The Rogue does not, indeed, have to be a poison-loving, backstabbing bastard in combat. The problem is that, with a Paladin in a party, he CAN'T be (or rather, he can, but I assume the Paladin is going to object to that). The necromancers can't Animate Dead (they also can't create golems if the standard fluff is used, i.e., that they're animated by an elemental spirit tortured into obedience). The Druid can't cast Poison, nor can his animal companion be poisonous (no fleshraker for you). No-one can cast [Evil] spells. Depending on how the DM understands "associate," it's possible that no-one can go into the City of Brass and deal with Efreet, or go to the Underdark and deal with the drow (in a way other than sword/spell/your offensive thing of choice to the face). You want to deal with an Aboleth to gain access to the ridiculous amount of knowledge it has? Nope.

[Kelb_Panthera]

oh, then Toughness is worth taking?

face it, your argument is a strawman in an ocean of lava. Tome is useless to the non-Innitiators, Non-Chucks of the game. The material is well written, it doesnt mean it plays nicely at all with anyone else.

My argument is no straw-man. It's simply a comparison of the crusader and paladin with minimal sources allowed.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that all of the 3.5 system is available to both classes. This is almost universally untrue in practice, though. If it was a given for every table, then the unarguably higher op-ceiling of the paladin should have you arguing that the paladin is superior anyway.

Even stunted, sorcerer/wizard list beats all.*


PS: toughness has its place. That place is either as a prereq' to a PrC that someone wants to play, or as a 1st level wizard or sorcerer's feat in either a one shot, or the event that PHB2's retraining rules are in play.

*This statement is hyperbolic. I don't own a copy of CoR, so I'm not intimately familiar with SotAO.

[JBento]

Actually, iirc, Improved Toughness can replace Toughness for prerequisites. I'm not sure of that, though.

[Snowbluff]

My argument is no straw-man. It's simply a comparison of the crusader and paladin with minimal sources allowed.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that all of the 3.5 system is available to both classes. This is almost universally untrue in practice, though. If it was a given for every table, then the unarguably higher op-ceiling of the paladin should have you arguing that the paladin is superior anyway.

Even stunted, sorcerer/wizard list beats all.*


PS: toughness has its place. That place is either as a prereq' to a PrC that someone wants to play, or as a 1st level wizard or sorcerer's feat in either a one shot, or the event that PHB2's retraining rules are in play.

*This statement is hyperbolic. I don't own a copy of CoR, so I'm not intimately familiar with SotAO.

Except that not all of material has to be available. Ignoring the fact that a single dip in Cleric so Crusader can use one of it's powerful PrCs it has available ,as well as all of it's other ones is silly. It's all in that book and the PhB. Dipping is a strength of the Crusader. :smallcool:

Not to mention if we do not explore the material of 3.5, we might as well be using a different system. :smallyuk:

[toapat]

My argument is no straw-man. It's simply a comparison of the crusader and paladin with minimal sources allowed.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that all of the 3.5 system is available to both classes. This is almost universally untrue in practice, though. If it was a given for every table, then the unarguably higher op-ceiling of the paladin should have you arguing that the paladin is superior anyway.

Even stunted, sorcerer/wizard list beats all.*

*This statement is hyperbolic. I don't own a copy of CoR, so I'm not intimately familiar with SotAO.

No, your argument is flawed because you assume that just because a book has material to allow other classes to use a bit of it, means that it is a viable comparison if no other content is included. Paladin cant use the ToB of content because of how abominable it is for granting any viable options to core.

The things that make Wizard/Sorc awesome are not available to SotAO, the only significant value is it lets you swap out the spell list, or scrollcast anything. on the other hand, Champions of Valor would be the closest thing to a Paladin supplement as 3.5 will get without T.G. Oscar


Actually, iirc, Improved Toughness can replace Toughness for prerequisites. I'm not sure of that, though.

Nope

[Kelb_Panthera]

Except that not all of material has to be available. Ignoring the fact that a single dip in Cleric so Crusader can use one of it's powerful PrCs it has available ,as well as all of it's other ones is silly. It's all in that book and the PhB. Dipping is a strength of the Crusader. :smallcool:

Not to mention if we do not explore the material of 3.5, we might as well be using a different system. :smallyuk:

Comparing multiclass characters in any depth when the subject of the thread is a comparison of two classes is silly. Especially when you just assume that the character will either be human or that multiclassing xp penalties aren't a thing. If you want to talk about dipping, why shouldn't I pull out a comment about a paladin dipping warblade? for multiclassing in general, why shouldn't I suggest a paladin take a dip in warblade and then go into eternal blade? or crusader into RKV? A paladin RKV is unambiguously more powerful than either a straight crusader 20 or paladin 20.

There's nothing wrong with comparing both classes with the entirety of the system in principle. It's just staggeringly less useful for making a decision about which class to play. In this particular case, and many others for that matter, it's also been done to death. I probably wouldn't even have bothered posting if the OP had asked something like, "Which is better, a highly optimized paladin or a highly optimized crusader?" High-op, multiclass monstrosities are an assumption that's all to commonly made when people ask how two classes compare.

Basically what I'm saying is that build advice and class comparison are two seperate things. Trying to blend them quickly becomes confusing for new players. Simply stating that paladin has the higher op ceiling, and that crusader has the higher op floor, should be enough for the sake of a -fair- comparison.

[Snowbluff]

Comparing multiclass characters in any depth when the subject of the thread is a comparison of two classes is silly. Especially when you just assume that the character will either be human or that multiclassing xp penalties aren't a thing. If you want to talk about dipping, why shouldn't I pull out a comment about a paladin dipping warblade? for multiclassing in general, why shouldn't I suggest a paladin take a dip in warblade and then go into eternal blade? or crusader into RKV? A paladin RKV is unambiguously more powerful than either a straight crusader 20 or paladin 20.


Except letting Paladin touch that build is hilariously suboptimal. Why would I dip 4 levels in Paladin when I could dip 1 in Cleric for turning and call it a night?

Beside, Paladin would not be contributing anything past Turning for the most anyway. It's kind of like taking a whole lot of dead levels at once, even with Divine Grace and Crusaders Cha synergy.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, your argument is flawed because you assume that just because a book has material to allow other classes to use a bit of it, means that it is a viable comparison if no other content is included. Paladin cant use the ToB of content because of how abominable it is for granting any viable options to core.

The things that make Wizard/Sorc awesome are not available to SotAO, the only significant value is it lets you swap out the spell list, or scrollcast anything. on the other hand, Champions of Valor would be the closest thing to a Paladin supplement as 3.5 will get without T.G. Oscar



Nope

Some highlights from sorc/wiz levels 1-4.

1) Grease, True strike, sleep, color spray, silent image, ray of enfeeblement, enlarge person

2)protection from arrows, fog cloud, glitterdust, summon swarm, web, detect thoughts, see invisibility, touch of idiocy, blur, mirror image, minor image, false life, spectral hand, alter self, spider climb

3) Dispel Magic, stinking cloud, arcane sight, rage, wind wall, displacement, major image, ray of exhaustion, fly, gaseous form, haste

4) Dimensional anchor, globe of invulnerability, Dimension Door, black tentacles, solid fog, summon monster 4*, wall of fire, greater invisibility, shadow conjuration, mass enlarge person, polymorph, stone shape

*Don't underestimate what can be done with a wave of fodder. (1d4+1 celestial giant bees or bombardier beetles)

Even getting them so very much later than the sorc/wizard, the paladin that has access to all this -will- consistently outperform any crusader that doesn't multiclass.

That's one acf out of one book. Unless there's some restriction on which sorc/wiz spells SotAO allows that you forgot to mention?

[Snowbluff]

Some highlights from sorc/wiz levels 1-4.

1) Grease, True strike, sleep, color spray, silent image, ray of enfeeblement, enlarge person

2)protection from arrows, fog cloud, glitterdust, summon swarm, web, detect thoughts, see invisibility, touch of idiocy, blur, mirror image, minor image, false life, spectral hand, alter self, spider climb

3) Dispel Magic, stinking cloud, arcane sight, rage, wind wall, displacement, major image, ray of exhaustion, fly, gaseous form, haste

4) Dimensional anchor, globe of invulnerability, Dimension Door, black tentacles, solid fog, summon monster 4*, wall of fire, greater invisibility, shadow conjuration, mass enlarge person, polymorph, stone shape

*Don't underestimate what can be done with a wave of fodder. (1d4+1 celestial giant bees or bombardier beetles)

Even getting them so very much later than the sorc/wizard, the paladin that has access to all this -will- consistently outperform any crusader that doesn't multiclass.

That's one acf out of one book. Unless there's some restriction on which sorc/wiz spells SotAO allows that you forgot to mention?

Did you know that Wee Jas has some pretty sweet domains?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Except letting Paladin touch that build is hilariously suboptimal. Why would I dip 4 levels in Paladin when I could dip 1 in Cleric for turning and call it a night?

Beside, Paladin would not be contributing anything past Turning for the most anyway. It's kind of like taking a whole lot of dead levels at once, even with Divine Grace and Crusaders Cha synergy.

Sub-optimal yes, but if you don't you're not even using paladin in the comparison anymore.

Crusader 4/cleric 1/RKV is better than Paladin 4/crusader 1/RKV but that's because of cleric casting, not anything to do with crusader. The difference in IL is only 2. They'd have very nearly the same ability as initiators.

That comparison boils down to cleric casting > paladin casting. A fact anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Did you know that Wee Jas has some pretty sweet domains?

:sigh: Yes, she does. See my previous post for a rebuttal.

[toapat]

Except letting Paladin touch that build is hilariously suboptimal. Why would I dip 4 levels in Paladin when I could dip 1 in Cleric for turning and call it a night?

Beside, Paladin would not be contributing anything past Turning for the most anyway. It's kind of like taking a whole lot of dead levels at once, even with Divine Grace and Crusaders Cha synergy.

it is pretty well known that Swordsage is the optimal RKV initiator base at that.

face it, Kelb isnt going to listen to the fact that there is no point at which a Paladin vs Crusader debate is going to be fair with only the ToB available


Some highlights from sorc/wiz levels 1-4.

1) Grease, True strike, sleep, color spray, silent image, ray of enfeeblement, enlarge person

2)protection from arrows, fog cloud, glitterdust, summon swarm, web, detect thoughts, see invisibility, touch of idiocy, blur, mirror image, minor image, false life, spectral hand, alter self, spider climb

3) Dispel Magic, stinking cloud, arcane sight, rage, wind wall, displacement, major image, ray of exhaustion, fly, gaseous form, haste

4) Dimensional anchor, globe of invulnerability, Dimension Door, black tentacles, solid fog, summon monster 4*, wall of fire, greater invisibility, shadow conjuration, mass enlarge person, polymorph, stone shape

*Don't underestimate what can be done with a wave of fodder. (1d4+1 celestial giant bees or bombardier beetles)

Even getting them so very much later than the sorc/wizard, the paladin that has access to all this -will- consistently outperform any crusader that doesn't multiclass.

That's one acf out of one book. Unless there's some restriction on which sorc/wiz spells SotAO allows that you forgot to mention?

Of those, True Strike is the most useful to paladin. Without access to Battle blessing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

it is pretty well known that Swordsage is the optimal RKV initiator base at that.

face it, Kelb isnt going to listen to the fact that there is no point at which a Paladin vs Crusader debate is going to be fair with only the ToB available

Why should I listen to that "fact?" I've seen nothing to support the notion other than a statement that cleric casting beats paladin casting.

[toapat]

Why should I listen to that "fact?" I've seen nothing to support the notion other than a statement that cleric casting beats paladin casting.

how about Chuck, an RKV who has 4 levels of Swordsage, uses primarily a Swordsage specific tree, and only takes a single level of Crusader specifically to cheaply unlock RKV. He, without resorting to the Gouda, gets to throw people into the sun, which, as a surface with over 625 square feet, is incapable of being missed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

how about Chuck, an RKV who has 4 levels of Swordsage, uses primarily a Swordsage specific tree, and only takes a single level of Crusader specifically to cheaply unlock RKV. He, without resorting to the Gouda, gets to throw people into the sun, which, as a surface with over 625 square feet, is incapable of being missed.

How the heck do you figure chuck is a crusader with only 1 level in the class?

I never said there were no exploits in ToB + Core, but doesn't chuck require some persistomancy and a spell from CC? or did they redo him after footsteps of the divine got errata'd?

I know some decent op-fu, I just don't think that a class comparison is the place to use it. :smallbiggrin:

[Snowbluff]

Sub-optimal yes, but if you don't you're not even using paladin in the comparison anymore.

Crusader 4/cleric 1/RKV is better than Paladin 4/crusader 1/RKV but that's because of cleric casting, not anything to do with crusader. The difference in IL is only 2. They'd have very nearly the same ability as initiators.

That comparison boils down to cleric casting > paladin casting. A fact anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see.

Bah! I've run RKV who weren't allow to use their casting. Works out fine! My main problems is how little paladin would be contributing. Assuming 15 levels, a no-paladin, Cleric1 RKV will be a whole level of maneuvers ahead. :smallannoyed:

Oh, and as far as tiers go, Crusader sits higher than Paladin. Even JaronK agrees with me. :smallcool:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't have a problem with the tier system in general, or with JaronK, but I really don't see the crusader as T3. I get the feeling that the martial adepts all got lumped together when they were added to the list.

I mean really, what is a crusader good at other than combat? His ability as a face isn't really superior to a paladin, a fact that I can't help noticing that noone's questioned. He has some active buffs compared to the paladin's generally passive ones, and.........?


Btw, that RKV that ran without using his casting, persistomancy Y/N?

[Snowbluff]

I don't have a problem with the tier system in general, or with JaronK, but I really don't see the crusader as T3. I get the feeling that the martial adepts all got lumped together when they were added to the list.

I mean really, what is a crusader good at other than combat? His ability as a face isn't really superior to a paladin, a fact that I can't help noticing that noone's questioned. He has some active buffs compared to the paladin's generally passive ones, and.........?


Btw, that RKV that ran without using his casting, persistomancy Y/N?

Well, it's not just that they are good at combat... they are REALLY good. They get all sorts of things that are great for fighting. Things like WRT and party buffs. Normally you'd have to bring a Bard or an actual caster to spread around good buffs, but the Crusader does it without even taking actions.

After that, they blend well with dips for things like Bardsaders. Their PrCs are nothing short of top notch.

Yeah, not spells whatsoever. The cleric was allowed to qualify me for the class. The RKV was something sill I did for a little competition between me and a friend. Pretty much the RKV gave convenient progression stops and made activating my Eternal Blade less action intensive. I would pretty much win initiative (White Raven has a Mave for that) Divine Impetus, Divine Fury alot, activate something as a switching, then full Lady's Gambits, and swing with a maxed out Greater Divine Surge. I did this to help counter my friend's penchant for AC stacking. :smalltongue:

My weapon was filled up with some nasty enchantments, and I took Staggering Strike (Swordsge dip + RKV stance slot qualified me) and a weapon style feat that Nauseated my target or something.

[toapat]

Oh, and as far as tiers go, Crusader sits higher than Paladin. Even JaronK agrees with me. :smallcool:

Crusader is actually Low Tier 3, Paladin has Mid T3 potential, considering some of the bonkers that paladin gets access to (Swift True Strike) with Spells instead of Gimpfu.

Any one of these moves paladin to low T4:

MFK
Battle Blessing
SotAO
Serenity
From Smite To Song
Harmonious Knight

Combined and overall, you reach about Upper Middle T3, comperatively, a Crusader will never have use outside of combat.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, it's not just that they are good at combat... they are REALLY good. They get all sorts of things that are great for fighting. Things like WRT and party buffs. Normally you'd have to bring a Bard or an actual caster to spread around good buffs, but the Crusader does it without even taking actions.

After that, they blend well with dips for things like Bardsaders. Their PrCs are nothing short of top notch.

Yeah, not spells whatsoever. The cleric was allowed to qualify me for the class. The RKV was something sill I did for a little competition between me and a friend. Pretty much the RKV gave convenient progression stops and made activating my Eternal Blade less action intensive. I would pretty much win initiative (White Raven has a Mave for that) Divine Impetus, Divine Fury alot, activate something as a switching, then full Lady's Gambits, and swing with a maxed out Greater Divine Surge. I did this to help counter my friend's penchant for AC stacking. :smalltongue:

My weapon was filled up with some nasty enchantments, and I took Staggering Strike (Swordsge dip + RKV stance slot qualified me) and a weapon style feat that Nauseated my target or something.

I see. Then the only thing that would've changed to your RKV's detriment, if he had used paladin instead of cleric, is that he'd've been one maneuver level behind the curve.

To his credit, he'd have had divine grace, divine health, immunity to fear and an always on buff V fear for his allies.

That doesn't sound like a fair trade to you? The ninth level maneuvers aren't even that good for the most part.

I left off the CoC because I assume that you could've handled the RP requirements.

[Snowbluff]

I see. Then the only thing that would've changed to your RKV's detriment, if he had used paladin instead of cleric, is that he'd've been one maneuver level behind the curve.

To his credit, he'd have had divine grace, divine health, immunity to fear and an always on buff V fear for his allies.

That doesn't sound like a fair trade to you? The ninth level maneuvers aren't even that good for the most part.

I left off the CoC because I assume that you could've handled the RP requirements.

Yeah, except the other 3 levels were better used elsewhere. Namely things like my Swordsage dip. There was a lot more that went into this, I don't remember all of it, though.

[T.G. Oskar]

Paladins are not, indeed, strangers to ambushes. They know what they are. They just can't do them. An ambush is, by nature, dishonorable, as your opponent does not know you're there and has not had time to prepare. I hadn't mentioned it but, by the same measure, a Paladin cannot strike in the surprise round.

Again, this isn't necessarily true. You, as a Paladin, can do an ambush. You won't be good at it because your heavy, shining armor will pretty much serve as a beacon; it can still lead to distraction.

I used the example of sneak attack because that's another thing that might be considered "dishonorable", yet there are several examples that allow you to blend sneak attack with a paladin (a feat, various builds and a PrC). However, sneak attack involves using the element of surprise to strike the enemy in its vitals. It can only be used if you're facing the enemy flat-footed (meaning, you essentially took the enemy unaware), if you're flanking (which means you're ganging up on someone) or if you deny their Dexterity bonus to AC (which means they're essentially stopped or caught completely unaware). That isn't on the definition of Law (it does mention honor AND trustworthiness, which lead to that thought; that is an entirely different matter) and doesn't appear written in the Paladin's code (it is once again suggested). The Knight's code specifically calls these actions as violations; a Paladin's code does not explicitly call them as violations. It explicitly calls as violations cheating, lying and using poison; the "so forth" is not written in stone, and thus is open to interpretation. If the ambush is necessary for a victory, the Paladin won't be an idiot not to try; if the ambush is just one of the many maneuvers, the Paladin will vie for the charge.

The best way to see this is "the Paladin always goes for the charge, but is no fool to tactics". I mean, how do you expect them to be leaders of men if all they know is to charge?


There is no way to determine CR in-world (and CR grossly misestimates challenge anyway).

Well, that means you haven't seen Complete Adventurer. That is one of the uses of Sense Motive...which is a Paladin class skill, by the way. You surely don't know if a creature of CR 4 higher than yours actually has CR equal to your HD+4, but the use of this skill does ensure you have an idea (in that case, it'd be a dire threat). Look at it. Complete Adventurer, page 102. I'm looking at it right now.

Regarding how CR doesn't really properly measures a challenge...indeed, sometimes a creature is more challenging than its CR would suggest. However, it is one guideline you can use as a DM to attempt something near the challenge you seek. It all depends on the party composition: it isn't something you can perfectly measure, but it's something that at least gives you an idea of how it might work. Hey, you might get a surprise and the creature you ambush was a pushover or the creature you didn't ambush because you thought it was a pushover ends up being a complete menace. It can happen.


Actually, a Cleric doesn't need a deity. He can just as well be a cleric of practicality and effectiveness, and do whatever he thinks is most practical in the situation. Even if it weren't, please your deity can just as well be accomplished by lavishing praises upon them, and converting people to their worship.

When I mentioned about Clerics having to follow their deity's code of conduct, I took it straight from the SRD, on the section regarding Ex-Clerics. If it were as easy as pleasing your deity, then there wouldn't be a need to have an example such as that. It exists for one reason; it's just that people conveniently forget that.

And of course, there's the cleric that follows an ideal. You may question me on this, but how does a Paladin has the strictest interpretation of a code and the Cleric has the loosest? Even a Paladin that doesn't follow a deity must follow the code because it's...you know, part of its mechanics; so it must be that a Cleric has to follow a code because it's part of its mechanics. If you don't follow a deity, then at least you MUST be true to the ideal you've chosen. If the ideal is...say, wellness of the community, you can't just go and ruin a community. If your ideal is to promote the wellness of a community and you slaughter a community of orcs next time, you might enter a breach of your code because you've essentially nulled the wellness of a community. Who knows, there is flexibility by saying "well, that community was threatening the wellness of other nearby communities, so it had to be done"...but then you end up in double standard, because one class can have a flexible code while another has a strict one.


Wether you like it or not, the CoC is part of the Paladin package. But, you see, my biggest problem with the Paladin's CoC is not the restrictions it imposes upon the Paladin (who, presumably, goes into it with his eyes open), but the restriction it imposes on the rest of the party, who have to follow it as well if the Paladin is to continue maintaining his powers. If for that alone, the Crusader is superior in that he does not restrict the behaviour of other party members.

Again, you're claiming the superiority of a class (a mechanical aspect of the game) because of a code, or the lack of it (essentially a roleplaying aspect which was shoehorned into a mechanic). That way lies madness.

Playing a Paladin when the rest of the party has resolved into playing greedy backstabbers is either the move of a master or a fool. It all depends on how this is managed. It can create an interesting conflict within the class, which have someone who goes against all they believe, and who is constantly at risk of losing its powers but it's trying its darndest so that the rest of the party sees their way. The party doesn't has to follow the Paladin's code; after all, if you're partying with a group of backstabbers and death-defilers and poison-lovers (particularly backstabbers), they probably don't care if the Paladin loses its powers. They'll probably laugh at him and say "where's your God now?" (likely three seconds after the heavenly smite, if you're dealing with a petty god, or St. Cuthbert). If you play that with the rest of your party, then you're a master; if you do it out of ignorance or because you're trying to cause grief to the party, then you're a fool.

That said: have you noticed that the section regarding association with people who grossly offend their moral code is separate from the Code itself? It only refers to associates, not to the Code itself. The Code doesn't say "you cannot associate with evil creatures", the Associates section does. That's an entirely different section. The loss of powers comes if you violate your Code, not if someone else violates it for you. The sections are pretty clear in that regard. If that is to happen, then why a Cleric of Pelor that travels with a necromancer doesn't lose its powers?

I mention this because you're putting the idea that guilt by association is a reason to breach your Code. Nowhere in the Code does it say that guilt by association is a breach; it says evil acts, dishonorable acts, refusal of mercy and allowing innocents to suffer are considered breaches of conduct, and all but the first are only if they're gross violations.

Just because the Code may seem like an impediment to the Paladin doesn't mean it is a reason why all other classes are suddenly better. If the Crusader was in all ways worse than the Paladin but the latter still has the Code, does that make the Crusader equally better? It makes it easier to play, which may be a factor when a player chooses a class, but not necessarily THE end-all-be-all argument that defines why X class is better than Y class. Again, no one mentions the Cleric sucks because it has a religious code to follow; in fact, no one mentions it, and even clerics of ideals must adhere to their principle in order to work. Any gross violation to their deity or principle is as bad as a gross violation to the Paladin's Code in the case of the Paladin, but the Cleric is still tier 1, is still the option given for characters who want to make badass divine warrior guys (aside from Crusader), and is still considered better than just about anything below Tier 2, and some of Tier 1 as well. That can't be considered the sole point of an argument because it involves a careful consideration of which other classes have the same restrictions and how they reflect on their power. It IS proper to use as part of a larger argument.

I would have probably considered it better if you used it as one of the parts of a larger, more complete argument. That way, it would have been harder to debunk. There is little doubt, IMO, that a large group of the people here consider the Crusader superior, but they don't consider it as such because of their lack of adherence to a code. They do it because of many other reasons, which are being discussed here as well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

it is pretty well known that Swordsage is the optimal RKV initiator base at that.

face it, Kelb isnt going to listen to the fact that there is no point at which a Paladin vs Crusader debate is going to be fair with only the ToB available



Of those, True Strike is the most useful to paladin. Without access to Battle blessing.

Seriously? Alter self and polymorph aren't useful? The ability to strip buffs from non-caster enemies isn't useful? The ability to adjust the battlefield to your liking so that you can more easily smash-face isn't useful?

How's an enemy pinned down by black tentacles supposed to avoid my pally's full attack? How about if my paladin is a mounted archer firing into a fog cloud or stinking cloud at enemies that don't even know which way to turn?

BFC doesn't care what CR the enemies are. It only cares about their ability to ignore the terrain, that is: creatures with alternate movement speeds.

And in any case, I still haven't seen anything to refute my accusation that RKV says, "some other, full-casting divine caster is better than the paladin." more than it says anything else.

PrC's that mashup anything with full-casting beat everything except PrC's that directly improve casting. You could get into RKV as a Monk 4/Cleric 1/RKV and outperform any Paladin or Crusader that doesn't have cleric casting. That's the strength of casting, not the crusader.

[toapat]

Interesting thing i realized in this.

Paladins are the only class in the game that can effectively rip apart the T1 classes without going into cheese.

Underdark Knight (Earthglide)
Mystic Fire Knight (Spellshatter, Smite debuff)
Mage Slayer (AoO goodness)
Drow with LA buyoff. (Spell Resistance, in case there is some way to hit an Underdark Knight while they are using Earthglide)

[toapat]

Seriously? Alter self and polymorph aren't useful? The ability to strip buffs from non-caster enemies isn't useful? The ability to adjust the battlefield to your liking so that you can more easily smash-face isn't useful?

How's an enemy pinned down by black tentacles supposed to avoid my pally's full attack? How about if my paladin is a mounted archer firing into a fog cloud or stinking cloud at enemies that don't even know which way to turn?

BFC doesn't care what CR the enemies are. It only cares about their ability to ignore the terrain, that is: creatures with alternate movement speeds.

And in any case, I still haven't seen anything to refute my accusation that RKV says, "some other, full-casting divine caster is better than the paladin." more than it says anything else.

PrC's that mashup anything with full-casting beat everything except PrC's that directly improve casting. You could get into RKV as a Monk 4/Cleric 1/RKV and outperform any Paladin or Crusader that doesn't have cleric casting. That's the strength of casting, not the crusader.

Caster Level of Blow even with SotAO and MFK makes Alter Self and Polymorph more useful to get from the Leadership feat. SotAO doesnt get you Dispel Magic any earlier, MFK gets you Greater Dispel Magic on a Melee attack, without Save or Resistance. 5 times per day.

Dimensional Anchor is about the only other significant improvement on the list.

the point of RKV is that it is a completely OP class that benefits neither of the classes up for debate

[Snowbluff]

the point of RKV is that it is a completely OP class that benefits neither of the classes up for debate

That's ludicrous. What if I want to use a boost after i countered earlier in the round? Crusader certainly has uses for the class, regardless of casting ability.

[eggs]

I'm not trying to push a side, but with all the talk of ToB+Core only, I've been wanting to sketch out two single-classed builds for that environment to compare.

Elite array, highlights every six levels (if you think this is meant to bias the results, check the Divine Mind handbook builds: this is just how I prefer to break apart build progressions).
Level 6 snapshots:
Paladin
Melee: Lance +10/+5 melee 1d8+4
Mounted Charge: Lance +13 melee 3d8+12
Ranged: Longbow +7/+2 ranged 1d8+3
Saves: F9 R4 W5
Feats: Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-by-Attack, Spirited Charge
Abilities: S17 D10 C14 I8 W12 C14
Gear: Pegasus mount, +1 Lance, Belt of Str +2, Mwk Full Plate, Mwk Comp. Longbow (+3 Str)


Mount: Pegasus

Melee: 2 hooves +7 melee 1d6+4 and bite +2 melee 1d3+2
Saves: F7 R6 W4
Feats: Flyby Attack, Iron Will
Gear: Chain Shirt-analog Barding

Crusader
Melee: Guisarme +11/+6 melee 2d4+7
Ranged: Longbow +8/+3 ranged 1d8+4
Saves: F8 R5 W4
Feats: Stone Power, Extra Granted Maneuver, Devoted Bulwark, Faith Unswerving
Abilities: S18 D13 C14 I8 W10 C12
Stances: Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare
Maneuvers: White Raven Tactics, Revitalizing Strike, Battle Leader's Charge, Mountain Hammer, Leading the Attack, Douse the Flames, Stone Bones, Shadow Jaunt
Gear: +1 Guisarme, +1 Chain Shirt, Belt of Str +2, Mwk Comp. Longbow (+4 Str), Cloak of Resistance +1, Shadow Hands


Expected Damage per round against level-appropriate AC (estimated 19):

{table=head]Attack|Expected Damage|PA
Paladin+mount full attack|17.0|3
Paladin+mount charge|31.9|5
Paladin solo full attack|9.4|3
Paladin charge|8.3|5
Crusader full attack|12.6|0
Crusader Mountain Hammer|12.4|0[/table]

Subjective Comparison:
The Paladin has impressive numbers from mounted combat, but they don't involve Paladin class features.
The Crusader would be even better at the mounted combat schtick due to Battle Leader's Charge and mount-healing abilities; the only deterrent is the metagame knowledge that mounted combat specialization will eventually hit a dead end from mounts' low stagnant HD.
Maximum healing capacities are comparable between the Paladin's 27 daily HP from Lay on Hands (12) and Cure Light wounds (15) and the Crusader's 24ish from 4 fights per day, 3 attacks per fight.
The Paladin's spells give it slightly more strategic versatility in terms of dealing with extreme weather and poison, but with another caster in the group, those spell slots are cheap anyway.
The Crusader's maneuvers give it excellent tactical versatility to thrive in almost any combat scenario. Stone Power and Steely Resolve make the Crusader really hard to kill (and boost its numbers further if used). WRT means the Crusader's not even restricted to contributing during melee combat.
Keeping its Con in survivable levels at the cost of Str advancement is visibly hurting the Paladin's damage output (see its numbers hanging around 3/4 the Crusader's, even with Power Attack).


Level 12 snapshots:
Paladin
Melee: Lance +20/+15/+10 melee 1d8+10+2d6
Mounted Charge: Lance +23 melee 3d8+30+2d6
Ranged: Longbow +13/+8/+3 ranged 1d8+5
Saves: F17 R10 W14
Feats: Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-b-Attack, Spirited Charge, Divine Spirit, Martial Stance
Abilities: S21 D10 C16 I8 W14 C18
Stances: Thicket of Blades
Maneuvers: Revitalizing Strike
Gear: +1 Holy Lance, +1 Fullplate, Belt of Str +4, Cloak of Cha +4, Devoted Spirit Amulet of Con +2 and Wis +2, Pearl of Power III, Mwk. Comp Longbow (+4 Str)

Mount: Griffon
Melee: Bite +13 melee 2d6+5 and 2 Claws +10 melee 1d4+3
Charge: Bite +15 melee 2d6+5 and 2 Claws +12 melee 1d4+3 and 2 Rakes +12 melee 1d6+3
Saves: F11 R8 W7
Feats: Iron Will, Multiattack, Weapon Focus (Bite), Martial Stance (Bolstering Voice)
Stances: Bolstering Voice
Maneuvers: Battle Leader's Charge
Gear: Amulet of Mighty Fists +1, +1 Chain Shirt-analog Barding, Crown of the White Raven

Crusader
Melee: Guisarme +23/+18/+13 melee 2d4+12
Ranged: Longbow +14/+9/+4 ranged 1d8+6
Saves: F14 R7 W7
Feats: Stone Power, Extra Granted Maneuver, Devoted Bulwark, Faith Unswerving, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack
Abilities: S22 D13 C18 I8 W10 C12
Stances: Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare, Thicket of Blades
Maneuvers: Rallying Strike, War Leader's Charge, Entangling Blade, Radiant Charge, White Raven Strike, Divine Surge, White Raven Tactics, Mountain Hammer, Leading the Attack, Douse the Flames, Shadow Jaunt
Gear: +1 Devoted Spirit Guisarme, +1 Chain Shirt of Lesser Fortification, Belt of Str +4, Cloak of Resistance +2, Winged Boots, Amulet of Con +4, Pearl of Power IIIx2, Shadow Hands, Mwk Comp. Longbow (+6 Str)


Expected Damage per round against level-appropriate AC (estimated 25):

{table=head]Attack|Expected Damage|PA
Paladin+mount full attack|44.2|0
Paladin+mount charge|89.4|6
Paladin Solo full attack|35.5|0
Paladin charge|20.7|4
Crusader full attack|38.0|3
Crusader War Leader's Charge|53.2|2[/table]

Subjective Comparison:
I'm using items to boostrap the Paladin and its mount into stance and maneuver prereqs. That might be cheesy, but I'm not sweating it.
Divine Spirit is a crappy feat, but I'm trying to use every part of that Palaffalo. Cleave would be more useful for a reach-weapon using single-attack charger. Doesn't change much though.
The Paladin only has 5 spells per day, but they're somewhat useful effects like Share Pain, Resist Energy, Heal Mount, various status restores and dispel (albeit at a low enough CL to only affect magic items)
The Crusader's tactical versatility is still excellent, and it is still an excellent tank. Furious Counterstrike is starting to be a huge deal if anybody decides to attack the Crusader (and its tank abilities give a good reason).


Level 18 snapshots:
Paladin
Melee: +31/+26/+21/+16
Mounted Charge:
Ranged: Longbow +19/+14/+9/+4 ranged 1d8+7
Saves: F23 R14 W20
Feats: Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-by-Attack, Spirited Charge, Divine Spirit, Martial Stance, Martial Study, Martial Study
Abilities: S24 D10 C18 I8 W18 C20
Stances: Thicket of Blades
Maneuvers: Iron Heart Surge, White Raven Tactics, Defensive Rebuke, Wall of Blades, Battle Leader's Charge
Gear: +1 Vicious Devoted Spirit Holy Lance, +1 Full Plate of Heavy Fortification, Belt of Str+6, Cloak of Cha +6 and Resistance +3, Devoted Spirit Amulet of Con +4 and Wis +6, Pearl of Power III x3, Mwk Comp. Longbow, Ring of Deflection +2, Ring of Natural Armor +1, Boots of Speed, Rod of Least Metamagic Quicken, Iron Heart Vest, Crown of the White Raven

Mount: Griffon
Melee: Bite +24 melee 2d6+11 and 2 Claws +21 melee 1d4+6
Charge: Bite +26 melee 2d6+11 and 2 Claws +23 melee 1d4+6 and 2 Rakes +23 melee 1d6+6
Saves: F20 R15 W13
Feats: Iron Will, Multiattack, Weapon Focus (Bite), Martial Stance, Martial Study, Martial Study
Stances: Bolstering Voice
Maneuvers: White Raven Tactics, Covering Strike, Battle Leader's Charge
Gear: Amulet of Mighty Fists +2, +1 Chain Shirt-analog Barding of Light Fortification, Crown of the White Raven, Belt of Str+6, Amulet of Con +4, Cloak of Resistance +4, Horseshoes of Speed

Crusader
Melee: Guisarme +34/+34/+29/+24/+19 melee 2d4+13
Ranged: +22/+17/+12/+7 ranged 1d8+9
Saves: F22 R15 W14
Feats: Stone Power, Extra Granted Maneuver, Devoted Bulwark, Faith Unswerving, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Martial Stance, Shards of Granite
Abilities: S28 D17 C20 I8 W10 C14
Stances: Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare, Thicket of Blades, Aura of Perfect Order, Immortal Fortitude
Maneuvers: War Master's Charge, Strike of Righteous Vitality, Swarming Assault, White Raven Hammer, Castigating Strike, Clarion Call, Rallying Strike, Entangling Blade, Radiant Charge, White Raven Strike, White Raven Tactics, Mountain Hammer, Douse the Flames, Shadow Jaunt
Gear: +1 Holy Wounding Devoted Spirit Guisarme, +1 Mithril Breastplate of Heavy Fortification, Belt of Str +6, Cloak of Resistance +6 and Cha +2, Shadow Hands of Dex +4, Pearl of Power III x2, Amulet of Con +6, Wings of Flying, Manual of Gainful Exercise +3, Ring of Natural Armor +1, Ring of Deflection +3, Boots of Speed, Rod of Cancellation


Expected Damage per round against level-appropriate AC (estimated 31):

{table=head]Attack|Expected Damage|PA
Paladin+mount full attack|111.3|3
Paladin+mount charge|154.7|7
Paladin Solo full attack|89.4|3
Paladin charge|30.2|7
Crusader full attack|159.8|4
Crusader War Master's Charge|97.9|7[/table]

Subjective Comparison:
Again, the paladin is respectable in full attacks or mounted charges, but kind of falls apart when it has to move and attack. At this level, those moments it has to shine are becoming a rarity.
Some of the Paladin and its mount's best tricks at this level are Iron Heart Surge, Battle Leader's Charge and White Raven Tactics.
Beside Death Ward, not many of the level 4 Paladin spells are that great, but at least it's getting some new options and extra level 1-3 spells.
The Crusader's damage output is deceptively small - it's consistently granting attacks to allies, forcing AoOs and imbuing status effects. Plus it's really hard to kill, and Furious Counterstrike adds up fast when anybody tries.
The Paladin's AC is very low. Wall of Blades is a 1/encounter patch, but I don't think it's going to be reliable.


What I'm seeing is that mounted combat is a good way to force damage capabilities into a build; affordable mounts are awesome at even low-mid levels; and without VoP for the mount or MIC enhancement-stacking prices, keeping relevant numbers up gets expensive.

What I'm having trouble seeing is the Paladin adding much to a party on its own, unless the group's just completely without members or resources that can patch up status effects or provide defenses like Resist Energy or Endure Elements.

Those are all pretty common; the Crusader's tanking abilities aren't. I'm totally behind the idea that some Paladins can be awesome, but without Complete Champion/SpC/Exalted Deeds/Champions of Valor, I think building a Paladin to compete with a Crusader is going to have to rely on items and abilities unrelated to the Paladin class itself.

EDIT:
Unrelated to my own post, I'm not seeing how Leadership being cheesy makes Alter Self or Polymorph anything less than completely ridiculous. Even on a Paladin, being able to turn into a Thoon Elder Brain is at least as powerful as anything the Crusader/Warblade can do, and Alter Self alone has allows much more versatility than the Crusader's skill list+mountain hammer.

EDIT2:
If I'm missing some context that's framed the argument as Paladin/Crusader/RKV v. Cleric/Crusader/RKV, ignore that last bit; Cleric is way better.

[toapat]

Unrelated to my own post, I'm not seeing how Leadership being cheesy makes Alter Self or Polymorph anything less than completely ridiculous. Even on a Paladin, being able to turn into a Thoon Elder Brain is at least as powerful as anything the Crusader/Warblade can do, and Alter Self alone has allows much more versatility than the Crusader's skill list+mountain hammer.

Paladin base CL is 10 at 20
CoV' MFK 1 lets you get 12
whichever 2 completes have Practiced Spellcaster (which kinda sucks) get you 14
both of those let you hit 16, i believe this is the bardfree hardcap.

[eggs]

Paladin base CL is 10 at 20
CoV' MFK 1 lets you get 12
whichever 2 completes have Practiced Spellcaster (which kinda sucks) get you 14
both of those let you hit 16, i believe this is the bardfree hardcap.
Right. And even 4 CL behind, Polymorph is an ability almost every character would sell its second kidney to get, if it could.

[toapat]

Right. And even 4 CL behind, Polymorph is an ability almost every character would sell its second kidney to get, if it could.

yes, Polymorph is an incredibly powerful spell.

thing is, the paladin gets all their signature spells also at 4th level, all of them.

[Snowbluff]

yes, Polymorph is an incredibly powerful spell.

thing is, the paladin gets all their signature spells also at 4th level, all of them.

Can somebody say Holy Sword!? Never buy a magic weapon again! :smallbiggrin:

Then again, Greater Magic weapon...

[Answerer]

Tome is useless to the non-Innitiators, Non-Chucks of the game. The material is well written, it doesnt mean it plays nicely at all with anyone else.
wut.

Tome of Battle does more to help those who do not actually take its classes than... any other book in the game, so far as I can tell. Initiating is wonderfully and wildly accessible to non-initiators. That is one of the books greatest strengths.

[toapat]

wut.

Tome of Battle does more to help those who do not actually take its classes than... any other book in the game, so far as I can tell. Initiating is wonderfully and wildly accessible to non-initiators. That is one of the books greatest strengths.

not really. the content is good, for a fighter the way you can expand it is fine. For anyone who gets more class features then feats, their cost is similar to the difficulty curve for Allegiance, and paladins dont really have the feats to deal with a fourth thing to do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Interesting thing i realized in this.

Paladins are the only class in the game that can effectively rip apart the T1 classes without going into cheese.

Underdark Knight (Earthglide)
Mystic Fire Knight (Spellshatter, Smite debuff)
Mage Slayer (AoO goodness)
Drow with LA buyoff. (Spell Resistance, in case there is some way to hit an Underdark Knight while they are using Earthglide)

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it rips them apart, but that does sound like it'd at least be a hell of a thorn in a T1's side.


Again, my point about RKV is that when you bring it up, you're talking about a RKV not a crusader. The only thing that a crusader provides to a RKV that it doesn't get anyway is entry.

One level of cleric and 4 levels of literally any other class can get you into RKV, at which piont crusader doesn't matter anymore.

If you add complete divine to the mix, you don't even have to use cleric if you focus on the casting aspect over the maneuvers, e.g. Shugenga 7/Sacred exorcist 1/RKV 10 gets you an 18th level character with casting as a 16th level shugenga and an initiator level of 14. With another level of shugenga you get 9th level spells and top off with 1 level of crusader at 20.

You get 9th level spells and 8th level maneuvers with only a single level of crusader at the very end. But you wouldn't call that a crusader would you? Sure it's a terrible build, but I'm making a point, and it would -still- outperform any crusader build that didn't include either RKV or JPM. So would a cleric 1/commoner 4/RKV 10/Deepstone Sentinel 5, or a cleric 1/commoner 4/RKV 10/Eternal Blade 5

Bottom line: Crusader boosts RKV, not the other way around, because casting is the key ingredient in a RKV build. Moreover, any build that doesn't use a base class for 10 levels probably shouldn't be identified by its base class, unless it's a caster. In spite of the similarities between maneuvers and casting, initiators aren't casters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not trying to push a side, but with all the talk of ToB+Core only, I've been wanting to sketch out two single-classed builds for that environment to compare.

Elite array, highlights every six levels (if you think this is meant to bias the results, check the Divine Mind handbook builds: this is just how I prefer to break apart build progressions).
Level 6 snapshots:
Paladin
Melee: Lance +10/+5 melee 1d8+4
Mounted Charge: Lance +13 melee 3d8+12
Ranged: Longbow +7/+2 ranged 1d8+3
Saves: F9 R4 W5
Feats: Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-by-Attack, Spirited Charge
Abilities: S17 D10 C14 I8 W12 C14
Gear: Pegasus mount, +1 Lance, Belt of Str +2, Mwk Full Plate, Mwk Comp. Longbow (+3 Str)


Mount: Pegasus

Melee: 2 hooves +7 melee 1d6+4 and bite +2 melee 1d3+2
Saves: F7 R6 W4
Feats: Flyby Attack, Iron Will
Gear: Chain Shirt-analog Barding

Crusader
Melee: Guisarme +11/+6 melee 2d4+7
Ranged: Longbow +8/+3 ranged 1d8+4
Saves: F8 R5 W4
Feats: Stone Power, Extra Granted Maneuver, Devoted Bulwark, Faith Unswerving
Abilities: S18 D13 C14 I8 W10 C12
Stances: Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare
Maneuvers: White Raven Tactics, Revitalizing Strike, Battle Leader's Charge, Mountain Hammer, Leading the Attack, Douse the Flames, Stone Bones, Shadow Jaunt
Gear: +1 Guisarme, +1 Chain Shirt, Belt of Str +2, Mwk Comp. Longbow (+4 Str), Cloak of Resistance +1, Shadow Hands


Expected Damage per round against level-appropriate AC (estimated 19):

{table=head]Attack|Expected Damage|PA
Paladin+mount full attack|17.0|3
Paladin+mount charge|31.9|5
Paladin solo full attack|9.4|3
Paladin charge|8.3|5
Crusader full attack|12.6|0
Crusader Mountain Hammer|12.4|0[/table]

Subjective Comparison:
The Paladin has impressive numbers from mounted combat, but they don't involve Paladin class features.
The Crusader would be even better at the mounted combat schtick due to Battle Leader's Charge and mount-healing abilities; the only deterrent is the metagame knowledge that mounted combat specialization will eventually hit a dead end from mounts' low stagnant HD.
Maximum healing capacities are comparable between the Paladin's 27 daily HP from Lay on Hands (12) and Cure Light wounds (15) and the Crusader's 24ish from 4 fights per day, 3 attacks per fight.
The Paladin's spells give it slightly more strategic versatility in terms of dealing with extreme weather and poison, but with another caster in the group, those spell slots are cheap anyway.
The Crusader's maneuvers give it excellent tactical versatility to thrive in almost any combat scenario. Stone Power and Steely Resolve make the Crusader really hard to kill (and boost its numbers further if used). WRT means the Crusader's not even restricted to contributing during melee combat.
Keeping its Con in survivable levels at the cost of Str advancement is visibly hurting the Paladin's damage output (see its numbers hanging around 3/4 the Crusader's, even with Power Attack).


Level 12 snapshots:
Paladin
Melee: Lance +20/+15/+10 melee 1d8+10+2d6
Mounted Charge: Lance +23 melee 3d8+30+2d6
Ranged: Longbow +13/+8/+3 ranged 1d8+5
Saves: F17 R10 W14
Feats: Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-b-Attack, Spirited Charge, Divine Spirit, Martial Stance
Abilities: S21 D10 C16 I8 W14 C18
Stances: Thicket of Blades
Maneuvers: Revitalizing Strike
Gear: +1 Holy Lance, +1 Fullplate, Belt of Str +4, Cloak of Cha +4, Devoted Spirit Amulet of Con +2 and Wis +2, Pearl of Power III, Mwk. Comp Longbow (+4 Str)

Mount: Griffon
Melee: Bite +13 melee 2d6+5 and 2 Claws +10 melee 1d4+3
Charge: Bite +15 melee 2d6+5 and 2 Claws +12 melee 1d4+3 and 2 Rakes +12 melee 1d6+3
Saves: F11 R8 W7
Feats: Iron Will, Multiattack, Weapon Focus (Bite), Martial Stance (Bolstering Voice)
Stances: Bolstering Voice
Maneuvers: Battle Leader's Charge
Gear: Amulet of Mighty Fists +1, +1 Chain Shirt-analog Barding, Crown of the White Raven

Crusader
Melee: Guisarme +23/+18/+13 melee 2d4+12
Ranged: Longbow +14/+9/+4 ranged 1d8+6
Saves: F14 R7 W7
Feats: Stone Power, Extra Granted Maneuver, Devoted Bulwark, Faith Unswerving, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack
Abilities: S22 D13 C18 I8 W10 C12
Stances: Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare, Thicket of Blades
Maneuvers: Rallying Strike, War Leader's Charge, Entangling Blade, Radiant Charge, White Raven Strike, Divine Surge, White Raven Tactics, Mountain Hammer, Leading the Attack, Douse the Flames, Shadow Jaunt
Gear: +1 Devoted Spirit Guisarme, +1 Chain Shirt of Lesser Fortification, Belt of Str +4, Cloak of Resistance +2, Winged Boots, Amulet of Con +4, Pearl of Power IIIx2, Shadow Hands, Mwk Comp. Longbow (+6 Str)


Expected Damage per round against level-appropriate AC (estimated 25):

{table=head]Attack|Expected Damage|PA
Paladin+mount full attack|44.2|0
Paladin+mount charge|89.4|6
Paladin Solo full attack|35.5|0
Paladin charge|20.7|4
Crusader full attack|38.0|3
Crusader War Leader's Charge|53.2|2[/table]

Subjective Comparison:
I'm using items to boostrap the Paladin and its mount into stance and maneuver prereqs. That might be cheesy, but I'm not sweating it.
Divine Spirit is a crappy feat, but I'm trying to use every part of that Palaffalo. Cleave would be more useful for a reach-weapon using single-attack charger. Doesn't change much though.
The Paladin only has 5 spells per day, but they're somewhat useful effects like Share Pain, Resist Energy, Heal Mount, various status restores and dispel (albeit at a low enough CL to only affect magic items)
The Crusader's tactical versatility is still excellent, and it is still an excellent tank. Furious Counterstrike is starting to be a huge deal if anybody decides to attack the Crusader (and its tank abilities give a good reason).


Level 18 snapshots:
Paladin
Melee: +31/+26/+21/+16
Mounted Charge:
Ranged: Longbow +19/+14/+9/+4 ranged 1d8+7
Saves: F23 R14 W20
Feats: Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-by-Attack, Spirited Charge, Divine Spirit, Martial Stance, Martial Study, Martial Study
Abilities: S24 D10 C18 I8 W18 C20
Stances: Thicket of Blades
Maneuvers: Iron Heart Surge, White Raven Tactics, Defensive Rebuke, Wall of Blades, Battle Leader's Charge
Gear: +1 Vicious Devoted Spirit Holy Lance, +1 Full Plate of Heavy Fortification, Belt of Str+6, Cloak of Cha +6 and Resistance +3, Devoted Spirit Amulet of Con +4 and Wis +6, Pearl of Power III x3, Mwk Comp. Longbow, Ring of Deflection +2, Ring of Natural Armor +1, Boots of Speed, Rod of Least Metamagic Quicken, Iron Heart Vest, Crown of the White Raven

Mount: Griffon
Melee: Bite +24 melee 2d6+11 and 2 Claws +21 melee 1d4+6
Charge: Bite +26 melee 2d6+11 and 2 Claws +23 melee 1d4+6 and 2 Rakes +23 melee 1d6+6
Saves: F20 R15 W13
Feats: Iron Will, Multiattack, Weapon Focus (Bite), Martial Stance, Martial Study, Martial Study
Stances: Bolstering Voice
Maneuvers: White Raven Tactics, Covering Strike, Battle Leader's Charge
Gear: Amulet of Mighty Fists +2, +1 Chain Shirt-analog Barding of Light Fortification, Crown of the White Raven, Belt of Str+6, Amulet of Con +4, Cloak of Resistance +4, Horseshoes of Speed

Crusader
Melee: Guisarme +34/+34/+29/+24/+19 melee 2d4+13
Ranged: +22/+17/+12/+7 ranged 1d8+9
Saves: F22 R15 W14
Feats: Stone Power, Extra Granted Maneuver, Devoted Bulwark, Faith Unswerving, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Martial Stance, Shards of Granite
Abilities: S28 D17 C20 I8 W10 C14
Stances: Martial Spirit, Iron Guard's Glare, Thicket of Blades, Aura of Perfect Order, Immortal Fortitude
Maneuvers: War Master's Charge, Strike of Righteous Vitality, Swarming Assault, White Raven Hammer, Castigating Strike, Clarion Call, Rallying Strike, Entangling Blade, Radiant Charge, White Raven Strike, White Raven Tactics, Mountain Hammer, Douse the Flames, Shadow Jaunt
Gear: +1 Holy Wounding Devoted Spirit Guisarme, +1 Mithril Breastplate of Heavy Fortification, Belt of Str +6, Cloak of Resistance +6 and Cha +2, Shadow Hands of Dex +4, Pearl of Power III x2, Amulet of Con +6, Wings of Flying, Manual of Gainful Exercise +3, Ring of Natural Armor +1, Ring of Deflection +3, Boots of Speed, Rod of Cancellation


Expected Damage per round against level-appropriate AC (estimated 31):

{table=head]Attack|Expected Damage|PA
Paladin+mount full attack|111.3|3
Paladin+mount charge|154.7|7
Paladin Solo full attack|89.4|3
Paladin charge|30.2|7
Crusader full attack|159.8|4
Crusader War Master's Charge|97.9|7[/table]

Subjective Comparison:
Again, the paladin is respectable in full attacks or mounted charges, but kind of falls apart when it has to move and attack. At this level, those moments it has to shine are becoming a rarity.
Some of the Paladin and its mount's best tricks at this level are Iron Heart Surge, Battle Leader's Charge and White Raven Tactics.
Beside Death Ward, not many of the level 4 Paladin spells are that great, but at least it's getting some new options and extra level 1-3 spells.
The Crusader's damage output is deceptively small - it's consistently granting attacks to allies, forcing AoOs and imbuing status effects. Plus it's really hard to kill, and Furious Counterstrike adds up fast when anybody tries.
The Paladin's AC is very low. Wall of Blades is a 1/encounter patch, but I don't think it's going to be reliable.


What I'm seeing is that mounted combat is a good way to force damage capabilities into a build; affordable mounts are awesome at even low-mid levels; and without VoP for the mount or MIC enhancement-stacking prices, keeping relevant numbers up gets expensive.

What I'm having trouble seeing is the Paladin adding much to a party on its own, unless the group's just completely without members or resources that can patch up status effects or provide defenses like Resist Energy or Endure Elements.

Those are all pretty common; the Crusader's tanking abilities aren't. I'm totally behind the idea that some Paladins can be awesome, but without Complete Champion/SpC/Exalted Deeds/Champions of Valor, I think building a Paladin to compete with a Crusader is going to have to rely on items and abilities unrelated to the Paladin class itself.

EDIT:
Unrelated to my own post, I'm not seeing how Leadership being cheesy makes Alter Self or Polymorph anything less than completely ridiculous. Even on a Paladin, being able to turn into a Thoon Elder Brain is at least as powerful as anything the Crusader/Warblade can do, and Alter Self alone has allows much more versatility than the Crusader's skill list+mountain hammer.

EDIT2:
If I'm missing some context that's framed the argument as Paladin/Crusader/RKV v. Cleric/Crusader/RKV, ignore that last bit; Cleric is way better.

I can't help but wonder, if you dropped divine spirit for combat reflexes and changed the paladin's lance into a guisarme, how would that affect its damage dealing.

Between that and shield other pooling the mount and paladin's HP, it should allow for similar tanking ability. Just hit a MW lance with GMW at the beginning of the day for when the target of the charge is big enough that the extra damage is necessary.

[Snowbluff]

*snip*

Isn't anyone listening to me? You can't have ninth level spells with 4 levels with anything else on a REGULAR cleric in the first place! RKV drops 2 CL after that anyway. For a Crusader focused build, you don't get past 9 CL in the first place.

Even then, the bonuses for going entirely caster into RKV is absurd. You get 2 feat taxes, skill taxes, and you need to get turning. After that, you have an IL, but no recovery method beyond burning turn attempts (that you want to be using for Divine Impetus) until level 20. And you lose 2 CL pretty much fruitlessly. :smallyuk:

If you at least put some thought and effort into that build, you could have doen much better in the first play. SADNESS. That is what the build is made of.

You are also saying that the Maneuver and Stance progression don't benefit Crusader at all. And that Divine Recovery doesn't benefit Crusader at all. And that Divine Fury doesn't benefit Crusader.

This is a comparison of 2 classes, is it not? I am showing that this class doesn't need to pump it's casting to 11 to use the RKV effectively! Have either of you seen the class? At all? :smallsigh:

Now, let's move onto Eternal Blade.

[toapat]

Eternal Blade.

Better Innitiator PRC, more fun, a better PRC at that, and i like the idea.

still not relevant to the conversation.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Better Innitiator PRC, more fun, a better PRC at that, and i like the idea.

still not relevant to the conversation.
^this

Isn't anyone listening to me? You can't have ninth level spells with 4 levels with anything else on a REGULAR cleric in the first place! RKV drops 2 CL after that anyway. For a Crusader focused build, you don't get past 9 CL in the first place.

Even then, the bonuses for going entirely caster into RKV is absurd. You get 2 feat taxes, skill taxes, and you need to get turning. After that, you have an IL, but no recovery method beyond burning turn attempts (that you want to be using for Divine Impetus) until level 20. And you lose 2 CL pretty much fruitlessly. :smallyuk:

If you at least put some thought and effort into that build, you could have doen much better in the first play. SADNESS. That is what the build is made of.

You are also saying that the Maneuver and Stance progression don't benefit Crusader at all. And that Divine Recovery doesn't benefit Crusader at all. And that Divine Fury doesn't benefit Crusader.

This is a comparison of 2 classes, is it not? I am showing that this class doesn't need to pump it's casting to 11 to use the RKV effectively! Have either of you seen the class? At all? :smallsigh:

Now, let's move onto Eternal Blade.

RKV, and for that matter JPM are both possible completely independent of any martial adept. Even if you try to put the emphasis on the martial adept that you qualified with, the build will still be identified by its PrC.

Not using the spells that come with entering RKV is disregarding the class-features of TWO classes.

You're ignoring (read: throwing away) the crusader's steely resolve, furious counterstrike, smites, and mettle. You're also making a signature stance, immortal fortitude, nearly unusable, though that is true if you multiclass anything at all with crusader. And to top it off, you're even getting smaller HD.

You're throwing away the crusader's signature "unassailable toughness" for a couple of limited abilities that bypass the normal restriction on maneuvers used in a round, or give a minor boost, and access to one more martial discipline.

I shouldn't even have to explain why disregarding 5th level cleric spells on a melee build is bad.

A RKV -might- have some crusader in him, but he's still a RKV, first and foremost......... unless he's casting focused. Then he's whatever casting class he was, first and foremost.

[darkdragoon]

Martial Study costs way too much for a class that is positively destroyed by feat starvation.

Useful feats are more scarce than feat slots.

[eggs]

Between that and shield other pooling the mount and paladin's HP, it should allow for similar tanking ability. Just hit a MW lance with GMW at the beginning of the day for when the target of the charge is big enough that the extra damage is necessary.
One of the Crusader's biggest advantages is that it's sticky, which is something the Paladin has to fight for.

But I'm going to need to think about Shield other, now that you bring it up. Used to pool HP with the mount, and to take damage for party members, that might add up to a meaningful class-facilitated contribution. Reducing party HP damage isn't usually the only goal of tanking, but it doesn't hurt; I'll need to think about how well that could be done with specialization.

[Answerer]

not really. the content is good, for a fighter the way you can expand it is fine. For anyone who gets more class features then feats, their cost is similar to the difficulty curve for Allegiance, and paladins dont really have the feats to deal with a fourth thing to do.
The statement I was responding to was general, not specific to the Paladin.

The Paladin is a pretty awful class that desperately needs to find the absolute most-powerful feats in order to bring it up to speed, so yeah, they're feat-starved and probably won't be taking much Martial Study.

But generally speaking, Tome of Battle provides a subsystem that is easier to take just a dash of than any other system in 3.5. Whether it's just a feat or two, a well-timed single-level dip, several levels in a row, or a full build, Tome of Battle has useful, balanced options for you. That's part of what makes the book so good.