Paladin aren't tier 5

[Kaeso]

I'd like to argue against the Paladin being tier 5, which is defined as being able to "only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute."

I'd like to argue that the Paladin belongs in high tier 4 at least. While it is true that the core package is rather unfocused, there are two things that save it:

1. Charging smite. It removes the mount (which isn't all that useful in most campaigns) which relieves the paladin of "having" to take ride and handle animal, opening up his precious few skill points for other uses. Furthermore, it actually makes using the smite attack worthwhile because it isn't expended after a miss.

2. This is the big one: devotion feats. Melee suffers from the classical problem of only being able to move + full attack and being boned once the enemy flies. Guess what? animal devotion and travel devotion solve that problem as early as level one. That once/day use might not seem like much, but once you unlock turn undead at level 4, it becomes far more useful.

For a non-caster this is quite a treat, giving it excellent advantages in the first five levels, on top of divine grace and lay on hands. Later on they gain some decent spells, especially with splat book support, which widens their range a lot.

In the end you get a rather versatile fighter who can knock baddies up the head in most situations, can move in three dimensions, can full attack at almost any given moment, has extremely high saves and has a few nice spells as icing on the cake. This makes for a better supercharger than a fighter can ever hope to be, or a nice 5 level dip before multiclassing/prestige classing out.

What do you guys think? Don't you think that paladin are more deserving of tier 4?

[Carth]

You're making the classic mistake of focusing on combat, for starters. What can the paladin do outside of combat? Int is going to be at the bottom of their stat priorities, so skills are out. What utility do they offer?

[Kaeso]

You're making the classic mistake of focusing on combat, for starters. What can the paladin do outside of combat? Int is going to be at the bottom of their stat priorities, so skills are out. What utility do they offer?

Their animal devotion makes them good at reaching hard spaces ("you're going to climb that abandoned tower to gain a good view of the land? Climbing is for thieves and peasants. Let me give you a lift to the top"), they're secondary healers (spells + lay on hands) and due to their high cha need they make great party faces.

[Callin]

They can do half decent Charisma Skills. But yea their out of combat ability is not that great. I mean you can only roll so many intimidate skills to convert "heathens and sinners"

[Fouredged Sword]

Without a need for ride/handle animal they are free to devote their two skill points to Diplomacy and Sense motive.

That's all they really need to be a good party face.

[Dusk Eclipse]

IIRC the Tier system with very few exceptions (ilke wildshape ranger and Dungeoncrasher)only rates classes as they were originally printed, that's it without ACF, variants or whatever.

Having said that I agree that the Paladin should be at the least high low tier 4.

[Carth]

Their animal devotion makes them good at reaching hard spaces ("you're going to climb that abandoned tower to gain a good view of the land? Climbing is for thieves and peasants. Let me give you a lift to the top"), they're secondary healers (spells + lay on hands) and due to their high cha need they make great party faces.

You get one animal devotion use a day. MADness means you get three, maybe four uses a day once you can turn undead. Sure, you can sink lots of resources into extra turning, night sticks, and so forth, but the cost/benefit of doing so would be pathetic enough that you're still squarely in T5 territory. And that's if you use your turn attempts for only animal devotion.

MADness means it's going to be a long time before paladin level*cha mod make lay on hands significant, at which point it will have been outclassed multiple times.

Bards and clerics are going to walk all over paladins in the diplomacy department. Paladins are even at a disadvantage to rogues and factotums in the party face role, simply due to the fact that rogues and factotums get more skill points, and are more likely to be able to afford putting max ranks into bluff, sense motive, intimidate, AND diplomacy, something that's not a realistic possibility for a paladin. Also, their paladin code might make the rest of the party leery of even letting the paladin be their representative, unless it's an exalted party.

[WhatBigTeeth]

I like Paladin. It is probably my favorite class, precisely because it has so many ACFs and add-ons that allow it to be finagled into higher-power games than its reputation implies.

But to play devil's advocate, there is a very broad gap in power between a Mystic Fire Knight whose player knows the Paladin and Wizard spell lists inside and out, or a Devotion-using Paladin gunning for Charisma-synergistic PrCs (or Wis, with Serenity), or a Paladin who's adding double digits to its allies ACs, attacks, damage and saving throws, and a stock core paladin, especially if the stock core paladin is in a game with the relatively restrictive "Standard" point buy, average rolls or Elite array. And the latter of those is probably the most reasonable to assess when judging a "typical" member of a class.

[mangosta71]

due to their high cha need they make great party faces.
Except that by the time you're level 2 the party rogue has a higher modifier for all the face skills because he gets enough skill points/level to invest in them.

[Randomguy]

That's still nothing that make paladin levels particularly useful after level 5.

Devotion feats are nice, but you're still stuck with either Animal or Travel devotion (unless you've got a deity with both those domains, in which case you've still got just the two). Travel devotion really just grants mobility in combat (which is also provided by a mount) and doesn't let you full attack on a charge like Pounce does.

Animal devotion does grant flight and other utility stuff, but it only lasts a minute and takes 3 turn attempts to refuel it, so you'll only be using it 3 times a day, tops, until you hit higher levels, at which point flight can be bought.

Compare the barbarian, an actual high tier 4 class: They have more skill points, less MAD, can rage more often than a paladin can smite (and rage lasts for more attacks) and gain class features every level. They also don't have multiclassing restrictions, and looser alignment restrictions.

[DeltaEmil]

Paladins also need concentration, unless they want to only cast their spells and spell-like abilities outside of combat, or else risk becoming glorified warriors who can sometimes strike an evil foe harder than normally (if they know that the target is evil in the first place).

[ArcturusV]

Well...

I like Paladins myself, don't get me wrong. Here's the issues that I see knocking it to Tier 5ish status:

1) Narrow focus on what they can actually do.

Against evil enemies, a Paladin can kind of do what they are supposed to do. Though their abilities suffer from a lack of endurance, basically they will never have enough uses of their abilities to be effective throughout an entire day. But on top of that? If your current adventure doesn't pit you against Pure Evil necessarily they become quite handicapped. The Paladin does well against an Orc Barbarian Chieftain dedicated to Gruumsh, but throw a simple Giant Spider at him and he's basically less effective than the Fighter.

2) A lack of useful utility.

2 skill points a level is... PAINFUL... as mentioned by your own OP, you have to go outside of core to get a lot of things just to make Paladins more useful. ACFs, feats that they should have already had built into the class... (Ranged Smite, I'm looking at you!) and so on. But out of the box they lack basic utility for situations other than the possible use of Detect Evil for social encounters (Which I admit can be useful).

The problem being the default Paladin Chassis is reactive in nature. And reactive classes have a hard time dealing with things proactively. And dealing with things proactively seems to be the basis of the tier system. Thus things like being able to heal, or have good saving throws, doesn't register a blip on the Tier system compared to things like being able to use first level spells to negate an entire challenge.

Now again, I actually LIKE Paladins, don't get me wrong. Also keep in mind the tier system doesn't presume optimization. It seems to be based entirely on what you get out of the box.

Which is why a Sorcerer is tier two, for example. While it can be just as optimized and game breaking as a wizard, it isn't that way out of the box, and is limited to a couple of options it can do at a time rather than any option ever presuming 1 hour.

If smites went off often enough to really be dependable on. If their Remove Disease (Or ACFs doing similar things) had better rates than x/week, if their mounts were naturally tougher and had more utility, and less x/hours per level...

I mean, it has a concept, that's cool. But it lacks the mileage to make it really work. Keep in mind you're talking up Smite Evil, which at your 5 level and ditch out, is only going to be something like... probably +3 to hit and +5 damage 2/day or so. Unless you sink in extra feats for extra smiting. But feats are damned valuable and you're using yours up for other stuff. You really need to go full bore with your Smites and Paladin levels to make it worth a damn. And even when you top out the class you're still only talking about something like a +6 to Hit, and +20 damage 5/day. With the numbers a level 20 character throws out typically, that's not really good.

Even your Lay on Hands utility isn't all that great. I mean your daily healing would again likely be something like 120/day. Which sounds awesome until you start figuring that's probably about 2-3 hits from CR appropriate enemies. Or that your Cleric buddy can pop off something like 6 Heals every day for 200+ HP a pop.

Course, having 120 on a touch attack against an undead would be nice. But again, then you're talking about the Narrow thing I mentioned. You are okay at one kind of situation and otherwise don't have too much to offer.

[Xefas]

To hit tier 4, the Paladin doesn't actually need to be good in multiple kinds of situations. That's tier 3. To quote the tier 4 description "Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise..."

Tier 4 also includes the Dungeoncrasher Fighter. If a Paladin can become comparable in battle to a Dungeoncrasher Fighter with a reasonable amount of optimization, then that would put them in tier 4 territory.

I can't say one way or the other whether they are. But, I think the OP at least makes a convincing argument that they are.

[dascarletm]

Paladins also need concentration, unless they want to only cast their spells and spell-like abilities outside of combat, or else risk becoming glorified warriors who can sometimes strike an evil foe harder than normally (if they know that the target is evil in the first place).

I don't agree. Most all of their spells are buffs, heals, or other non-direct damaging. (perhaps some in splat-books will prove that wrong.) Who casts bull's strength, bear's endurance, bless, etc. while in melee range. You either cast them right before going into a fight, or in the first round or so of combat when everyone is buffing up. If someone is readying an action to interrupt you over the wizard or cleric then your turn was well spent.:smallbiggrin:

[Karnith]

To hit tier 4, the Paladin doesn't actually need to be good in multiple kinds of situations. That's tier 3. To quote the tier 4 description "Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise..."

Tier 4 also includes the Dungeoncrasher Fighter. If a Paladin can become comparable in battle to a Dungeoncrasher Fighter with a reasonable amount of optimization, then that would put them in tier 4 territory.

I can't say one way or the other whether they are. But, I think the OP at least makes a convincing argument that they are.
Well, the OP is arguing that a Paladin is tier 4 if he chooses his feats optimally and uses a specific ACF. Which would, at best, argue that Charging Smite paladins with Devotion feats are tier 4, in much the same way that Dungeoncrashers are tier 4.

So, basically, the OP is arguing that with sufficient optimization, a given paladin can be more capable than his class's tier would indicate. Which is a point that the tier system itself makes, so I'm not really seeing much here that argues that a paladin isn't tier 5.

[dascarletm]

Paladins are tier ONE on my scale of fun....

[Carth]

Well, the OP is arguing that a Paladin is tier 4 if he chooses his feats optimally and trades out his mount for a specifically ACF. Which would, at best, argue that Charging Smite paladins are tier 4, in much the same way that Dungeoncrashers are tier 4.

So, basically, the OP is arguing that with sufficient optimization, a given paladin can be more capable than his class's tier would indicate. Which is a point that the tier system makes, so I'm not really seeing much here that argues that a paladin isn't tier 5.

This. And frankly, charging smite isn't a convincing argument for T4 at all. Combining the extremely limited applicability and extremely limited daily uses of smite evil and with an already limited attack form, charging, seems like T5 to me.

[DeltaEmil]

Tier 4 also includes the Dungeoncrasher Fighter. If a Paladin can become comparable in battle to a Dungeoncrasher Fighter with a reasonable amount of optimization, then that would put them in tier 4 territory.It doesn't take that much optimization to make a normal fighter into a dungeoncrasher fighter. It only takes one alternate class feature. And the dungeoncrasher deals lots of damage, and actually becomes capable of kicking doors and walls down like only their raging barbarian buddies normally could. Oh yeah, and they get some minor defensive benefits against traps, I guess.

[DeltaEmil]

I don't agree. Most all of their spells are buffs, heals, or other non-direct damaging. (perhaps some in splat-books will prove that wrong.) Who casts bull's strength, bear's endurance, bless, etc. while in melee range. You either cast them right before going into a fight, or in the first round or so of combat when everyone is buffing up. If someone is readying an action to interrupt you over the wizard or cleric then your turn was well spent.:smallbiggrin:They get an attack of opportunity for casting while threatened and not succeeding on their concentration check to casting defensively. No need to ready an action against paladin-spellcasters. With their extremely lousy caster level, a paladin's buff spell doesn't last long enough to be cast before combat unless they are preparing an ambush. But I thnk you're making a point regarding paladins not needing Concentration at all.
Because of their sucktastic spell list and low caster level, paladins really won't be using their spellcasting ability at all, neither in combat nor outside of it, because they're bad at it either way.

[Gnaeus]

Paladin is totally in tier 4. Swift action lay-on hands combined with Mercys mean that the Paladin can take a beating better than a barbarian and heal status effects while he does it. Divine bond allows him to add nice damage enhancements to his magic sword. Smite Evil with its ability to bypass target DR makes him a real threat, especially to evil outsiders and dragons.

Oh, you meant the 3.5 paladin? Sorry. Tier 5.

[Eldariel]

Even with their Charisma, Paladins' crippling lack of skillpoints tends to make them mediocre faces at best. Doubly so if you intend on actually casting spells and thus need Concentration. Diplomacy is easy to stack 'cause of synergies but Pally has a hard time getting any due to lacking class skills and skill points, let alone other face skills (Bluff? Yeah, no).

Overall, Bard, Rogue, Cloistered Cleric or even Sorcerer tends to make a better party face than a Paladin.

[Spuddles]

They can do half decent Charisma Skills. But yea their out of combat ability is not that great. I mean you can only roll so many intimidate skills to convert "heathens and sinners"

Their out of combat utility is at least on par with crusaders.

[Eldariel]

Their out of combat utility is at least on par with crusaders.

4+Int skills vs. 2+Int and no need for Wis or Concentration means Crusader prolly has way more skillpoints.

[Lazers etcetera]

Are paladins the worst (by numbers) class everyone likes?

If we are building a party and a paladin joins, everyone seems to be happy. They get a pass on not being amazing in my experience because - I don't know - pretty and brave and shiny?

[dascarletm]

With their extremely lousy caster level, a paladin's buff spell doesn't last long enough to be cast before combat unless they are preparing an ambush.

Suppose you are level 10. And trekking out on a quest.
Shield other lasts 5 hours, so you use it on the first round of the first combat of the day, and you probably have it for all the other fights. I know the cleric had this at level 4 but now you are taking the rogues damage while the cleric takes the wizards, or whatever. Better tanking ability than the fighter anyway.

If he has 14 wisdom, then he has a bonus 2nd level. If fighting an elemental damage dealing enemy now the cleric and wizard have another 2nd level to spare. Sure he only gives 10 resistance over 20, but you are putting that on someone who will try not to get hit anyway, just as a precaution. It lasts 50 minutes, that is plenty of time to cast it when getting close to that big red dragons lair. Poison user? BAM delay poison is underrated, because if your fail safes... fail then the poor wizard doesn't become a paralyzed meat bag and can teleport us all home.

Out of combat undetectable alignment lasts all day.




Because of their sucktastic spell list and low caster level, paladins really won't be using their spellcasting ability at all, neither in combat nor outside of it, because they're bad at it either way.

It isn't the best spell list, but it does it's job to alleviate your cleric, or if you don't have one save the party from ye-old mummy rot, or ye-old status effects.

I'm not saying it is Tier 1 2 or 3, but with shield other, and other buffs it makes your paladin a good tank.

[Spuddles]

4+Int skills vs. 2+Int and no need for Wis or Concentration means Crusader prolly has way more skillpoints.

Huh. I thought crusaders only had 2+int.

[Eldariel]

Huh. I thought crusaders only had 2+int.

Nope, ToB finally realizes that mundanes should always have at least 4+Int and some useful class skills while at it (e.g. Fighters don't have Knowledge: History which covers warfare, WTF)

[NichG]

I'd say low Tier 4, mostly because there are in fact a fair number of optimization pathways for the Paladin that make it decent, rather than being limited to one specific trick a person might not know about. Whether they can also be useful out of combat is another argument, but really thats a matter of Tier 3 consideration, not Tier 4.

With all the following, keep in mind that their competition is basically the Barbarian, who is basically mostly about being able to boost their own HP, Str, and Con in a fight, having a lot of HP, etc. Paladin isn't going to compare to something like Warlock, but it really only has to be as good as the lowest of the Tier 4's to fit into that tier.

Simple tricks for a paladin:
- They're kings of X stat to Y. They already have a way of getting Cha to saves and to damage. This gives a lot of synergy with dips of other classes like Marshal and the like. Even leaving other classes aside, it means you can boost your saves and damage with two stats instead of just one, so effectively your 'improvement from magic items/wishes' threshold is double that of other classes in those things.

- Splatbook Paladin spells have some real gems. Rhino's Rush for instance can double damage output on a charge. This kind of thing helps Paladins pull off an uber-charger without access to Pounce, and having an easily accessible mount even when it'd be hard to actually have brought it with can help with this kind of thing (though really I'd try to get a griffon or hippogriff mount for a Paladin as soon as possible, possibly just by buying the PaO casting so you keep the Paladin mount special abilities).

- Turn undead access means you can power Divine feats. Some are nicer than others, but its a lot of versatility in the kind of build you can go for.

This is a lot more versatile than the Fighter, though I suppose the argument is that its comparable to the Monk (who also has some of the same filler features like a small healing pool and a few immunities to things that rarely come up). Unlike the Monk though, the Paladin doesn't have nearly as many class features that conflict and confuse its primary focus (e.g. the Monk's combination of partial BAB progression, Flurry, movement boosters, innate AC but a lack of ability to wear armor, etc).

I could however see the argument that this is very level dependent for the Paladin. Its a very front-loaded class, so Paladin 4/Other full BAB class X will generally be better in combat than a Paladin 4+X. As such, it may fall behind in its core competency at higher levels.

[Namfuak]

Are paladins the worst (by numbers) class everyone likes?

If we are building a party and a paladin joins, everyone seems to be happy. They get a pass on not being amazing in my experience because - I don't know - pretty and brave and shiny?

I think it's a combination of the idea of paladins being so prevalent in fiction, the fact that paladins do OK for the first few levels, and that no one is complaining about +4 to saves against fear.

[Greenish]

Are paladins the worst (by numbers) class everyone likes?No, because many people don't like paladins and their silly Code of Conduct.


Paladins did get some decent spells on their list, especially later in the development cycle, so there's that. Also Battle Blessing.

[mangosta71]

So, if I'm reading the argument for Core paladins not being tier 5 right, it can be summed up as: if you take enough dips in non-Core classes, you can move up to tier 4.

Seems legit.

[Gnaeus]

The tiers are intended to function across the optimization range.

A low-optimization Paladin is actually WORSE than a low optimization fighter. The fighter is likely to at least take things like weapon focus and weapon specialization with his bonus feats, which (while they suck) do actually make him better at fighting. Even if they both pick unoptimal combat styles, like 2wf or S&B, the fighter can throw away prereq feats to get a combat option other than "I hit it" like Improved Grapple or Improved Trip.

The tiers are intended to function across the level range, with a focus on low and mid levels, and with high levels weighted least. Yes, a paladin can make a decent charging build with Rhino's Rush, but a fighter can take Power attack, Battle Jump, Improved Bull Rush, Knockback, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Shock Trooper and Leap Attack all by level 9 and can be charging around the battlefield knocking people down and stomping on them all day.

Yes, paladins have better ACFs. Their spell list becomes decent with the addition of battle blessing, and they do get good use of devotion feats. I would agree that the high op Paladin should be much better than the high op fighter. Low op, the fighter is just better, and mid op... depends a lot on exactly what your opinion of mid op is. Overall, across level ranges and op levels, Paladin is not significantly better than fighter. I will grant that paladin is just better than Knight, but Knight is T5 also.

[BWR]

Play Pathfinder. Problem (mostly) solved.

[Greenish]

Play Pathfinder. Problem (mostly) solved.Use PF paladin with 3.5 support. Add some skill points. Almost there.


[Edit]: Or you could just use Crusader, but that's almost too easy.

[Amnestic]

I haven't seen it linked yet, so for the sake of proper debate, why Tier 5s are in Tier 5 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4869.0)

The Paladin section of which reads as follows:

Cons: Paladins suck due to almost the same conditions that make a fighter suck. They are 1~2 trick ponys and every single one of those tricks is considerably lesser than what other classes can do.

First off a Paladin requires four abilities which leads them to having very low scores overall in point buy or to have poor scores in key abilities from low rolls. They have very little to offer skill wise outside of diplomacy, but to even take that a Paladin would require 12 int since their two skill points would be spent in Handle Animal and Ride.

As for their other abilities they are mostly flavorful. Detect Evil for example is pretty moot. If it's attacking then attack back. If it's an evil guy undercover then his alignment is likewise hidden for a handful of coin. Smite Evil is one of the Paladin's signature abilities it's per day usage renders it worthless. By the 20th level you can smite five times per day. Comparatively a Fist of Raziel gives five smites over a ten level period and Ordained Champion gives you 3 + cha mod on the first level. Secondly, the damage bonus isn't all that great. Most people tend to PrC out by the 6th level for better class abilities which means your smite damage is only a mere +6 bonus which is something you could dig up for less than 5k on magical items. Unlike a touch attack spell if you miss with smite it is still expended and don't expect to gain much of an attack bonus with that low charisma. Even new players will see how worthless Remove Disease is so I won't comment on that one. The Code of Conduct is mostly there for players to argue what is allowed or not.

The Charging Smite is a useful and fixes the miss problem with smite and helps them turn into an ubercharger but it costs the Paladin their other signature class ability. The mount. I consider the Mount to be the best Paladin class ability, which in a way tells you just how badly they suck. When you first get it at the 5th level all you can do is replicate a first level spell once per day. Later on it it's worse than the effect of a 3rd level spell called Phantom Steed. At least that steed won't impose a month long penalty to your combat when it gets fireballed.

The spell list too limited to be useful and casting uses up the Paladin's standard action for a minor buff or a cure effect no one has any use for. There is a class substitution to replace the list with wizard spells. But a duskblade is a much, much better choice. So is a sorcerer/fighter/eldritch knight...

Finally anything a Paladin can do a Cleric can do better. Clerics are better at healing, turning, spell casting, summoning pets, and are not that far behind a Paladin combat wise. Divine Power quickly makes up for that. For an added insult there are PrCs that give full Paladin-like flavor and abilities in less levels. A Paladin's build choices are actually more limited than a fighters' who at least has thousands of feats to choose from and are all subpar in the same way JaronK says the fighter's abilities are.
-SorO_Lost

Pros: The base class is quite lacking, but the variant Paladins can be quite useful. Paladin of Tyranny is an awesome 3 level dip, for example, and combined well with Hexblade 4 (with Dark Companion). Standard Paladin 2 is a lot of fun for Kobold Sorcerer gishes, who can take those levels and still have full caster progression (via Loredrake and the Greater Draconic Rite). Note that the PrC Paladin is far stronger than the regular Paladin, though that's partly because it gives all of the useful Paladin abilities in just three levels while losing you only one caster level. And Detect Evil at will can be very handy in some specific sorts of campaigns. -JaronK

---------------------------------------

I know it isn't a huge deal, but I believe the splat books and, specifically, the Spell Compendium added some noteworthy spells for Paladins. Some of them can be quite cool and useful. I'm not trying to say they bring the Paladin out o this tier, but I feel they are worth mentioning in the Pros section. -Optimator

[Lazers etcetera]

I have a Charging Smite, Mystic Fire Knight, Silverbrow Draconic paladin sorcerer gestalt and she's pretty good. Not amazing power, and has required quite a bit of fiddling and... she's a million miles away from the vanilla PHB paladin to be honest.

But she's still a paladin!

It helps the campaign has mostly been evil undead, in honesty. Having no feat room for combat manouvres means she can rely on sprinting up to the evil guy and hitting hard with dispel magic. She is pretty but stupid, what do you expect.

I don't find the paladin code a problem with non-silly DMs.

[dascarletm]

I don't find the paladin code a problem with non-silly DMs.

It really shouldn't be. I've yet to find a dilemma that a paladin would be forced to break his code.

[Gnaeus]

I have a Charging Smite, Mystic Fire Knight, Silverbrow Draconic paladin sorcerer gestalt

Yes. Paladins are good in Gestalt. But so are fighters and monks. They are still tier 5.

Oh, yes. one more thing. While the paladin does get some late game splatbook love in the form of battle blessing and devotion feats, fighter gets ToB. That 10th level fighter could easily be rocking Thicket of Blades or Iron Heart Surge, acquired via martial study and martial stance with their ton of bonus feats. Of course, one might wonder why he didn't just dip warblade (or play Warblade to begin with), but such is the inherent contradiction of discussing high level, optimized fighters and paladins.

[ArcturusV]

Pretty much. It's all up to shenanigans like a DM who hates you and sets up a No-Win scenario as he considers it.

Or some players who just kinda miss the point entirely and fall because of that. Like one of my players who, when dealing with a villain who had an innocent civilian body shield hostage decided to just "stab THROUGH the farmer and hit the guy behind." because "the farmer was probably guilty of something anyway" and "the villain was probably going to kill the farmer anyway".

[Greenish]

It really shouldn't be. I've yet to find a dilemma that a paladin would be forced to break his code.Evil party member? :smalltongue:


Also things like Trollbane are poisons, and thus technically out of paladin's hands, which you can hardly argue isn't silly.

[Doug Lampert]

I have a Charging Smite, Mystic Fire Knight, Silverbrow Draconic paladin sorcerer gestalt and she's pretty good. Not amazing power, and has required quite a bit of fiddling and... she's a million miles away from the vanilla PHB paladin to be honest.

But she's still a paladin!

It helps the campaign has mostly been evil undead, in honesty. Having no feat room for combat manouvres means she can rely on sprinting up to the evil guy and hitting hard with dispel magic. She is pretty but stupid, what do you expect.

I don't find the paladin code a problem with non-silly DMs.

So, using a gesalt with multiple non-core elements in a campaign that might well be DESIGNED for this character to shine the character is "pretty good. Not amazing power".

I'd say that sounds like tier 5, and probably low tier 5 at that. Seriously, put equivalent effort into a tier 3 or 4 class in an equivalently well tuned game.

Or just put equivalent effort into a fighter/cleric or whatever/urpriest gesalt.

I agree that the Paladin code has never been a problem in any game I've been in or run. But the code isn't why the class is tier five, the class is tier 5 because it's a melee class, and really isn't very good at melee and is worse at everything else.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, the only poisons approved for Paladin use is Oil of Taggit, Drow Sleep Poison oddly enough, and the Ravages. None of which deal with Regen though. Which is a potentially crippling flaw.

[dascarletm]

Evil party member? :smalltongue:


Also things like Trollbane are poisons, and thus technically out of paladin's hands, which you can hardly argue isn't silly.

It isn't out of your hands, you just choose to use or not to use the poison. Just use fire or acid to coup de grace after it is knocked out.

[AgentofHellfire]

Why has no one mentioned the hit points, Lay on Hands and Divine Grace yet?


Seriously, with Divine Grace, you can get a pretty huge saving throw boost, making you far more resistant to that Dominate Person than the Fighter, and same d10 hit die plus Lay On Hands means you can stay on the battlefield for a while longer.

Moreover, a single feat lets you use your turn/rebuke Undead as a smite ability, adding your Charisma modifier to damage. And you can get a pretty high number of uses of that ability fairly easily. So there's also that boost to Paladin combat abilities, making it quite good at its trick and a T4.

[Big Fau]

Well, the OP is arguing that a Paladin is tier 4 if he chooses his feats optimally and uses a specific ACF.

But wouldn't that be above the Tiers system's baseline of optimization?

[Gnaeus]

Why has no one mentioned the hit points, Lay on Hands and Divine Grace yet?


Seriously, with Divine Grace, you can get a pretty huge saving throw boost, making you far more resistant to that Dominate Person than the Fighter, and same d10 hit die plus Lay On Hands means you can stay on the battlefield for a while longer.

So, while you are spending points and gold on Cha, to make that work, I am spending the same ability points or gold on Con, to give me better HP, or Str, to make me do more damage.


Moreover, a single feat lets you use your turn/rebuke Undead as a smite ability, adding your Charisma modifier to damage. And you can get a pretty high number of uses of that ability fairly easily. So there's also that boost to Paladin combat abilities, making it quite good at its trick and a T4.

Smite is pretty sub-par as a damage boost, lasting, as it does, for only 1 attack (not even round, just attack). Even with, say, 10 smites per day, the well built fighter, with his higher strength, and bonus feats, and the feat you sunk into extra smites, should significantly outdamage you most of the time. I mean, say 4 attacks per round (3 + haste or an AOO) you probably make 12-15 attacks per fight, 4 fights per day, heck, even with 20 smites and assuming you fight all evil stuff the fighter should come out ahead if he spends his feats well.

[dascarletm]

So, while you are spending points and gold on Cha, to make that work, I am spending the same ability points or gold on Con, to give me better HP, or Str, to make me do more damage.


But see, with con every 2 points you put in you gain 1hp/level. The paladin who spends on 2 cha also effectively (not quite as nice, but just as good 99% of the time) gains 1hp/lvl with lay on hands, and gets +1 to saves, one more turn undead attempt, and more to-hit with smite.

Paladins make good tanks.

[Greenish]

It isn't out of your hands, you just choose to use or not to use the poison.Yeah, just decide to break the code, no sweat.


Just use fire or acid to coup de grace after it is knocked out.Why do you assume those would work?


Anyway, I'm not saying paladin's code means that no one can ever play paladin without being screwed over or bossing the rest of the party around. I'm just saying the paladin's code basically encourages it (as Burlew observes (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)).

[Augmental]

Paladins make good tanks.

But can they draw the attention (and attacks) of enemies?

[dascarletm]

Yeah, just decide to break the code, no sweat.

I'm saying to just not use it.... it's not a forced option you don't have to do it is what I'm saying.


Why do you assume those would work?

We are talking about trollbane? My google search found me nothing, so a lil info probably would help, but I assume it is a poison that stops regeneration.

If so the poster child for regen is the Troll. (fire and acid negate it). Other regens have certain ways to get around them. A little more of a challenge, yes but not impossible.


Anyway, I'm not saying paladin's code means that no one can ever play paladin without being screwed over or bossing the rest of the party around. I'm just saying the paladin's code basically encourages it (as Burlew observes (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)).

I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that it isn't very hard at all (I guess for me at least) to not fall, even if the fates are testing you. I can't see a single situation in which there is only falling as an option. (Unless the DM is misreading the code or something)

[undead hero]

Their out of combat utility is at least on par with crusaders.

Mountain Hammer says otherwise.

A loooooooow level maneuver is more useful out of battle than the entire paladin class.

[dascarletm]

But can they draw the attention (and attacks) of enemies?

Shield Other for those you can't keep locked into combat with you, and any other method through RP and story purposes to make the enemies hate you.

[Lans]

But see, with con every 2 points you put in you gain 1hp/level. The paladin who spends on 2 cha also effectively (not quite as nice, but just as good 99% of the time) gains 1hp/lvl with lay on hands, and gets +1 to saves, one more turn undead attempt, and more to-hit with smite.

Paladins make good tanks.

Also it lets you split the cash and points. Instead of 16 in 1 stat you can put a 14 in 1 and a 12-14 in the other, depending on whether the non paladin was going with an 8 or 10 in charisma.

Instead of +4 item, you can grab 2 +2 items.


It isn't out of your hands, you just choose to use or not to use the poison. Just use fire or acid to coup de grace after it is knocked out.
You can also just strangle/drown it.


Mountain Hammer says otherwise.

A loooooooow level maneuver is more useful out of battle than the entire paladin class.

I find Mountain Hammers utility to be overated

[Gnaeus]

But see, with con every 2 points you put in you gain 1hp/level. The paladin who spends on 2 cha also effectively (not quite as nice, but just as good 99% of the time) gains 1hp/lvl with lay on hands, and gets +1 to saves, one more turn undead attempt, and more to-hit with smite.

Wrong. Lay on hands is a standard action. My HP help me stay in the fight and defeat an enemy. Your lay on hands is only worth using out of combat, and as such all that extra 2 cha is to save one or 2 charges off the party CLW wand.


Paladins make good tanks.

No. Paladins are awful tanks. Unless you can threaten an enemy enough to make it attack you instead of the Wizard, you are a lousy tank, and paladins are bad at doing that.


Tank, itself, is not actually a very useful party role.


Shield Other for those you can't keep locked into combat with you.

Yep, you are better than a Knight. Would you like a cookie with that?


and any other method through RP and story purposes to make the enemies hate you.


In other words, you can't, and you have to rely on the mercy of the DM to maybe make you a useful wall.

[ArcturusV]

I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that it isn't very hard at all (I guess for me at least) to not fall, even if the fates are testing you. I can't see a single situation in which there is only falling as an option. (Unless the DM is misreading the code or something)

Basically. It's usually less about misinterpreting the code, but more about the DM defining "what is evil".

Thus the prisoner thing that is the usual example of this. Something that is evil surrenders to you. The DM gets an evil smile on his face. And you know exactly what he's thinking in terms of the paladin.

He's defined it so Evil equals:

Taking the evil creature prisoner. You're allowing it to live, where if might do further evil actions. You are helping evil. EVIL!

Or:

You kill the creature because it's Evil and pings Evil on your Evil-dar. And you Smite it because SMITE EVIL... and then you fall because you killed someone who was a helpless prisoner, surrendering in good faith.

So yeah. It's entirely in the realm of jerk DMs, for the most part. There's some players who I've run with who rightly deserved to fall and not due to traps. But due to mostly not giving a damn about their ethics and code.

The Code doesn't help improve the Paladin's tier, doesn't hinder it that much. But it's vagueness about Honor and such does prevent him from achieving a higher optimization than he should necessarily have. Heck, just not being able to lie does make you significantly less effective in social encounters than you otherwise could be.

[dascarletm]

Basically. It's usually less about misinterpreting the code, but more about the DM defining "what is evil".

Thus the prisoner thing that is the usual example of this. Something that is evil surrenders to you. The DM gets an evil smile on his face. And you know exactly what he's thinking in terms of the paladin.

He's defined it so Evil equals:

Taking the evil creature prisoner. You're allowing it to live, where if might do further evil actions. You are helping evil. EVIL!

Or:

You kill the creature because it's Evil and pings Evil on your Evil-dar. And you Smite it because SMITE EVIL... and then you fall because you killed someone who was a helpless prisoner, surrendering in good faith.

So yeah. It's entirely in the realm of jerk DMs, for the most part. There's some players who I've run with who rightly deserved to fall and not due to traps. But due to mostly not giving a damn about their ethics and code.

The Code doesn't help improve the Paladin's tier, doesn't hinder it that much. But it's vagueness about Honor and such does prevent him from achieving a higher optimization than he should necessarily have. Heck, just not being able to lie does make you significantly less effective in social encounters than you otherwise could be.

I see your point, but the code can help in social encounters too. If talking to a good NPC and they know about paladins then they know you are being honest and looking out for their best interests without having to know you.


Wrong. Lay on hands is a standard action. My HP help me stay in the fight and defeat an enemy. Your lay on hands is only worth using out of combat, and as such all that extra 2 cha is to save one or 2 charges off the party CLW wand.

Yeah, I suppose I misread that one. Assuming more than 1 encounter per day then they are effectively free HP without burning a healers slots on it or money for a wand. I'd stop attacking for a round to heal 100 hp or so at level 20, if i really needed it.


No. Paladins are awful tanks. Unless you can threaten an enemy enough to make you attack you instead of the Wizard, you are a lousy tank, and paladins are bad at doing that.

Ah, the age old every single monster in the world will always make the most tactical decision, at all times.


Tank, itself, is not actually a very useful party role.

I guess it depends on your DM's play style and campaign archetype.



Yep, you are better than a Knight. Would you like a cookie with that?

Sure?:smallconfused:



In other words, you can't, and you have to rely on the mercy of the DM to maybe make you a useful wall.
In other words I can. DnD is an RPG after all. I suppose if you have a DM that makes his NPCs take actions based off knowledge of the G portion vs the RP portion more then sure. In which case that isn't a game to be a paladin-in.
I mean who is more targetable then a goodie-two-shoes paladin? Self-righteous *****s.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Oh for the love of...

Okay, some common mis-conceptions you need to correct:

1) The role 'tank' is fairly meaningless since most opponents will simply IGNORE you in favor of someone who might actually pose a threat. You're going to need area-denial, or a viable threat to present to opponents, for your 'tankiness' to ever come into play. Which a Paladin is supremely BAD at doing.

2) There's many ways to net Cha to saves. You don't need Paladin. A dip in any of several classes or PrC's can get you the same. Plus, ToB kicks it to the curb with the 'Concentration check as a saving throw' maneuvers.

3) Having a +4 on a saving throw sounds nice... against un-optimized casters, it might actually be relevant. However, what do you do when casters start tossing out 'no save, just lose' effects?

4) How do you present yourself as a viable threat against targets with non-standard movement modes? Such as: Flight, Burrowing, Teleportation, Etherealness...

5) All of your class abilities go away the moment you fall. Which you can do by accident and completely unaware of the risk.

6) All you can really do to threaten something is 'beat on it'. Which a Barbarian can do. Much better. And more effectively. And you have fewer hit points than he does. So how precisely are you better at taking hits again?

7) AC is a silly thing to rely on for actual defense. Aside from the fact that physical attacks are not really going to be a major threat compared to 'save or lose' conditions, attack bonuses scale FAR faster and higher than AC can.

[Greenish]

If so the poster child for regen is the Troll. (fire and acid negate it). Other regens have certain ways to get around them. A little more of a challenge, yes but not impossible.


I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that it isn't very hard at all (I guess for me at least) to not fall, even if the fates are testing you. I can't see a single situation in which there is only falling as an option. (Unless the DM is misreading the code or something)I'm also not saying that being unable to use Trollbane (Complete Adventurer) would lead to paladin falling, I'm saying it's silly that they can't.

[ArcturusV]

Thus one of my favorite things to do. Presuming it's not an instant ambush and I actually spot my enemies before they are hip deep among us and swinging, you spend some time giving up surprise to viciously mock, taunt, and otherwise personally tick off your enemies to make them sloppy, angry, and stupid.

Which isn't RAW necessarily but tends to work out.

[Augmental]

Ah, the age old every single monster in the world will always make the most tactical decision, at all times.

It makes more sense than the polar opposite of "every single monster in the world will never make the most tactical decision, at all times".

[chainlink]

Shield Other..., and any other method through RP and story purposes to make the enemies hate you.

As a full supporter of rule of cool and a permissive DM, that only goes so far. Linguistic & cultural barriers aside, any enemy with intelligence isn't going to be swayed by yo momma jokes. Now if it's a more personal villain, a recurring character with history with the party/Paladin in question sure.

To a point. A professional will get over what ever it is and get the job done. The higher level you go the more this tactic becomes obsolete.

Tell me what RP reason outside of game mechanics would convince an intelligent, malevolent, evil outsider bent on shredding your most vulnerable asset at the cost of it's own life just to cause you short grief and horror before its compatriots rips the rest of you asunder with fang, claw, fire and acid...not to do that?

If a particular Devil? Maybe. Doubtful actually. Oh right we talking about the paladin. Probably not. Demon, the T's say? No. Flat out no. Didn't even hear you, barely sees you as it's squinting against your glare as it giggles to itself in anticipation of the kill while the shiny good does nothing!

TL;DR I get what you say, and it's an awesome part of the tabletop game genre. This situation though.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, I suppose I misread that one. Assuming more than 1 encounter per day then they are effectively free HP without burning a healers slots on it or money for a wand. I'd stop attacking for a round to heal 100 hp or so at level 20, if i really needed it.

Then you will be dead. Any monster that is a threat at level 20 can do way more than 100 hp/round.


Ah, the age old every single monster in the world will always make the most tactical decision, at all times.

Nope, just the intelligent ones. Which happen to be the dangerous ones, and almost everything that is a threat at mid-high levels.


I guess it depends on your DM's play style and campaign archetype.

Indeed. If your DM decides to take pity on you, you will die less. With any class. that doesn't make Paladin any better, just more playable in that game. The same thing could be said of any T5.


I suppose if you have a DM that makes his NPCs take actions based off knowledge of the G portion vs the RP portion more then sure. In which case that isn't a game to be a paladin-in.

Or they can see how uselessly you fight and make their own decisions. Or they can have encountered paladins before and know that unless they see them pulling out their holy symbol and casting high level spells they aren't a threat. (Because you know, the only difference between Cleric as Paladin and Paladin as Paladin is that the Cleric actually is a good tank.)

There is a good game to be a paladin-in. Pathfinder. Otherwise, you will always be handicapped by your class. Nothing is unplayable, but paladin is as bad a start as you can find in the PHB.


I mean who is more targetable then a goodie-two-shoes paladin? Self-righteous *****s.

The cleric. The wizard. The warblade. Any other party members who aren't incompetent at their jobs. You do have an edge over the Knight and the Monk.

[ArcturusV]

Although under mechanical things...

What visual difference/obvious difference would there be between a Paladin (Armored guy with holy symbols) and a Cleric (Armored guy with holy symbols)? Add in the "Detect Good" ability, they would both show up as powerful Good Auras, the cleric and the paladin.

A cleric is a powerful threat and would logically be dealt with.

Unless the Paladin in question is going "I AM A PALADIN!" at the top of his lungs your demon/devil probably wouldn't know the difference by any mechanical reasoning it could list.

Instead all it knows is there's this guy who detects like a Cleric who is going on about how he shall vanquish you in the name of Heironius, which a Cleric probably would say as well.

So do you, as an intelligent outsider, take a guess that the guy might just be a Paladin and mostly ineffective? Or be safe, figure it might be a Cleric, and that you need to put it down quickly?

[dascarletm]

2) There's many ways to net Cha to saves. You don't need Paladin. A dip in any of several classes or PrC's can get you the same. Plus, ToB kicks it to the curb with the 'Concentration check as a saving throw' maneuvers.

That is true.


3) Having a +4 on a saving throw sounds nice... against un-optimized casters, it might actually be relevant. However, what do you do when casters start tossing out 'no save, just lose' effects?

Yeah, but for tiers do we not assume = optimization across the board?


4) How do you present yourself as a viable threat against targets with non-standard movement modes? Such as: Flight, Burrowing, Teleportation, Etherealness...

there are spells for flight. The rest is well... hrm. Same as anyone else without those spells


5) All of your class abilities go away the moment you fall. Which you can do by accident and completely unaware of the risk.

From SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"

I can see alignment changing items being a problem, but if i remember there are defenses for minimal gold for those.

If you are tricked or don't know you are commiting an evil act then yes you fall, but that would mean it wasn't by accident.

To grossly violate the code is no accident.



6) All you can really do to threaten something is 'beat on it'. Which a Barbarian can do. Much better. And more effectively. And you have fewer hit points than he does. So how precisely are you better at taking hits again?

spells like Magic Circle against Chaos and other buffs like Death ward, your self heal, which is a standard action yes but still a thing.


7) AC is a silly thing to rely on for actual defense. Aside from the fact that physical attacks are not really going to be a major threat compared to 'save or lose' conditions, attack bonuses scale FAR faster and higher than AC can.
true, it only really helps against the hordes of lower level enemies, or if you spec for it and get something like 72AC.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The cleric. The wizard. The warblade. Any other party members who aren't incompetent at their jobs. You do have an edge over the Knight and the Monk.

Actually no, the Knight at least has a mechanical 'Taunt' function, even if it has a saving throw. So the Knight has an edge over the Paladin for drawing aggro.

[Gnaeus]

Although under mechanical things...

What visual difference/obvious difference would there be between a Paladin (Armored guy with holy symbols) and a Cleric (Armored guy with holy symbols)? Add in the "Detect Good" ability, they would both show up as powerful Good Auras, the cleric and the paladin.

A cleric is a powerful threat and would logically be dealt with.

Unless the Paladin in question is going "I AM A PALADIN!" at the top of his lungs your demon/devil probably wouldn't know the difference by any mechanical reasoning it could list.

Instead all it knows is there's this guy who detects like a Cleric who is going on about how he shall vanquish you in the name of Heironius, which a Cleric probably would say as well.

So do you, as an intelligent outsider, take a guess that the guy might just be a Paladin and mostly ineffective? Or be safe, figure it might be a Cleric, and that you need to put it down quickly?

Because the cleric will be casting high level spells. The same way he knows the wizard is a wizard and not a monk with a book.

[Gnaeus]

Actually no, the Knight at least has a mechanical 'Taunt' function, even if it has a saving throw. So the Knight has an edge over the Paladin for drawing aggro.

But the paladin can at least outdamage the Knight against evil guys. And shield other is better than the equivalent knight shield ability. And if they both multiclassed out (like they should), Taunt DC may be uselessly low.

Honestly, while I would attack the paladin first, the debate itself screams tier 5.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

From SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"

I can see alignment changing items being a problem, but if i remember there are defenses for minimal gold for those.

If you are tricked or don't know you are commiting an evil act then yes you fall, but that would mean it wasn't by accident.

To grossly violate the code is no accident.

"Crap, my sword's been sundered!"

"Here, use mine!"

Paladin takes a swing

GM: You fall for using a poisoned weapon.

Not to mention evil party members who are clever enough to wear lead undies.


spells like Magic Circle against Chaos and other buffs like Death ward, your self heal, which is a standard action yes but still a thing. Self-healing by spending an action in combat is fail. Magic Circle and Death Ward are higher level buffs, which the Cleric had several levels sooner.

[dascarletm]

Then you will be dead. Any monster that is a threat at level 20 can do way more than 100 hp/round.

Sure, but 2 encounters helps still.



Nope, just the intelligent ones. Which happen to be the dangerous ones, and almost everything that is a threat at mid-high levels.

Intelligent=/=Immune to emotion or making sup-optimal decisions.
Heck, Tesla probably had one of the highest Int scores on the planet. He made horrible decisions in regards to his own security and finance. Just as an example.


Indeed. If your DM decides to take pity on you, you will die less. With any class. that doesn't make Paladin any better, just more playable in that game. The same thing could be said of any T5.

I find DMs playing their NPC monsters as people with differing goals/motivations/decision making practices the norm I guess.


Or they can see how uselessly you fight and make their own decisions. Or they can have encountered paladins before and know that unless they see them pulling out their holy symbol and casting high level spells they aren't a threat. (Because you know, the only difference between Cleric as Paladin and Paladin as Paladin is that the Cleric actually is a good tank.)

I don't see the characters knowing they move in a turn based world during combat, or see how much damage something does popping up in red letters.
But I suppose you are right in some regards.



The cleric. The wizard. The warblade. Any other party members who aren't incompetent at their jobs. You do have an edge over the Knight and the Monk.
Not my point but okay. If I'm a demon I'd prefer to kill the champion of good
over some wizard any day, even if it puts me at some risk.

I still stand by that they are still Tier One in Fun though.:smallbiggrin:

[dascarletm]

"Crap, my sword's been sundered!"

"Here, use mine!"

Paladin takes a swing

GM: You fall for using a poisoned weapon.

Not to mention evil party members who are clever enough to wear lead undies.

Self-healing by spending an action in combat is fail. Magic Circle and Death Ward are higher level buffs, which the Cleric had several levels sooner.

If the paladin knows it is poisoned then result to ye-old back up weapon instead. Otherwise the evil act of using a poison was not willingly done, and thus, no fall.

EDIT: And I'm not saying they have the best spells at a level, but it frees up slots on the cleric if you have one, or gives you access if you don't

[Greenish]

I still stand by that they are still Tier One in Fun though.:smallbiggrin:There isn't tier system for fun because that would be stupid.

[Flickerdart]

The argument that a paladin can tank because of roleplaying is inappropriate for a thread about the tier system, because roleplaying is not a paladin class feature.

[dascarletm]

There isn't tier system for fun because that would be stupid.

That was just a clever(silly) way to say I still enjoy them no matter what tier they are....

EDIT:

The argument that a paladin can tank because of roleplaying is inappropriate for a thread about the tier system, because roleplaying is not a paladin class feature.
I agree, you may strike all that from the record.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

If the paladin knows it is poisoned then result to ye-old back up weapon instead. Otherwise the evil act of using a poison was not willingly done, and thus, no fall.

EDIT: And I'm not saying they have the best spells at a level, but it frees up slots on the cleric if you have one, or gives you access if you don't


Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Sorry, I see nothing in here about knowing about it before hand or not..

[dascarletm]

Sorry, I see nothing in here about knowing about it before hand or not..

To lose the powers you have to grossly violate the code, are you arguing that mistakenly using it once in a dire situation like that is a gross violation?

[Gnaeus]

I still stand by that they are still Tier One in Fun though.:smallbiggrin:

Actually, I do kind of agree with you here. I just weep that they can't perform as they promise.

Fortunately, Pathfinder Paladin is a good T4, Crusader (with or without paladin dip) is T3. Sorcadins probably play about T3, Favored Soul is T2, and Cleric at T1 (with PRCs to make you even more Paladinish, like Prestige Paladin or Ordained Champion), so I can play a Paladin character without touching the 3.5 paladin class (for more than 2 levels at least).

[DeltaEmil]

Not my point but okay. If I'm a demon I'd prefer to kill the champion of good over some wizard any day, even if it puts me at some risk.Pishposh. As a demon, you kill the wizard, because it's a threat to all of demonkind (constantly being summoned always leads to the demons losing despite being numerically superior to their hated devil-counterparts). That champion of good, you take with you to the Abyss after you've easily subdued it, because it's incapable of escaping your grasp, being that weak and pathetic, so that it can be tortured and humiliated and made to fall and perhaps even turned into a champion of evil instead, giving you more bennies with the demon lords.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

To lose the powers you have to grossly violate the code, are you arguing that mistakenly using it once in a dire situation like that is a gross violation?

Does it matter if it is a dire situation or not?

Does honor come with a failsafe? Does it have a caveat 'unless we're in trouble, in which case it's okay'? Because if so, please point it out to me.

Anyone can hold to a code of honor when it is easy. But to hold it when it is hard? To have the choice of 'death or dishonor' and pick death? That is something only very few can do. They're called Paladins. If you can't do that, you aren't going to last long as one.

[ArcturusV]

Because the cleric will be casting high level spells. The same way he knows the wizard is a wizard and not a monk with a book.

Actually I tend to know wizards are wizards because of how they look. Usually carrying wands, rods, staffs, in typical "Shoot me, I'm a Wizard" outfits, etc. And you know the Monk because he died years ago thinking he was a Wizard Killer. And unlike the Cleric to Paladin mix, the monk and the wizard do act significantly differently during the first round of combat.

But yeah, Demons, Devils, they don't necessarily have Spellcraft to know that some spell is high level. A lot do, but not all by any means. They do have Detect ___ to tell it's a "powerful aura of ____" for the level. Otherwise they tend to play out very similar. First round of combat would probably go:

Cleric: *casts a buff on self*
Paladin: *casts a buff on self*
Demon/Devil: *uses detect good, sees a powerful aura of Good. Smashes it.*

By round two it might realize it smacked a Paladin instead of a Cleric. Maybe. Again, not a given but likely since the Paladin probably screamed out "SMITE EVIL!" and used it.

Again, I'm not stressing the Paladin is GOOD at it's role. It's firmly in tier 5 territory in my mind. Just saying it's not as impossible to make out as suggested, and that it was Roleplay Fiat only to "Tank" or "Pull Aggro" like that. It also had some sound, mechanical basis.

[Jeff the Green]

From SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"

I can see alignment changing items being a problem, but if i remember there are defenses for minimal gold for those.

If you are tricked or don't know you are commiting an evil act then yes you fall, but that would mean it wasn't by accident.

To grossly violate the code is no accident.

There's nothing meant by "willfully" to imply the Paladin has to know it would be an evil act. He just has to have intended to do it. A paladin who's been bluffed into thinking that eating babies is the supreme Good still falls when he does it.

[undead hero]

I find Mountain Hammers utility to be overated

As is the Paladin, but even more so.

[Lazers etcetera]

Pathfinder paladins are better, except for a wee thing.

A cleric of Iomedae (most paladin style god) is explicitly stated to be more or less a paladin.

But better, obviously.

With variant paladins, is there a way for a paladin of freedom to have a bit of barbarian and some spellcasting still?

[Flickerdart]

But yeah, Demons, Devils, they don't necessarily have Spellcraft to know that some spell is high level. A lot do, but not all by any means. They do have Detect ___ to tell it's a "powerful aura of ____" for the level. Otherwise they tend to play out very similar. First round of combat would probably go:

Cleric: *casts a buff on self*
Paladin: *casts a buff on self*
Demon/Devil: *uses detect good, sees a powerful aura of Good. Smashes it.*

Babau: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Balor: Spellcraft, no detect good.
Bebilith: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Dretch: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Glabrezu: Spellcraft, no detect good.
Hezrou: Spellcraft, no detect good.
Marilith: Spellcraft, no detect good.
Nalfeeshnee: Spellcraft, no detect good.
Quasit: Spellcraft, no detect good.
Succubus: No Spellcraft, detect good.
Vrock: Spellcraft, no detect good.

Hamatula: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Barbazu: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Osyluth: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Kyton: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Erinyes: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Bezekira: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Cornugon: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Gelugon: Spellcraft, no detect good.
Imp: Spellcraft, detect good.
Lemure: No Spellcraft, no detect good.
Pit Fiend: Spellcraft, no detect good.

Out of all the fiends in the MM, only one matches the premise of your "probable" first round of combat, and that's a succubus, which doesn't even fight head-on. So a grand total of zero fiends will behave like you describe.

[TuggyNE]

With variant paladins, is there a way for a paladin of freedom to have a bit of barbarian and some spellcasting still?

Uh, yeah? Just, y'know, start with Barbarian levels and then take Paladin of Freedom. You won't be able to cast while raging, generally, but that isn't necessarily the worst thing ever. (Unless you took Battle Blessing, in which case you'll have some hard choices to make.)

[Greenish]

With variant paladins, is there a way for a paladin of freedom to have a bit of barbarian and some spellcasting still?Champion of Gwynharwyf (BoED) is a basically CG paladin as a barbarian PrC.

[ArcturusV]

Ah. Okay, faulty memory on my part. Thought Detect ____s were a common devil and demon trait.

[TheYell]

There's nothing meant by "willfully" to imply the Paladin has to know it would be an evil act. He just has to have intended to do it. A paladin who's been bluffed into thinking that eating babies is the supreme Good still falls when he does it.

I agree the rule has to be three seperate circumstances or it's redundant:
altering alignment by choosing not-good, not-lawful behavior;
deliberately doing an act, that turns out to be evil;
grossly violating the code.

However the given circumstance is, being tricked into using a poisoned blade.
Using a poisoned blade isn't an evil act. It's just forbidden to paladins.

Unless the DM is out to have broken paladin, innocent and proper acts like trusting party members to help you, should never be gross violations of the code.

Now the recovery has to be serious, because the commitment to the code requires you stop trusting people smarter than you to cause you to break it, should you find yourself around such people. Either they go, or they amend their ways, and you have to settle that yourself satisfactorily.

[Flickerdart]

Using a poisoned blade isn't an evil act. It's just forbidden to paladins.

As per the BoVD, poisons are evil.

[dascarletm]

Pishposh. As a demon, you kill the wizard, because it's a threat to all of demonkind (constantly being summoned always leads to the demons losing despite being numerically superior to their hated devil-counterparts). That champion of good, you take with you to the Abyss after you've easily subdued it, because it's incapable of escaping your grasp, being that weak and pathetic, so that it can be tortured and humiliated and made to fall and perhaps even turned into a champion of evil instead, giving you more bennies with the demon lords.
well, yeah... Wizards ARE jerks.


Does it matter if it is a dire situation or not?

No, but the emphasis was that he needs to grossly violate his code to lose powers. The dire situation is just a



Does honor come with a failsafe? Does it have a caveat 'unless we're in trouble, in which case it's okay'? Because if so, please point it out to me.

No, and I never implied that it does. The paladin isn't going, "well I sure am in a pickle. better break my code just this once. He's grabbing a blade thrown to him in the heat of the moment. There is no criminal intent, and because of the situation he may be breaking the code, but not grossly.



Anyone can hold to a code of honor when it is easy. But to hold it when it is hard? To have the choice of 'death or dishonor' and pick death? That is something only very few can do. They're called Paladins. If you can't do that, you aren't going to last long as one.

Hence why I love the idea of them. I haven't been even presented a situation that is even a good "easy road and high road," because that wasn't your point. You were saying that the powers could be taken unbeknownst to me, which by definition cannot be anything like you described.


There's nothing meant by "willfully" to imply the Paladin has to know it would be an evil act. He just has to have intended to do it. A paladin who's been bluffed into thinking that eating babies is the supreme Good still falls when he does it.

Willfully: done deliberately, intentionally.
To intentionally commit an evil act you must have the intent of committing an evil act.

In the sentence willfully is an adverb. It is describing the verb commit. Commit's direct object is "an evil act". thus the Subject (The paladin) must be willful in commiting "an evil act".

[Jeff the Green]

Willfully: done deliberately, intentionally.
To intentionally commit an evil act you must have the intent of committing an evil act.

In the sentence willfully is an adverb. It is describing the verb commit. Commit's direct object is "an evil act". thus the Subject (The paladin) must be willful in commiting "an evil act".

Let's imagine that I willfully step on a bug. Unbeknownst to me, bugs are actually as intelligent as humans and have moral worth. Thus, stepping on a bug is an evil act.

So, did I willfully step on the bug? Yes. Is stepping on the bug an evil act? Yes. We can combine the two to say that I willfully committed an evil act.

There is no rule anywhere suggesting that intent is magical; in fact there's ample statements of the reverse, that committing an evil act for good or neutral reasons is still evil. Doing something without knowing its moral consequences is doing something with a neutral reason (e.g. "I want to," "my boss told me to"). So if you do something evil unknowingly it's still evil.

[dascarletm]

Let's imagine that I willfully step on a bug. Unbeknownst to me, bugs are actually as intelligent as humans and have moral worth. Thus, stepping on a bug is an evil act.
So, did I willfully step on the bug? Yes. Is stepping on the bug an evil act? Yes. We can combine the two to say that I willfully committed an evil act.

This is a Deductive fallacy
I willfully sleep with a girl. This girl has an STD. Did I gain an STD? yes. Did I wilfully sleep with her? yes. Did I willfully gain an STD? no.
You can't transit the willingness of a subject through that logical line.



There is no rule anywhere suggesting that intent is magical; in fact there's ample statements of the reverse, that committing an evil act for good or neutral reasons is still evil. Doing something without knowing its moral consequences is doing something with a neutral reason (e.g. "I want to," "my boss told me to"). So if you do something evil unknowingly it's still evil.

The thing is, with your line of logic, any repercussions of any action a paladin undertakes are thus his responsibility. If I knock a boulder down to kill an evil fire giant off a cliff, but that boulder was used to navigate the canyon I'm in by good travelers and they happen to get lost and die I'm to blame?

EDIT: At best these situations describe an accident which by definition (an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap) is unintentional.

[Pickford]

Except that by the time you're level 2 the party rogue has a higher modifier for all the face skills because he gets enough skill points/level to invest in them.

Rogues don't get Knowledge nobility, and for one thing Rogues may get 6 more skill points than an all things equal Paladin, but they also have 29 skills that are roguishly important, whereas the Paladin only has maybe 4.

Paladins having Cha as a primary stat are, in almost every circumstance, going to be a better party face except when it requires lying outright (i.e. bluff).

[Augmental]

Paladins having Cha as a primary stat are, in almost every circumstance, going to be a better party face except when it requires lying outright (i.e. bluff).

If a paladin invests too heavily into Charisma, their combat prowess is probably going to suffer.

[Snowbluff]

If a paladin invests too heavily into Charisma, their combat prowess is probably going to suffer.

Agreed. Anything past 14 in a point buy is too expensive to justify, I'd say. Which is kind of sad, considering all of the goodies turning can provide.

[eggynack]

This is a Deductive fallacy
I willfully sleep with a girl. This girl has an STD. Did I gain an STD? yes. Did I wilfully sleep with her? yes. Did I willfully gain an STD? no.
You can't transit the willingness of a subject through that logical line.


That's actually not how the original logic was operating. You're claiming that the conclusion was "The paladin was being willfully evil." However, he only said, "the paladin willfully committed an evil act." Following along on your logic, the conclusion to your logical statement should be, "Did I willfully sleep with a girl with an STD." The answer to that question is yes. In this case, the term "willfully" is being used to modify the action, "committed," or, "slept with." Intent to cause the negative outcome isn't required.

[Jeff the Green]

This is a Deductive fallacy
I willfully sleep with a girl. This girl has an STD. Did I gain an STD? yes. Did I wilfully sleep with her? yes. Did I willfully gain an STD? no.
You can't transit the willingness of a subject through that logical line.

That's not the same argument. Here's yours in abstract form:

I willfully did x.
Doing x causes me to do y.
Therefore, I willfully did y.

Here's mine:

I willfully did x.
X is a member of set E.
Therefore, I willfully did a member of set E.

Under consequentialist ethics, you're absolutely right that they're essentially equivalent. But D&D morality isn't consequentialist. Acts are Good or Evil in and of themselves, not based on what happens afterwards.


The thing is, with your line of logic, any repercussions of any action a paladin undertakes are thus his responsibility. If I knock a boulder down to kill an evil fire giant off a cliff, but that boulder was used to navigate the canyon I'm in by good travelers and they happen to get lost and die I'm to blame?

EDIT: At best these situations describe an accident which by definition (an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap) is unintentional.

As I said, D&D doesn't do consequentialist ethics. If knocking a boulder off a cliff to kill an evil fire giant "debase[s] or destroy[s] innocent life, whether for fun or profit," then it's an Evil act. If it "protect[s] innocent life," it's Good. Intention rarely matters, and consequences don't ever.

[dascarletm]

I suppose you all have points, but to me since willingly (done deliberately : intentional) is defined as having intent and willingly describes "evil act" then evil act must be intended.

I suppose it is like a videogame. If I choose the evil option (in a game that doesn't tell you which is good/evil) I will shift to evil no matter if I intended the selection to be the good one.

However, I like to think that the beauty of pen and paper is the ability to use our minds power to make judgements on the matter.

So, I suppose I agree/disagree.:smallamused:

Good stuff to think on, I'll sleep on it.

[eggynack]

I suppose you all have points, but to me since willingly (done deliberately : intentional) is defined as having intent and willingly describes "evil act" then evil act must be intended.

I suppose it is like a videogame. If I choose the evil option (in a game that doesn't tell you which is good/evil) I will shift to evil no matter if I intended the selection to be the good one.

However, I like to think that the beauty of pen and paper is the ability to use our minds power to make judgements on the matter.

So, I suppose I agree/disagree.:smallamused:

Good stuff to think on, I'll sleep on it.
It's not that this is necessarily the only reading of the rules. It's that it's a potential reading of the rules. There's tons of ways a DM can engineer a situation to cause a paladin to fall. "Muahaha. If you don't stab this baby, I'll stab this baby and also another baby." It doesn't mean that much hardship for a paladin, but it's a downside. Paladins are terrible enough that they don't need undue hardships. If I were tossing out houserules for the intent of balance, I'd give the cleric the annoying paladin code and let the paladin roam free. On a separate note, I'd also trade the druid's and ranger's animal companion. The fact that they're not like that currently is ridiculous.

Anyway, it doesn't take too drastic of a reading to see tons of loopholes and chasms of sorrow for an unwitting paladin to fall into. All you really need is one good dilemma. Toss a situation at the paladin where he has two choices, and pick the lesser of two evils. He could do nothing, but that would result in the greatest evil of the three. You can come up with situations that willingly force him to do evil all day. Here's another good one involving the poisoned weapon from earlier. The bbeg is holding an artifact of evil. The paladin has had every weapon stripped away from him, except for a poisoned dagger that he was stabbed with earlier in the fight. He has to use the dagger, or risk the fate of the world. Additionally, what about the classic To Be Lawful Or Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ToBeLawfulOrGood) decision. The paladin's lord asks him to do something evil. If he doesn't, he's being unlawful, and loses his paladin powers. It doesn't need to be as unsubtle as that. There's a whole trope page of them right there.

Basically, if the DM wants you to fall, then you'll fall. If the DM doesn't care if you fall, then a reasonable interpretation of the rules could cause you to fall anyway. The code of conduct isn't why the paladin sucks, but it's the sour mayonnaise on their sandwich of failure.

[ArcturusV]

Though I could swear I read something somewhere that basically said:

"The Lawful part of Lawful Good doesn't mean that you do whatever an authority figure tells you. It is a higher standard of Law and Order that means you only respect authorities in the right and will not blindly obey or follow evil orders, etc, etc, etc."

Closest I could find was the Book of Exalted Deeds, page 12 when talking about the different Good Alignments mentions that Lawful Good types follow "legitimate" authority. They won't overthrow a system just because it's corrupt. But it also says they will work within the system to bring reform to it. Suggesting that they don't just blindly adopt Evil because a rightful (But evil) King tells them to go be evil.

But I'm sure there's something even more explicit than that. Just can't find it at the moment. But yeah. I know people often use the Law vs Good angle to try and make Paladins break. Though their code makes it clear Good is the obvious choice. It's "Becomes Chaotic" (Which is a pattern of being Chaotic), or "Commit an evil act" (A one time event). So obviously it's clear you should err for Good.

[dascarletm]

I'd say that a lord who tells a paladin to do something evil is A: Terrible at being a lord (see A Game of Thrones) and
B: not a legitimate authority figure at that point (Heronious' laws are greater then that of mortals.)

[eggynack]

I'd say that a lord who tells a paladin to do something evil is A: Terrible at being a lord (see A Game of Thrones) and
B: not a legitimate authority figure at that point (Heronious' laws are greater then that of mortals.)
That was just a somewhat lame example. I'm mostly invoking the age old mandate to be either lawful or good. Your party wants to give food to local beggars, circumventing the city's harsh laws preventing importing perishable goods. You have to either break the law, or let the poor go hungry. Basically, this just covers any situation where the law of the land stops you from doing good, thus forcing you to act against one aspect of your alignment. It also applies in the case I mentioned, though in a real game it would probably be more realistic. The ruler doesn't have to be actually evil. He just has to want the paladin to take action that violates his code of ethics. Perhaps he wants to stop the local evil sorcerer, but he knows that attacking head on would be crazy. He sends his go to guy, the friendly paladin to handle the job. However, the sorcerer has a lot of support in the community, so an overt action would probably incite a rebellion, so he wants the paladin to use poison that makes it look like it was natural causes. Even if they find out it's poison, they probably wouldn't suspect the paladin. Either way, it doesn't really matter how the code of conduct can be super tricky. All that matters is that it is super tricky. The wording is vague, and heavily open to interpretation. It's just another downside to a pretty terrible class.

[Pickford]

If a paladin invests too heavily into Charisma, their combat prowess is probably going to suffer.

Not particularly, the Paladin's dump stats are arguably Int and Wis. Why wis? Because they only need 14 total, 14-6 (for the easily purchased enhancement) is 8. Meaning a Paladin requires 0 points in wis or int.

That leaves Str, Cha, Dex and Con.

Well...plate armor pretty much negates the necessity for dex, so that leaves Str, Con, and Cha.

32 point buy: 18 Cha, 16 Str, 12 Con, 10 Dex (to avoid the negative; although this could easily be handled later down the line with an enhancement bonus)

Str will only cover two things for the Paladin, to hit and + damage. Yes, those are important...but Cha covers:

Smite Evil, Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, Turn Undead

Each point of charisma bonus translates into:

+1 to hit on smite; +1 to reflex, fortitude, and will saves; the ability to heal for 1 hp per level per day; and 1 extra turn undead per day.

Given that 2 points increase saves by the equivalent of not one, but three feats (i.e. iron will, great fortitude, and lightning reflexes), I can't see how, on that basis alone, one could justify shorting charisma for a Paladin.

[ArcturusV]

The reason why being that generally:

Equipment gets expensive, so you can't quite afford a +6 stat item for everything you would want to increase. On top of the otherwise hefty gear requirements that melee/weapon based characters typically have anyway.

And generally most people view the Paladin as a class that will be taking a lot of hits, so they want more Con than just 12. I mean 12 is what wizards with a d4 who expect to never seriously get hit take. Frontliners usually want closer to 16-18. 18 strength of course. Wisdom isn't just spells, but also key Paladin class skills like Handle Animal, Sense Motive, etc. Int of course is needed to get away from the nigh useless 2 skill points per level. Almost requires you to get Nymph's Kiss, be Human, etc, just to hope to have a damn of being able to really fill your role (As almost any Paladin build does require skills to really fire on all cylinders. From Mounted Combat to "Face" types).

So we got an ideal that a Paladin wants (And I say Ideal meaning "I consider this necessary to really do what I want" rather than "best case scenario, I rolled 18 6 times in a row on 3d6...) of Str 18, Dex 10 (Regardless of Armor you don't want penalties to Initiative Checks at the very least), 16 Con, 14 Int (I need skill points dammit!), 14 Wis (I want my spells AND need the stat bonus to some key skills), 16 Charisma.

Plug that into my Point Buy Calculator, I see that's a 50 point buy.

[Pickford]

snip.

That becomes a preference issue then, no Con bonus is really necessary, and the difference between a +1 con and +4 is only 3 hp at level 1.

By the time a Paladin would even need the +6 to wis they would easily be able to afford the mere 36k entry price.

Edit: Paladins don't need skill points for anything unless they're specializing in ride.

[Gwendol]

Paladins should really be Tier 4. Building them to do one thing good isn't that hard, but being one of the most MAD classes in the game is limiting.
OTOH, discussing classes belonging to Tier4 or 5 is kind of pointless as it's a crapshoot anyway. Paladins are multiclass-friendly though (Bardadin, Sorcadin, etc), which should count for something.

[ArcturusV]

Not entirely certain how you figure that one, the entire lack of skill needs.

A Mounted Paladin obviously needs Ride and Handle Animal at the very least. If they actually want to do anything other than ride a horse and be complete non-factors until the feces interacts with the rotational oscillating air mover, they'll need some other schtick to use. At the very least ranks in Heal are useful since Remove Disease is such an abysmally useless use rate. And potential need for Knowledge skills for PrC requirements, which are probably a good idea.

If you want a "Face" Paladin. You're talking about Knowledge skills, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and probably a few cross ranks in Intimidate at the very least.

If you want the typical "Warrior-Priest" vision of the Paladin you're talking about ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing), Craft (Armorsmithing), Heal, Knowledge (Religion).

This is just bare minimal really. If you want out of combat utility. If you want to be able to do things other than sit there twiddling your thumbs, you'll need more than 2 skill points per level.

[Gwendol]

I'm struggling to understand why a paladin will need handle animal? A ranger, yes, but a paladin? The mount is a magical beast, so handle animal doesn't apply.

[ArcturusV]

For the class feature mount? Not really. For a normal mount before you hit level 5 though. Not to mention it does save you money on replacement animals if you can train them for War yourself (Which you'll need to do to really have enough GP to go mounted at a level 1 start). Also allows you to raise your own animals should you desire something alternative to a simple horse, which is probably gonna be the case eventually.

But yeah. Level 1-4 you'll need it at the very least. It might just be me, but I don't like builds that illogically can't work before some magic level that just happened to happen pre-game (If building at a higher level) or having things where you have to be entirely carried IC for a few levels until you hit some mark, due to your schtick not really functioning before that point.

[NichG]

I don't see Paladins needing Handle Animal at any level. Ride is sufficient to control a mount in combat. Handle Animal is if you need to train an untrained animal, but you can just purchase a trained Warhorse before the class feature comes into play.

Given two skills to max on a Paladin I'd probably go Ride and Diplomacy. Sense Motive would be a nice third one to add, but you don't really need to know for sure if someone is telling the truth or lying if you can just convince them to tell the truth in the first place. Sense Motive is also something that can easily be handled by a non-face PC communicating what they perceive to the Paladin (though arranging this communication to not be too obvious could be a challenge).

On a 28 point buy I'd probably do something like:

Str 14
Dex 8
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 11
Cha 17

This lets me put my Lv4 stat point in Cha for a slightly cheaper 18, and still be able to cast Lv1 spells by the time I get them. By Lv8 I can afford a point into Wis to get Lv2 spells, and then I can rely on a stat booster item for the rest. Ideally I'd probably want a few 1-level dips into stuff that gives me Cha to X, such as Marshal; its silly on a Paladin, but the Slippers of Battle Dancing are really nice for this guy too. If I do it right I should have a Paladin who charges into battle on a mount wielding a lance and using Spirited Charge, casting Rhino's Rush to add another +1 multiplier to damage, and using Smite and perhaps a ToB maneuver or two via feats to buff up that single attack (Ruby Nightmare Blade would be nice for this guy, but maybe hard to get; Emerald Razor plus Power Attack is probably the way to go early on).

[ArcturusV]

Well, as a level 1 Paladin you have 150 gp on average. So you really aren't gonna be a Mounted Warrior unless you save some money any way you can. For example by crafting your own gear, training your own mount for war, etc. Or REALLY skimping on necessary equipment and ending up with a guy who's wearing studded leather armor, has a lance, ride a Warpony, and has pretty much nothing else. Level 2 isn't much better. At 900 GP you can barely start to equip yourself, buy a Heavy Warhorse, and maybe afford to give it something like Leather Barding. You'd need level 3 to really be able to fully outfit your mounted warrior properly. But then you're probably going to start shorting yourself out of Masterwork Equipment that other characters would be having at that level.

[Gwendol]

Or just go on foot like everyone else until you get your special mount...

[ArcturusV]

Meaning you effectively have useless things. As you're probably picking up feats that you cannot use at all until you get it then. Mounted Combat, Ride By Attack, Spirit Charge, all basic feats needed for a mounted character that will be doing jack for you, so that you're even WORSE than a Fighter at Tier 5. You're a CW Samurai. You are being carried by the team and contributing effectively nothing.

[ahenobarbi]

retraining is a thing. You can take Craft and Handle Animal ranks (maybe even skill focus) and retrain them later, when they no longer useful.

[Gwendol]

Because the paladin is on some mysterious way forbidden to take feats that are actually useful to him at levels 1-4? Like dreadful wrath, power attack, cleave, etc?

[Killer Angel]

That was just a somewhat lame example. I'm mostly invoking the age old mandate to be either lawful or good. Your party wants to give food to local beggars, circumventing the city's harsh laws preventing importing perishable goods. You have to either break the law, or let the poor go hungry.

The paladin acts for the Good... in a lawful way. So yeah, the pally will give the food, buying it in place, or paying a cleric for create food and water, or something else, that doesn't involve the import of perishable goods.
Doing good don't make paladins fall.



Because the paladin is on some mysterious way forbidden to take feats that are actually useful to him at levels 1-4? Like dreadful wrath, power attack, cleave, etc?

I wouldn't put Cleave on the same level of usefulness of PA...

[Eldariel]

On a 28 point buy I'd probably do something like:

Str 14
Dex 8
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 11
Cha 17

This lets me put my Lv4 stat point in Cha for a slightly cheaper 18, and still be able to cast Lv1 spells by the time I get them. By Lv8 I can afford a point into Wis to get Lv2 spells, and then I can rely on a stat booster item for the rest. Ideally I'd probably want a few 1-level dips into stuff that gives me Cha to X, such as Marshal; its silly on a Paladin, but the Slippers of Battle Dancing are really nice for this guy too. If I do it right I should have a Paladin who charges into battle on a mount wielding a lance and using Spirited Charge, casting Rhino's Rush to add another +1 multiplier to damage, and using Smite and perhaps a ToB maneuver or two via feats to buff up that single attack (Ruby Nightmare Blade would be nice for this guy, but maybe hard to get; Emerald Razor plus Power Attack is probably the way to go early on).

Why so high Charisma? You're still a melee Fighter, Strength is the most important stat to you. Charisma only gives you saves and once/day to hit. Smite isn't up often enough to be worth worrying about so Charisma is only saves; what good are your saves if you have no offensive output?

Strength 16, Con 14 would be a good baseline. Build on from there. 14 Cha is likely enough and 12 Wis.


Also, Diplomacy is a pretty bad investment for a character who doesn't rank Bluff, Sense Motive or Knowledge: Nobility & Royalty; you're essentially +6 behind anyone who gets the synergies.

Also, no ranks in Concentration removes any chance of combat casting ever.

[ArcturusV]

Well, if you did, you'd absolutely suck at mounted combat when you finally did get your mount. As like most combat styles it's based on having a feat chain going to be effective.

So it'd be Lame Duck for 1-4, finally can use your concept at level 5+, or have a decent enough build early on, and your mount (One of the best features for the out of the box paladin) is almost entirely worthless.

Or use variant rules like Retraining and copious amounts of Flaws I suppose so "wasted" feats don't hurt as much. Which I guess is RAW but typically DMs I've played with have had a problem with Flaw Feats, or Retraining when it's done outside of it's book intended purpose (You really are unhappy with a character as is and need an alteration to be happy for it, rather than for Min-Maxing/Gaming application to "beat the system").

But still. It's just a problem with the Paladin out of the box. Sure, leeway with a DM and variant rules go far. Or just being in a group who never starts campaigns below certain levels or goes above certain levels so it's never really a concern I suppose.

[Lans]

If your worried about mount prices you can try using a mule for the first 4 levels.

What divine feat adds to damage?

[dascarletm]

Also, no ranks in Concentration removes any chance of combat casting ever.

In the paladin spell list, there isn't many spells one would cast while threatened. Mostly buffs, which are typically cast before face-time

[AgentofHellfire]

So, while you are spending points and gold on Cha, to make that work, I am spending the same ability points or gold on Con, to give me better HP, or Str, to make me do more damage.

Already addressed by someone else, so I'm going to echo him.




Smite is pretty sub-par as a damage boost, lasting, as it does, for only 1 attack (not even round, just attack). Even with, say, 10 smites per day, the well built fighter, with his higher strength, and bonus feats, and the feat you sunk into extra smites, should significantly outdamage you most of the time. I mean, say 4 attacks per round (3 + haste or an AOO) you probably make 12-15 attacks per fight, 4 fights per day, heck, even with 20 smites and assuming you fight all evil stuff the fighter should come out ahead if he spends his feats well.

The Paladin's standard smite ability? Yes.

The ability you get via Divine Might? Not so much. It enhances every attack in the round, and, since it uses Turn Undead as the fuel, can easily be done many times per day.

[Pickford]

Meaning you effectively have useless things. As you're probably picking up feats that you cannot use at all until you get it then. Mounted Combat, Ride By Attack, Spirit Charge, all basic feats needed for a mounted character that will be doing jack for you, so that you're even WORSE than a Fighter at Tier 5. You're a CW Samurai. You are being carried by the team and contributing effectively nothing.

Except at 1st level the Paladin get Detect plot hole.

At 2nd level a Paladin is better at saves than the rest of the party.

At 3rd level the Paladin is immune to fear effects while everyone is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. (Assuming they aren't hugging your for protection)

At 4th level you're the substitute Cleric

And at 5th you get your special mount and can retrain for riding feats, or just pick riding feats 'after' picking non-riding feats, whatever floats your boat really.

[Gwendol]

What needed feats? Mounted combat is good to avoid those taking cheap shots at your mount, but a lance does double damage on a charge with no feats. Most campaigns don't allow for much mounted combat unless you go for a small paladin build, but that doesn't seem to be what we are discussing here. Just take the one feat then, buy a lance and go for the one (serious) hit. Or just take your usual weapon and do the quick dismount skill trick that allows you to charge after hopping off your mount.

[AgentofHellfire]

Wrong. Lay on hands is a standard action. My HP help me stay in the fight and defeat an enemy. Your lay on hands is only worth using out of combat, and as such all that extra 2 cha is to save one or 2 charges off the party CLW wand.


Lay on Hands, first of all, may be a standard action, but it's a supernatural ability. It's better than a cure spell in combat because it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

Granted, you're sacrificing a round of attacks, but it can still keep you in the fight fairly well.

[Pickford]

Lay on Hands, first of all, may be a standard action, but it's a supernatural ability. It's better than a cure spell in combat because it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

Granted, you're sacrificing a round of attacks, but it can still keep you in the fight fairly well.

And if you're buffing Cha appropriately it'll heal up to 220 HP by 20th (+11 cha mod)

edit: Or one-shot that annoying lich with a touch attack.

[Flickerdart]

It's better than a cure spell in combat because it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
That's saying absolutely nothing, though, because cure spells are rubbish.

At level, say, five, a Paladin might be able to spare 14 Charisma. That's a Lay On Hands pool of 10. Every CR5 monster deals more than that with a single attack. Every time you use Lay On Hands, you set yourself back because you're not healing as much as you're taking. Unless your goal is to survive for X rounds and do nothing else, this is futile.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What divine feat adds to damage?

There's one that lets you add Cha as a Sacred bonus to damage for blowing a turn attempt. Doesn't help a whole lot, though.

Paladin is, at best, a two-level dip. Maybe four, if you are going to be facing fear builds.

It's a great dip, don't get me wrong, but... well... even Monk is a good 2 level dip for some builds.

A straight Paladin sucks. A straight Barbarian is going to be decidedly superior in every encounter, because he will be dealing more damage, even against evil opponents. Which is generally what non-casters are stuck doing to get rid of opponents. A Barbarian also has a higher HD, less MAD so he can put his second stat into Con (first being Str) meaning even higher overall hit points than a Paladin, comes built in with some DR so he's even shrugging off hits easier.

A Barbarian doesn't cast, but a Paladin casting in combat is generally wasting his action. Case in point:

You get hit severely.

A Paladin might heal himself. Now your opponent has a chance to hit you again and undo that action

A Barbarian -will- curb-stomp his opponent, removing the threat entirely, and is able to recover at his leisure.

After that turn, the Paladin is still locked in combat with an opponent capable of harming him. The Barbarian... is not. Guess who gets hurt less in the long run?

For buffs, there's this class called a 'Cleric'. Most parties don't leave home without one. They generally get more of them, better ones, and sooner. And, yanno... funny thing about buffs... they tend to be able to be cast on allies. For example, Death Ward. He sees something that can dish out negative levels, he's probably going to drop that on the guy most likely to eat them. Of course, generally, to inflict negative levels, they'd need to hit. And it is kind of hard to do that when you just got roflstomped.

A Paladin spreads his focus out. A Barbarian doesn't. A Barbarian does one thing, but does it very well... that thing being 'hit things hard'. At any relevant CR level, a Barbarian is killing anything it hits. Not even 'on average', simply 'there is a 5% chance I might miss, but if I hit, it is dead'.

Hell, let's talk about Core Bard for a moment. At least a Bard gets some useful abilities. Particularly with splatbook help, Bards are vicious. DFI is absolutely BRUTAL, particularly since it is a group buff. IC can be set up to be tremendously useful even at low levels. And he's got Save or Lose spells on his list like Slow and Glitterdust. At a level that they are still meaningful and relevant. Bards also have tremendous out of combat utility. Party face, bluff-o-matic (Glibness FTW!), gather information... Bards get 6 + Int skills, and has a very generous list to choose from.

A Paladin, however, has very little utility out of combat. He might make a passable Party Face, but the Bard is so much better at it that there really is little comparison. Plus with 2+Int Mod (and Int is one of the few stats he can risk dumping), he's likely not got the skill points to devote to it.

Now let's talk Fighter.

Okay, so this is to see if the Paladin's class abilties are up to a feat every other level.

Well, a Fighter, again, is going to be focused on Combat. And has the feats to get quite a few options. A Fighter can fairly easily get tripping and disarming as options. A Paladin has to chose carefully... he *can* do that, but if he does, he's pretty much locked into it as his shtick. A Fighter? Can do that, AND pick up Power Attack, AND pick up Improved Initiative... all fairly early in his career. Paladin? Not so much.

Sure, the Paladin is a bit better at resisting spells, due to the Charisma mod to all saves. Of course, a Fighter is probably going to be able to pick up a Cloak of Resistance after a few levels to help offset that, and that might actually be a deciding difference against a sub-optimal caster. But realistically, after about fifth level when Casters start flying around, you're going to have a hard time hurting said wizard. Sure, you might be able to resist the magic... now what?

This actually goes more in Fighter's favor with splatbooks. Zhent Fighter 9 and Dungeoncrasher give Fighters single-target lockdown, when combined with Imperious Command. Swift action lockdown is very handy. Plus, he's got the feats for Spiked Chain Tripper + Combat Reflexes and still have enough bonus feats left over for Power Attack and Shock Trooper to one-shot kill just about anything he hits.

So yea... Paladin? Stinks. I wish they didn't. They've got awesome RP potential... but other than a two-level dip for resists, that's all they have potential for.

[Pickford]

That's saying absolutely nothing, though, because cure spells are rubbish.

At level, say, five, a Paladin might be able to spare 14 Charisma. That's a Lay On Hands pool of 10. Every CR5 monster deals more than that with a single attack. Every time you use Lay On Hands, you set yourself back because you're not healing as much as you're taking. Unless your goal is to survive for X rounds and do nothing else, this is futile.

I would expect to have at least 18 in Cha by 5th level (+4), possibly 19, and picked up either a Cloak of Charisma +2 or Circlet of Persuasion +3, it really depends on how generous or stingy the DM is with loot and the ability of characters to convert said loot into other items.

That being said, a Paladin with a tower shield and full plate (reasonable for 5th) will have a base AC of 22 (assuming no dex bonus, but with it 23, with dodge 24...if magical items...25+) vs a Dire Lion which is CR appropriate for a group of 4...the lion would hit about 50% of the time for an average of 10 damage, and be hit back about 50% of the time for an average of 7.5 damage from a 16 str paladin with a regular sword.

Considering there are meant to be 4 co-equal level characters in the fight, that's about right and a fair contribution from one character for a CR appropriate fight.

Edit:
Amusingly a Paladin can intimidate a raging Barbarian, but a Barbarian can never intimidate a Paladin.

A panicked Barbarian deals 0 damage.

[Lans]

I don't think paladins are proficient with tower shields

[DeltaEmil]

Amusingly a Paladin can intimidate a raging Barbarian, but a Barbarian can never intimidate a Paladin.Intimidate itself is rather useless if the enemy isn't already shaken and/or you can make the enemy shaken/frightened/panicked for several rounds, because Intimidation in combat is just a wasted standard action. And Intimidate is a cross-class skill for paladins (unless you use the paladin of slaughter variant) .

I don't think paladins are proficient with tower shields They're indeed not proficient with them.

[mangosta71]

Ah, the age old every single monster in the world will always make the most tactical decision, at all times.
It's more a matter of your enemies being smart enough to say "That guy is trashtalking but not actually doing anything to hurt us, while his friend there is sweeping my minions from the field with fire raining from the skies."

Basically, you're betting that you'll never fight a LE, NE, or CE opponent with an INT score outside the range of 6-8.

That being said, a Paladin with a tower shield and full plate (reasonable for 5th) will have a base AC of 22 (assuming no dex bonus, but with it 23, with dodge 24...if magical items...25+) vs a Dire Lion which is CR appropriate for a group of 4...the lion would hit about 50% of the time for an average of 10 damage, and be hit back about 50% of the time for an average of 7.5 damage from a 16 str paladin with a regular sword.
But there's no reason for the lion to attack the paladin. His animal intelligence will tell him "That other guy is hurting me more than this guy, so I'm gonna go kill him first." So the lion charges the wizard and kills him (full attack including 2 rakes thanks to Pounce) while you stand there looking pretty because you could neither keep its attention (RP taunts don't work against an animal intelligence) nor put it down (it's not Evil so your smite is completely useless and your damage output is **** without it). But at least you might live long enough to avenge your fallen comrade.

[Gwendol]

Oh, so now a dire lion is a threat to a 5th level wizard... that's a first on this board. :smallannoyed:

[Amnestic]

Oh, so now a dire lion is a threat to a 5th level wizard... that's a first on this board. :smallannoyed:

Insomuch as the Paladin does nothing besides sub-par damage to negate that threat. He lacks the Knight's Challenge (even if that itself is subpar), lacks the myriad of feats to create an effective lockdown build that the Fighter has coming out of his ears - especially if the Paladin wants to use that fancy mount of his - and lacks the Crusader's maneuvers which punish opponents for not attacking him.

The Paladin only has decent "aggro"/"threat" if the DM allows him to, which is true of every class.

[Talderas]

Why has no one mentioned the hit points, Lay on Hands and Divine Grace yet?

Wand of Vigor addresses the first. That makes the rogue better at healing than a paladin.

--


Paladins make good tanks.

No they don't.

They don't have any methods to force enemies to engage them. Their lack of feats also means that they probably don't have any tricks to intercept movement or otherwise control the battlefield. You're falsely equating tanking with survivability but tanking is a combination of survivability and controlling the opposition so they focus on you rather than surviving hits. The tanking ability of a class in D&D is generally directly proportional to how much pain a class can cause to the opposition, whether this pain is combat maneuvers, damage, or other debuffs.

A bard, by virtue of having proficiency with a whip, is a better tank because he has a long reach weapon to make tripping and disarm attempts with. Yeah, there may be a mage in the back blasting the snot out of you, but without your weapons or even able to get to him it doesn't matter. All the paladin provides in crowd control and tanking is attacks of opportunity.

--


Mountain Hammer says otherwise.

A loooooooow level maneuver is more useful out of battle than the entire paladin class.

Let's be a little honest. Paladins do get a special mount so that makes their overland travel speed a bit better than most classes. I'm not sure how that compares against Mountain Hammer....

--


Yeah, but for tiers do we not assume = optimization across the board?

You assume approximate optimization.


there are spells for flight. The rest is well... hrm. Same as anyone else without those spells

I'm not aware of any paladin spells that grant flight. The closest they get is using a flying mount via special mount which unless the mount in question has good maneuverability the value is significantly diminished.

--


Cleric: *casts a buff on self*
Paladin: *casts a buff on self*
Demon/Devil: *uses detect good, sees a powerful aura of Good. Smashes it.*

By round two it might realize it smacked a Paladin instead of a Cleric. Maybe. Again, not a given but likely since the Paladin probably screamed out "SMITE EVIL!" and used it.

Reread the detect spells.

1st Round: Detect presence of <alignment>
2nd Round: Detect number of auras and power of most potent.
3rd Round: Power of each aura.

The demon would require two rounds of action to detect the most powerful aura wasting time while the opponents are coming after him. Initiative matters and the demon is giving it back to the party by electing to waste his time attempting to detect which has the potent auras and as Flicker point out, only one fiend matches your scenario.

--


That was just a somewhat lame example. I'm mostly invoking the age old mandate to be either lawful or good. Your party wants to give food to local beggars, circumventing the city's harsh laws preventing importing perishable goods.

You're assuming the engineered solution has only a binary outcome of A or B. Why must you let the peasants starve or give them food? You can given them coppers or silvers so that they can purchase food.

[dascarletm]

It's more a matter of your enemies being smart enough to say "That guy is trashtalking but not actually doing anything to hurt us, while his friend there is sweeping my minions from the field with fire raining from the skies."

Basically, you're betting that you'll never fight a LE, NE, or CE opponent with an INT score outside the range of 6-8.


Well, I don't know from experience (I doubt many of us do), but I would assume fighting for you life tends to skew your judgement capabilities. This excludes all "beast" type monsters that will attack based off... whatever reason they have.

I can argue NPC decision making, but I really don't think it'll matter. There are numerous reasons for NPCs to make the decisions they do, and if they are like real people, they will, more often then not, not take the "best" course of action.

There are exceptions, if an NPC's personality is to be super tactical, then yes. If the NPC hates the paladin and wants to cause him harm then probably not. Unbridled rage has a tendency to hamper decision making.


But I suppose it is DM dependent. Most all DM's I've played with base tactics off of personality and other factors. If that isn't the norm, then I suppose it isn't.

EDIT:



No they don't.

They don't have any methods to force enemies to engage them. Their lack of feats also means that they probably don't have any tricks to intercept movement or otherwise control the battlefield. You're falsely equating tanking with survivability but tanking is a combination of survivability and controlling the opposition so they focus on you rather than surviving hits. The tanking ability of a class in D&D is generally directly proportional to how much pain a class can cause to the opposition, whether this pain is combat maneuvers, damage, or other debuffs.


As I've said before, multiple times, it is more of virtue of having Shield Other. Clerics have this too, I'm not saying they are better than a Tier 1, but taking half a weak target's damage is nothing to scoff at. Admittatly only at higher levels, but again, Tier 4 not 1 or 2 or 3.

[Lans]

charges the wizard and kills him (full attack including 2 rakes thanks to Pounce) while you stand there looking pretty because you could neither keep its

Standing looking pretty is actually about all you need to do to keep an enemy from charging your friend.

[Talderas]

As I've said before, multiple times, it is more of virtue of having Shield Other. Clerics have this too, I'm not saying they are better than a Tier 1, but taking half a weak target's damage is nothing to scoff at. Admittatly only at higher levels, but again, Tier 4 not 1 or 2 or 3.

Shield other does not in any way shape or form increase the tanking ability of the paladin. Remember, HP is a stat that has no real RP implication. An enemy is most likely going to be aware of it and will continue to attack a shielded creature. Shield other provides no reason for any creature to attack you over the shielded target. All shield other does is increases the target's survivability at the expense of your own.

[Amnestic]

As I've said before, multiple times, it is more of virtue of having Shield Other. Clerics have this too, I'm not saying they are better than a Tier 1, but taking half a weak target's damage is nothing to scoff at. Admittatly only at higher levels, but again, Tier 4 not 1 or 2 or 3.

Shield Other is a second level spell. It can be wanded for minimum investment. A Barbarian with cross-class UMD (or blowing a feat to make it class skill) would likely do better at it due to higher hit dice, rage for higher HP and less MAD to allow him more Con focus in general.


Standing looking pretty is actually about all you need to do to keep an enemy from charging your friend.

So the Paladin can be replaced with an attractive mannequin? Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

[Snowbluff]

Small Paladin can be mounted chargers at all levels, thanks to cheap Ponies. At higher levels, but before 5, you can easily afford a decent mount.
They don't need to make a UMD check to use Rhino Rush Wands(but not Lion's Charge, unfortunately).
You can teach a paladin's pony martial arts. :smalltongue:


So I think a paladin is useful for lower level, so you would not have to retrain into mounted combat feats. Terrain can be an issue, and Mounted Combat usually equates to "I hit things hard".

That's saying absolutely nothing, though, because cure spells are rubbish.


Yes! Paladin can use Wands of CLW, though. So you won't be needing someone with UMD or other items if you do not have a cleric. Still kinda awful.:smallannoyed:

[mangosta71]

Let's be a little honest. Paladins do get a special mount so that makes their overland travel speed a bit better than most classes. I'm not sure how that compares against Mountain Hammer....
Being able to travel faster than the rest of your party is only useful if you're acting as a scout. Which the paladin can't do because he lacks the skill points to invest in Listen, Spot, Search, Survival... In the end, all the special mount does for you is free up a couple hundred GP. Mountain Hammer is Open Lock without the need to invest skill points or risk failing a roll (or buy a wand of Knock), and has some combat utility on top of that.

Well, I don't know from experience (I doubt many of us do), but I would assume fighting for you life tends to skew your judgement capabilities. This excludes all "beast" type monsters that will attack based off... whatever reason they have.
It does, but suppose you're trying to bring down an Evil Overlord and he's not yet engaged in the actual combat. He's sitting in the back giving orders, and his orders are going to be "Remove the biggest threat first."

I can argue NPC decision making, but I really don't think it'll matter. There are numerous reasons for NPCs to make the decisions they do, and if they are like real people, they will, more often then not, not take the "best" course of action.

There are exceptions, if an NPC's personality is to be super tactical, then yes. If the NPC hates the paladin and wants to cause him harm then probably not. Unbridled rage has a tendency to hamper decision making.
And not everyone is prone to unbridled rage. You're betting that you'll never face someone that's calm and in control. Someone that can make rational decisions even in the heat of the moment. In other words, an effective villain.

I would even argue that such an individual is not even "super tactical". He just needs to have high enough INT and WIS scores to analyze threats and act in his best interests. In this case, the respective contributions of the different party members are so radically different that such analysis shouldn't require a positive ability modifier.

[dascarletm]

It does, but suppose you're trying to bring down an Evil Overlord and he's not yet engaged in the actual combat. He's sitting in the back giving orders, and his orders are going to be "Remove the biggest threat first."

For every example like that I can give an example of a situation where the opposite happens.


And not everyone is prone to unbridled rage. You're betting that you'll never face someone that's calm and in control. Someone that can make rational decisions even in the heat of the moment. In other words, an effective villain.

I'm not saying never, I'm saying that typically in stories people that can keep their wits about them well in the face of danger are the exception, not the norm.:smallwink:


I would even argue that such an individual is not even "super tactical". He just needs to have high enough INT and WIS scores to analyze threats and act in his best interests. In this case, the respective contributions of the different party members are so radically different that such analysis shouldn't require a positive ability modifier.
*See Above*
It has nothing to do with smarts or intuition. From a playing perspective it is easy to justifiably see what is a better course of action.

My point is imagine someone putting a gun to your head while both you and your loved ones are tied up in a dark room, and he yells at you to answer him this question: What is X, if 2X-43=5?
Reading my post is simple, 5+43=48 which divided by 2 is 24. However in the situation I would bet my bottom dollar the majority of individuals are going to stumble at the question.

Why?

Because images of your life and the possibility of it ending is running through your head. You are thinking about everyone else in the room, you are trying to think of a way to escape, who this person might be, and countless other things that will distract your thought-process.
Now a grand hero or villian will be cool in such a situation, and yes they will make strong tactical decisions. However, I think those fights/people are an exception. The BBEG will use tactics, which make the fight far more fun and challenging. The minions will probably be distracted by the fact they are fighting a powerful adversary and will likely die.

Sure you can quote examples against this, but they are only examples, and I am speaking in broad generalizations.

We are falling off topic though, I'd be willing to discuss this in another format however.

[Rubik]

So yea... Paladin? Stinks. I wish they didn't. They've got awesome RP potential... but other than a two-level dip for resists, that's all they have potential for.What? Paladins have WAY less RP potential than the vast majority of other classes. You're straightjacketed into playing one type of character, and that's it. Psions have far more potential than that, since you can play the LG honor-bound hero AND the grumpy anti-hero AND the scheming brainwashing villain...and everything in between.

Given the code of conduct and how it strangleholds you into playing one archetype, how does the paladin have more potential than that?

[Flickerdart]

Incidentally, the Paladin mount? Lasts for two hours per level and takes a full round action to summon. Paladins don't get an all day mount until level 12.

[Scow2]

I can't see how Paladins are less than Tier 4. The first four levels give them a strong chassis, and after that, they get Turn Undead attempts to fuel divine feats, and limited utility Spellcasting.

They only get 2+INT skill points per level, but depending on what you choose to be, you only need two points. All you need to be a Party Face is Diplomacy and Sense Motive, both boosted by your CHA and WIS. Or you can bother with the pokebike, and take a few ranks in Ride (But that skill has pretty low, static DCs, so you don't even need to invest that many skill points in it). Although you have Handle Animal as a Class Skill, it doesn't let you do anything with your Special Mount that it can't do on its own - Since it has an intelligence score, you don't need to train it, and because it has rational will, you don't need to Push it. The only class that makes a better face than the Paladin is a Bard (Which not every party has) or social-oriented Rogue (Which otherwise can't afford the Social skills because after taking the absolutely critical rogue skills it's in debt a few points).

[Snowbluff]

Incidentally, the Paladin mount? Lasts for two hours per level and takes a full round action to summon. Paladins don't get an all day mount until level 12.

Well, you are only up for 16 hours normally. Unless the paladin has been delegated to all of the all night shifts, you have your mount for your waking hours at level 8. Assuming 3 4 hour watch shifts (each watch gets 8 hours of sleep), you have it all of your adventuring hours at level 6.

[Gwendol]

Correct, which is why I wouldn't worry too much about mounted combat until later levels (and going for a flying one).

[Gwendol]

+1 to rogues typically not being able to afford that many social skills.

[Eldariel]

+1 to rogues typically not being able to afford that many social skills.

Depends on the Rogue. Not every Rogue is a trapfinder.

[tyckspoon]

Well, you are only up for 16 hours normally. Unless the paladin has been delegated to all of the all night shifts, you have your mount for your waking hours at level 8. Assuming 3 4 hour watch shifts (each watch gets 8 hours of sleep), you have it all of your adventuring hours at level 6.

The mount probably has better Spot and/or Listen scores than the Paladin, when it comes to keeping watch.. I don't think I'd be willing to say it's 'safe' to not have it with you during the night hours. After all, if you're keeping watches, it's because you think there's a reasonable chance you'll be interrupted during the night, and if you are you probably want your special horsey friend around for that.

[Gwendol]

Depends on the Rogue. Not every Rogue is a trapfinder.

No, but most can only afford to raise one skill. You probably want stealth, movement, and at least one or two knowledge skills, UMD, and perception, all rate at least as high as any social interaction.

[Snowbluff]

The mount probably has better Spot and/or Listen scores than the Paladin, when it comes to keeping watch.. I don't think I'd be willing to say it's 'safe' to not have it with you during the night hours. After all, if you're keeping watches, it's because you think there's a reasonable chance you'll be interrupted during the night, and if you are you probably want your special horsey friend around for that.Paladin themselves don't have Spot and Listen. Not sure why you would have them in the watch in the first place. Then again, detect evil could be handy.

At level 8, the Paladin can take the first shift to end the hours on his mount. Level 12 is still a bad approximation for regular use.

A grounded mount paladin is still wielding a decent reach weapon in 2 hands and probably has power attack and a decent Str score. He should not be totally helpless without his mount. Mounting up again would take up actions anyway. The fight would be over without the Paladin doing much if he tried to get on his mount. He would have his smite leftover as well.

[Eldariel]

No, but most can only afford to raise one skill. You probably want stealth, movement, and at least one or two knowledge skills, UMD, and perception, all rate at least as high as any social interaction.

Hide, Move Silently, Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, UMD is possible for 12 Int Human Rogue. Knowledges, while useful, are probably not necessary though you could substitute one of the 3 socials for 5 ranks in Knowledge: Nobility and rest in Knowledge: Local with little adverse effect and still completely trounce Paladin in terms of party faceism.

[Amnestic]

No, but most can only afford to raise one skill. You probably want stealth, movement, and at least one or two knowledge skills, UMD, and perception, all rate at least as high as any social interaction.

Rogues only get Knowledge (Local) as a class skill. They either have to multiclass, grab them as class skills via a feat (Education) or cross-class the skills. Frankly, I'd leave the Knowledge skills to another party member unless I was going into a Knowledge Devotion build of some variety.

Even so, they're 8+IntMod. Assume a 12 Int (more than reasonable for a secondary/tertiary ability score) and not human, so 9 maxed out skills.

Bluff, Diplomacy, Hide, Move Silently, UMD, Spot, Search, Listen, Tumble.

Did I miss anything important from a Bog Standard rogue list? Suppose he's not got any anti-trapping (though he can still find the traps), but he's a face, a scout, a sneak, a damage dealer and a backup magic user thanks to UMD and wands.

Edit: For the record, the Rogue Handbook here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156350) only gives Int 12 for the Elite Array. Anything above (and including) 25 point buy gives it a 14, which lets you grab an extra skill. Again, not factoring in racial modifiers (human or races with +int).

[eggynack]

You're assuming the engineered solution has only a binary outcome of A or B. Why must you let the peasants starve or give them food? You can given them coppers or silvers so that they can purchase food.
Sure, there are often ways around these things. It's when you take a third option out of the lawful or good choice. There are situations, though, where that third option is not available. Notably, while a wizard would often be able to just engineer a way around problems, a paladin is far less likely to be able to pull a third option. There's a whole trope page in one of my posts filled with these kinds of situations. They're not usually impossible to circumvent, but they make the paladin's life far more complicated, and give the paladin a good chance of folding if they can't come up with a good enough solution.

[DeltaEmil]

Knowledge (local) is actually one of the best knowledge skills. It's practically Knowledge (prime material planes, cities, laws, humanoids) and gives a synergy bonus to Gather Information, which is Knowledge (plot hooks and plot advancement)

[Evard]

The thing about the alignment system is that level of importance is backwards.

Good/Evil weighs more than Law/Chaos in D&D. Being Good is more important than being Lawful. Being Good is more important than being Chaotic. The gods don't split themselves along ethical lines (law/chaos) but down morality (good/evil).

So really it shood be Good Lawful but that doesn't roll off the tongue correctly.

I had some great examples but I got lazy and my lunch is ready soo.. yeah.. lunch time (dang I eat late ).

[BWR]

Read up Planescape's take on the Law/Chaos axis and get back to me.

[Snowbluff]

Bluff, Diplomacy, Hide, Move Silently, UMD, Spot, Search, Listen, Tumble.

Did I miss anything important from a Bog Standard rogue list? Suppose he's not got any anti-trapping (though he can still find the traps), but he's a face, a scout, a sneak, a damage dealer and a backup magic user thanks to UMD and wands.


Keep in mind skills like UMD and Tumble have points where you can stop sinking ranks into them at higher levels, meaning a rogue can branch out a little.

Balance might be good to have 5 ranks in.

[Talderas]

The thing about the alignment system is that level of importance is backwards.

Good/Evil weighs more than Law/Chaos in D&D. Being Good is more important than being Lawful. Being Good is more important than being Chaotic. The gods don't split themselves along ethical lines (law/chaos) but down morality (good/evil).

So really it shood be Good Lawful but that doesn't roll off the tongue correctly.

I had some great examples but I got lazy and my lunch is ready soo.. yeah.. lunch time (dang I eat late ).

It only appears that way in D&D because no one can seem to articulate a law vs chaos plotline since articulating law and chaos as forces like good and evil is difficult. Good vs evil is just so much easier to write.

[eggynack]

The thing about the alignment system is that level of importance is backwards.

Good/Evil weighs more than Law/Chaos in D&D. Being Good is more important than being Lawful. Being Good is more important than being Chaotic. The gods don't split themselves along ethical lines (law/chaos) but down morality (good/evil).

So really it shood be Good Lawful but that doesn't roll off the tongue correctly.

I had some great examples but I got lazy and my lunch is ready soo.. yeah.. lunch time (dang I eat late ).
Sure, acting good is probably more important than acting lawful for a paladin. However, if you make enough tough decisions to push you to neutral, then you still toss away your paladin powers. It's probably less likely than the other ways to fall to the code, but it's a possibility. This is especially true because the alignment system is so vague with regards to that axis. If the DM has a set definition in mind for what lawful means, and the player has a different definition, then problems will happen, particularly if the DM's view is sufficiently restrictive. It's not the biggest problem, but it's a problem. It seems worth bringing up, even though it's likely the least important aspect of a factor that doesn't impact the paladin's power excessively.

The reason I think it's worth bringing up is because it's a downside. If the cleric needed to act a certain way to get his cleric powers, then I'd look at his power and say it was a fair trade off. I might be crazy to think this, but when a class loses some freedom or options, I expect them to gain something commensurate to what they've lost in return. The paladin loses the ability to use poisons, and associate with evil, and those are losses. They can be worked around, but they're things that need working around. They lose those things, and for what? Fighting ability that is about at the level of a fighter on a bad day? Casting that is so poor that it's indistinguishable from not having casting at all? Taking the code of conduct on for that stuff just hits me the wrong way. They're a class that as a whole is mediocre in just about every way. For the code of conduct, they should probably be the most powerful melee class in core, and I really don't think that's too much to ask. As it stands, they're just about the second worst class in core after the monk, and that's a sad sad state of affairs.

[NichG]

Why so high Charisma? You're still a melee Fighter, Strength is the most important stat to you. Charisma only gives you saves and once/day to hit. Smite isn't up often enough to be worth worrying about so Charisma is only saves; what good are your saves if you have no offensive output?


Because I'll take other things that give me Cha to things, such as the Slippers of Battledancing or even Iaijutsu Master when I get to higher levels. Extra Smite helps with the 1/day problem. With a Cha-focused Paladin, +1 Cha is acting effectively like +1.5 Str, +1 Dex, and +1 Wis. If I could get Cha to AC easily I'd be even happier (the Saint template is quite possibly worth taking despite the LA at this point buy). This is a very feat-heavy path, so if I can take flaws it really helps.

2 points of Strength gets me +1 attack and +1.5 damage. 2 points of Cha is +1 to three saves, +2 attack, and +1 damage when all is said and done (or +10 damage if the fairly broken Iaijutsu Master stuff is permitted without being house-ruled to something more reasonable).



Also, Diplomacy is a pretty bad investment for a character who doesn't rank Bluff, Sense Motive or Knowledge: Nobility & Royalty; you're essentially +6 behind anyone who gets the synergies.


Tier 4. I'm not going to be the best at everything, but I'll be able to actually participate in face situations. Out of my other options (Handle Animal? yech), Diplomacy is the easiest way for me to open up out-of-combat versatility. Since the character is high Cha, I can even consider going for Leadership later on if I can spare the feat.



Also, no ranks in Concentration removes any chance of combat casting ever.

Yeah, I wouldn't plan to cast in melee with this guy. If I did, I wouldn't need much Concentration though - I could get away with a +10 to skill item, which is pretty cheap.

[mangosta71]

For every example like that I can give an example of a situation where the opposite happens.
You've missed the point. I'm not saying that the paladin will ALWAYS be fighting such opponents. I'm saying that threat-generation based purely on RP is useless in such situations, which makes the paladin a useless tank in those situations. And realistically, at some point in an adventurer's career he's likely to get into such a situation (unless he dies early).

However, if your only method of generating threat is RP, any other class can draw your enemies' attention just as easily. The barbarian has more hit points, so he can soak more damage. The monk has better defenses, so he takes less damage (and has a self Lay on Hands, since you seem to think that that makes a difference in survivability). And both will dish out more damage than the paladin. The monk also makes a better police officer because he can choose to deal non-lethal damage at no penalty. Of course, a cleric just laughs at all three...

[dascarletm]

You've missed the point. I'm not saying that the paladin will ALWAYS be fighting such opponents. I'm saying that threat-generation based purely on RP is useless in such situations, which makes the paladin a useless tank in those situations. And realistically, at some point in an adventurer's career he's likely to get into such a situation (unless he dies early).

However, if your only method of generating threat is RP, any other class can draw your enemies' attention just as easily. The barbarian has more hit points, so he can soak more damage. The monk has better defenses, so he takes less damage (and has a self Lay on Hands, since you seem to think that that makes a difference in survivability). And both will dish out more damage than the paladin. The monk also makes a better police officer because he can choose to deal non-lethal damage at no penalty. Of course, a cleric just laughs at all three...

Oh, so you mean:

The argument that a paladin can tank because of roleplaying is inappropriate for a thread about the tier system, because roleplaying is not a paladin class feature.
Well Then



The argument that a paladin can tank because of roleplaying is inappropriate for a thread about the tier system, because roleplaying is not a paladin class feature.
I agree, you may strike all that from the record.

[ArcturusV]

The thing about the alignment system is that level of importance is backwards.

Good/Evil weighs more than Law/Chaos in D&D. Being Good is more important than being Lawful. Being Good is more important than being Chaotic. The gods don't split themselves along ethical lines (law/chaos) but down morality (good/evil).

So really it shood be Good Lawful but that doesn't roll off the tongue correctly.

I had some great examples but I got lazy and my lunch is ready soo.. yeah.. lunch time (dang I eat late ).

Well, they do have the Law/Chaos conflict built in as the Blood War. But yeah, outside the Blood War you don't typically see it that often. It comes up even less often in the Good side because they typically point out that Good forces would NEVER fight against one another.

Though I always preferred the Street Fighter angle on that.

Raul Julia as M. Bison: "If you had bothered working with each other, instead of against each other, you might have actually succeeded!"

[Eldariel]

Because I'll take other things that give me Cha to things, such as the Slippers of Battledancing or even Iaijutsu Master when I get to higher levels. Extra Smite helps with the 1/day problem. With a Cha-focused Paladin, +1 Cha is acting effectively like +1.5 Str, +1 Dex, and +1 Wis. If I could get Cha to AC easily I'd be even happier (the Saint template is quite possibly worth taking despite the LA at this point buy). This is a very feat-heavy path, so if I can take flaws it really helps.

2 points of Strength gets me +1 attack and +1.5 damage. 2 points of Cha is +1 to three saves, +2 attack, and +1 damage when all is said and done (or +10 damage if the fairly broken Iaijutsu Master stuff is permitted without being house-ruled to something more reasonable).

This is true in higher up but your low level performance suffers significantly as a consequence. I wouldn't play up from level 3 with those stats.

[TentacleSurpris]

Take this simple paladin build

1 Mounted Combat
1H Ride By Attack
3 Spirited Charge
6 Power Attack

ACF
5 Charging Smite

Tell your party to leave a space between themselves so that you can Reach your lance between them to hit the monster. Fast dismount charge skill trick is an option.
If the environment is big enough for a Large monster, then it's big enough for your horse.

Two-hand a Lance of Charging
Cast Rhino's Rush, with Spirited Charge and Riding Boots
On a generic Heavy Warhorse
assuming str 18
(1d8+1+2d6+1.5*str +2*PA +3*PL)*5 damage
=(1d8+2d6+1+9+12+18)
=5d8+10d6+200 damage without critical

to hit = (+1 higher ground +1 item +4 str +4 Cha +2 charge +6 base -6 power attack)
= +12, +14 if flanking

Now you're destroying anything that underestimated you because you're a T5 class and didn't instantly kill a horse at range. Frightful Presence of Dragons will cause you some problems, but other than that, most monsters aren't going to target your horse when there are scary T1 classes around. Now destroy everything in the Monster Manual except for the Tarrasque.

Does charging always work? Nope, you might have to spend a round getting into position, having your party members arrange a spot so you can reach your lance through into the monster. It's called Teamwork.

But you can do your job, which is splitting skulls, better than anyone else. You're the best at one thing, and you can fight pretty well each round thereafter. You can block a large part of the battle field, absorb attacks, provide emergency heals or between fights, use the CLW wand, detect hidden or invisible evil enemies within 60 ft, survive attacks, etc etc. I'd call that Tier 3.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Take this simple paladin build

1 Mounted Combat
1H Ride By Attack
3 Spirited Charge
6 Power Attack

ACF
5 Charging Smite

Tell your party to leave a space between themselves so that you can Reach your lance between them to hit the monster. Fast dismount charge skill trick is an option.
If the environment is big enough for a Large monster, then it's big enough for your horse.

Two-hand a Lance of Charging
Cast Rhino's Rush, with Spirited Charge and Riding Boots
On a generic Heavy Warhorse
assuming str 18
(1d8+1+2d6+1.5*str +2*PA +3*PL)*5 damage
=(1d8+2d6+1+9+12+18)
=5d8+10d6+200 damage without critical

to hit = (+1 higher ground +1 item +4 str +4 Cha +2 charge +6 base -6 power attack)
= +12, +14 if flanking

Now you're destroying anything that underestimated you because you're a T5 class and didn't instantly kill a horse at range. Frightful Presence of Dragons will cause you some problems, but other than that, most monsters aren't going to target your horse when there are scary T1 classes around. Now destroy everything in the Monster Manual except for the Tarrasque.

Does charging always work? Nope, you might have to spend a round getting into position, having your party members arrange a spot so you can reach your lance through into the monster. It's called Teamwork.

But you can do your job, which is splitting skulls, better than anyone else. You're the best at one thing, and you can fight pretty well each round thereafter. You can block a large part of the battle field, absorb attacks, provide emergency heals or between fights, use the CLW wand, detect hidden or invisible evil enemies within 60 ft, survive attacks, etc etc. I'd call that Tier 3.

Right... until you have to do so indoors, in which case you and your mount won't fit and half of your damage vanishes.

Wheras the Barbarian with Shock Trooper is STILL out-damaging you.

[Gwendol]

Hide, Move Silently, Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, UMD is possible for 12 Int Human Rogue. Knowledges, while useful, are probably not necessary though you could substitute one of the 3 socials for 5 ranks in Knowledge: Nobility and rest in Knowledge: Local with little adverse effect and still completely trounce Paladin in terms of party faceism.

Search, balance, tumble, climb, and possibly jump. But yeah, otherwise you listed the usual skills. Then you got open locks, and disable device.

[mangosta71]

Take this simple paladin build

1 Mounted Combat
1H Ride By Attack
3 Spirited Charge
6 Power Attack

ACF
5 Charging Smite
It's been said before, but apparently it needs to be repeated: the tier system does not take non-Core alternate class features into consideration.

Also, a fighter can have all those feats at level 2, so he can do this four levels earlier. Doesn't make him tier 3 because he's still very much a one-trick pony, and most of the time his trick isn't going to be applicable.

[Greenish]

It's been said before, but apparently it needs to be repeated: the tier system does not take non-Core alternate class features into consideration.Yes it does. Things like Dungeon Crasher Fighter and Wild Shape Ranger even get their own entries.

It merely assumes equal optimization and effort.

[NichG]

This is true in higher up but your low level performance suffers significantly as a consequence. I wouldn't play up from level 3 with those stats.

Eh, I think its fine at low levels. Don't take Ride stuff as 1st level feats, take it at 3rd level when you can afford a good mount. Instead take Weapon Focus and expect to retrain from 2-handed sword to lance eventually. If you have flaws, add on Martial Training and pick up a few Lv1 ToB maneuvers for a little boost early on - maybe Distracting Ember for the +2 to hit, which will eventually be retrained into Emerald Razor.

At the start you'll be doing 2d6+3 damage with a to-hit of +4 (that you can spike up to +7 against an evil foe 1/day, and that you can make +6 1/encounter against any enemy otherwise). Thats not spectacular, but its not half bad. The Str-focused Barbarian is sitting around +6 to +8 to hit while raging and is doing ~ 2d6+7 damage. He's better at it, but not to the point where this paladin is unplayable at Lv1 or is being 'carried' by the party. You're still going to kill CR1 creatures in a single hit, but the Barb is a better guy to send against the party encounter vs an Ogre. You'll have better AC than him once you can afford armor anyhow.

Once you hit Lv3 you should be able to afford a decent mount and enough armor that your AC will be respectable against threats of this level. Then you can start shifting focus towards the Ride-based stuff. So its not like the first 10 levels are going to be rough - maybe just the first two. Thats not too bad really.

[mangosta71]

You'll have better AC than him once you can afford armor anyhow.
Until the barbarian can afford mithral armor, at which point his full plate + DEX bonus means he has a higher AC than the paladin...

You're also assuming that the DM will allow you to retrain to fit the concept that you were planning to play all along. Personally, I wouldn't allow you to game the system like that - if you've been charging in on foot and swinging a greatsword for your entire career up to that point, you shouldn't get to suddenly switch the practical experience you've gained with it for a completely different combat style.

[Carth]

I'd call that Tier 3.

Not even close to T3. Looks mediocre at lots of different things to me, despite the attempts to persuade to the contrary, that's squarely T5. You, and others who have defended it, assume far too many ideal conditions in your explanations.

[Snowbluff]

Wheras the Barbarian with Shock Trooper is STILL out-damaging you.

Numbers and build, please. :smallsmile:

I think Charging Smite isn't an appropriate assumption, but then again, Whirl pounce barb would not be one, either.

You could be a Small Paladin. Small size my suggestion if you are going mounted.

[ArcturusV]

Generally Mangosta. I see mention of Retraining as a way to effectively game the system and make sure you're at peak optimization in this discussion. But the book itself that Retraining comes in mentions it's not for that purpose.

Really it's more of a "Be nice to the newbies" button, allowing them to experiment and realize "You know what... two weapon fighting sucks... I wanna do something else."

Least that is clearly its intent, and even pretty much it's stated examples in PHB2.

[Eldariel]

Search, balance, tumble, climb, and possibly jump. But yeah, otherwise you listed the usual skills. Then you got open locks, and disable device.

None of those are especially necessary. Climb is wholly obsoleted by flight, search is nice but anyone can cover it, open lock is replaced with knock, disable device is only needed on trapfinder which we established he's not, 5 ranks in balance is cool but not necessary leaving only Tumble which, granted, is very useful.

[Carth]

Numbers and build, please. :smallsmile:

I think Charging Smite isn't an appropriate assumption, but then again, Whirl pounce barb would not be one, either.

You could be a Small Paladin. Small size my suggestion if you are going mounted.

It's worth pointing out that the whole mounted thing that was suggested on this page utilizes no paladin class features, only WBL and feats. Unless you count charging smite, which is so limited that it's a footnote at best. So, frankly, I'm not really sure that's a road worth traveling down, as the mounted damage example given didn't prove anything about the power of paladins, it proved the power of WBL and feats.

Edit: oh wait, they get rhino's rush once, maybe twice a day. So that's something, at least.

[Darius Kane]

I agree, PF Paladin is at least tier 4. But arguably so is PF Monk.

[Randomguy]

Take this simple paladin build

1 Mounted Combat
1H Ride By Attack
3 Spirited Charge
6 Power Attack

ACF
5 Charging Smite

Tell your party to leave a space between themselves so that you can Reach your lance between them to hit the monster. Fast dismount charge skill trick is an option.
If the environment is big enough for a Large monster, then it's big enough for your horse.

Two-hand a Lance of Charging
Cast Rhino's Rush, with Spirited Charge and Riding Boots
On a generic Heavy Warhorse
assuming str 18
(1d8+1+2d6+1.5*str +2*PA +3*PL)*5 damage
=(1d8+2d6+1+9+12+18)
=5d8+10d6+200 damage without critical

to hit = (+1 higher ground +1 item +4 str +4 Cha +2 charge +6 base -6 power attack)
= +12, +14 if flanking


1. You can only do this twice a day, tops, if you have 12 wisdom. Only once if you don't.
2. You can't have 18 charisma, 18 strength and 12 wisdom without neglecting your other stats pretty severely.
3. You can't afford riding boots at your level, but that doesn't really affect the build.
4. 1.5* your +4 strength is only 6, not 9, unless I'm missing something.

How are you getting *5 damage on a charge? *3 from spirited charge + lance and *2 from Rhino's rush makes *4 in d&d math. Riding boots only do *4 on a critical, not without a critical.



But you can do your job, which is splitting skulls, better than anyone else. You're the best at one thing, and you can fight pretty well each round thereafter. You can block a large part of the battle field, absorb attacks, provide emergency heals or between fights, use the CLW wand, detect hidden or invisible evil enemies within 60 ft, survive attacks, etc etc. I'd call that Tier 3.

Except you aren't doing it better than everyone else, since you are, as mentioned, still being outdamaged. A similarly optimized barbarian would do around as much damage at you, and would be able to pump out that much damage each round for two entire encounters. A crusader would probably do even more damage, since ToB classes are at peak efficiency at level 5-6.

[Amnestic]

2. You can't have 18 charisma, 18 strength and 12 wisdom without neglecting your other stats pretty severely.


18 Str, 8 Dex, 8 Con, 8 Int, 12 Wis and 18 Cha comes out at 36 point buy. If you drop one of the 18s to 17 and use your level up bonus at 4th on it (since this build looks to be 6th level?) puts you down to 33 points.

Not only do you need to neglect stats to get there, you also seem to have to use higher than default assumed (which appears to be 25-32 range) pointbuy. A more realistic spread would be 16, 12, 14, 10, 12, 14 (32 PB) or 16, 10, 14, 10, 10, 14 (28 PB)

[Snowbluff]

It's worth pointing out that the whole mounted thing that was suggested on this page utilizes no paladin class features, only WBL and feats. Unless you count charging smite, which is so limited that it's a footnote at best. So, frankly, I'm not really sure that's a road worth traveling down, as the mounted damage example given didn't prove anything about the power of paladins, it proved the power of WBL and feats.

Edit: oh wait, they get rhino's rush once, maybe twice a day. So that's something, at least.

Without Charging Smite (my assumption), the Mount would be a feature (which is better, depending on it's feats), and so is the ability to use Rhino Rush wands (under "spellcasting"). So that's 2 class features a paladin uses for mounted combat.

I'd still like to see that Barbarian. I am just curious.

[Toy Killer]

Am I the only one that thinks it's heavily Ironic that people are rallying to defend paladins?

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

[Snowbluff]

Am I the only one that thinks it's heavily Ironic that people are rallying to defend paladins?

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
I am not really defending it. Just smushing bad assumptions made against the class. It's not a good class, but I don't want to see it misrepresented.

What it's supposed to be is neither here nor there. :smallwink:

[ArcturusV]

*shrug* People like Paladins.

And admittedly a lot of their weaknesses come from DM side things. "Oh, Mounted Combat based? Hurr hurr, difficult terrain errywhaaar!" "Oh, code? I'mma make you fall because I can!", etc, etc, etc.

When your DM isn't screwing with you? It's a fun class to play. I wouldn't argue it's a GREAT class. I typically think most things you'd want to do with a Paladin in general would be better served on a Fighter. Maybe a Fighter/Rogue multiclass if you're counting Face stuff, or a Cleric for the Sword and Sorcery stuff.

It has it's shortcomings. Particularly being limited to their main schtick pretty hard. e.g.: The high level Barbarian (Solid tier 4), can spend every fight a day in a Rage. The High level Paladin lacks that sort of endurance.

[NichG]

Until the barbarian can afford mithral armor, at which point his full plate + DEX bonus means he has a higher AC than the paladin...


Not if he's using Shock Trooper, which is pretty much required to keep up with the damage output of the Paladin (who can do it without Shock Trooper due to their multipliers coming in front of the damage rather than only on the Power Attack part).



You're also assuming that the DM will allow you to retrain to fit the concept that you were planning to play all along. Personally, I wouldn't allow you to game the system like that - if you've been charging in on foot and swinging a greatsword for your entire career up to that point, you shouldn't get to suddenly switch the practical experience you've gained with it for a completely different combat style.

PHB2 Feat retraining rules require an expenditure of 50gp for books and a week of retraining. They don't require that the thing you're retraining to has anything to do with what you've been doing. A DM specifically blocking feat retraining that is out of theme for the character is essentially implementing a house rule, so that doesn't really fit for a discussion about Tier placement.

I think you might be thinking about class level retraining, which requires a quest and all sorts of other stuff?



Except you aren't doing it better than everyone else, since you are, as mentioned, still being outdamaged. A similarly optimized barbarian would do around as much damage at you, and would be able to pump out that much damage each round for two entire encounters. A crusader would probably do even more damage, since ToB classes are at peak efficiency at level 5-6.

At Lv6 is there really anything you're going to be facing that won't be killed by ~300 damage? Beyond maybe 60 damage you're pretty much just looking at future-proofing your schtick for higher levels or dealing with the occasional CR+5 situation.

[Randomguy]

Without Charging Smite (my assumption), the Mount would be a feature (which is better, depending on it's feats), and so is the ability to use Rhino Rush wands (under "spellcasting"). So that's 2 class features a paladin uses for mounted combat.

I'd still like to see that Barbarian. I am just curious.

Whirling frenzy for an extra attack in a full attack and Spirit Lion totem for pounce. And you're still fairly effective when not on a mount.

Without Charging Smite the damage dealt in one attack, before multiplayers, is almost the same. With the same build and same stats, but with one being a paladin and the other a barbarian, the paladin would have one attack that dealt (X + 6)*4 damage, where X is from feats and equipment and the extra 6 damage the paladin has that the barbarian doesn't is from smite, and the *4 would be from feats + Rhino's rush. That's 4X + 24 damage.

Meanwhile, the barbarian would have 3 attacks a round for most of an encounter dealing (X + 3)*3 damage, where the 3 damage that the paladin doesn't have is from extra damage due to using a 2H weapon with 2 extra strength from rage. That's 9X + 27 damage at most, but more likely the last attack misses and it's only 6X + 18, which is still more than the paladin (Since X is not less than 3).
That's a tad unrealistic, since a barbarian would probably have higher strength than the Paladin since the Barbarian would be less MAD.

Really though in general I think it's better to optimize a barbarian with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack rather than for mounted combat, but I'm not too great at optimizing melee so it was easier for me to use the provided build and just swap the class.

[Snails]

The Paladin's achille's heel is "Mother, may I?" Mother, may I use my special mount? Mother, may I have something evil to smite? Mother, may I use my Diplomacy to positive effect (or did I sink 100% of my skill points into the Face path, and you are going to secretly refuse to give me benefit for a sky high skill)?

MAD is a balance issue, but the bigger question is whether the DM is going to run an adequately Paladin-friendly campaign.

And that gets to another problem: inflexibility. For most meleeists (e.g. Fighter or Barbarian or Ranger), it is perfectly possible to go with the flow and organically class dip here or there; the costs are small for fun gains. A Paladin's main class abilities are "spellcasterish" -- they are so level based that the PC takes many small dings on the very things that positively define the character. Qualitatively, it is like being a Wizard and dipping into another base class, even if not quite to the same degree.

The net effect is not that the Paladin class is automatically bad, but it is very easy to mis-tune your build to a particular campaign and end up somewhere dissatisfying.

[Gnaeus]

Actually I tend to know wizards are wizards because of how they look. Usually carrying wands, rods, staffs, in typical "Shoot me, I'm a Wizard" outfits, etc. And you know the Monk because he died years ago thinking he was a Wizard Killer.

By high level, the physical appearances of all classes are pretty much interchangeable to anything without true seeing. The wizard's wizardish gear is all in his haversack, and if he wants to be carrying a wand he may as well put it in a wand chamber in a weapon with Spell Storing. Illusions to make your gear look different are super cheap. Or the entire party could easily be rocking polymorph or other effects.

The real way the enemy knows who to attack is either because they started spying on anyone who wasn't mind blanked when you entered their lair, or because they have heard of the party's reputation and know who you are because you are high level.


Cleric: *casts a buff on self*
Paladin: *casts a buff on self*
Demon/Devil: *uses detect good, sees a powerful aura of Good. Smashes it.*


OK, if we are in Low-op land, the paladin is clearly weaker than the fighter on multiple counts. If we have reached at least mid op, the cleric is likely to have his buffs up ALREADY, or at least be casting quickened battlefield control or other aggressive spells on round 1.

I agree the paladin could get lucky and be attacked on round 1 by an ignorant enemy who didn't know the party was coming. Taking a chance hit on round 1 does not constitute "Tanking" and by round 2 the bad guys should know better.

[Carth]

Without Charging Smite (my assumption), the Mount would be a feature (which is better, depending on it's feats), and so is the ability to use Rhino Rush wands (under "spellcasting"). So that's 2 class features a paladin uses for mounted combat.

That's fair, the mount is way better than charging smite. However...




At Lv6 is there really anything you're going to be facing that won't be killed by ~300 damage? Beyond maybe 60 damage you're pretty much just looking at future-proofing your schtick for higher levels or dealing with the occasional CR+5 situation.

In thinking about it more, in the scheme of things, rhino's rush isn't really a necessary piece of the puzzle, there's just too many ways to boost charging already (valorous weapons, leap attack, etc.). If you remove rhino's rush, taking away the only thing really added by actual paladin class features (anyone can buy a horse to match the damage output), you're still going to one shot probably anything level appropriate. When you start talking about charging in general, it's true that you can scale your potential damage faster than level appropriate encounters scale hit points. This will be true regardless of whether you use barbarian, paladin, fighter, ranger, ToB, and so forth. Pounce or some other method of free movement is arguably marginally more advantageous here, because while you lose a charge multiplier or two, you gain the ability to make multiple attacks. Then when you get to multiclassing, it gets insane, of course.

The secret to breaking out of T5 with a charger is simply gaining the ability to land charges regularly (by getting ways to overcome things such as the straight line requirement, terrain, flying, confined spaces, and so forth), or becoming decent at many different things. This is possible, but paladins are going to have the hardest time doing this due to being feat starved and MADness. In fact, it's probably impossible without multiclassing, part of the reason why paladins/prestige paladins rightly have a reputation as a great class for dips. The only pure paladins posted so far are mediocre to decent at a few things without excelling in any.




PHB2 Feat retraining rules require an expenditure of 50gp for books and a week of retraining. They don't require that the thing you're retraining to has anything to do with what you've been doing. A DM specifically blocking feat retraining that is out of theme for the character is essentially implementing a house rule, so that doesn't really fit for a discussion about Tier placement.

It may be legal, but the fashion in which it is being used is overwhelmingly distasteful. Whether you like this reality or not, planned retraining isn't a concept that's going to interest a lot of people, no amount of arguing is going to make its stigma disappear from people's thoughts.

[Snowbluff]

Whirling frenzy for an extra attack in a full attack and Spirit Lion totem for pounce. And you're still fairly effective when not on a mount.

Really though in general I think it's better to optimize a barbarian with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack rather than for mounted combat, but I'm not too great at optimizing melee so it was easier for me to use the provided build and just swap the class.

Well, pounce is something anyone can get if we allow it, and it's an ACF. I kind of wanted to see a Shocktrooper Barbarian.

Still, thanks for the analysis.

[Amnestic]

PHB2 Feat retraining rules require an expenditure of 50gp for books and a week of retraining. They don't require that the thing you're retraining to has anything to do with what you've been doing. A DM specifically blocking feat retraining that is out of theme for the character is essentially implementing a house rule, so that doesn't really fit for a discussion about Tier placement.


The feat retraining rules are entirely optional to begin with. The clear intention of the rules is "you made a mistake, here's some rules so you can fix that without rerolling". They state this repeatedly during the section. Building a character with the intent of retraining it later goes against the intention of the retraining rules.

[Rejusu]

Big problem with Paladin is it's decent for the first few levels and then progression just drops right off after level 5. Pitiful casting progression, more uses of an ability that doesn't even bear mentioning. And one that doesn't do squat to 66% of the alignment axis, but of course one of your limited uses is wasted if you try anyway.

Frankly my personal issue is that as a concept it just falls flat next to the Cleric. I mean to the uninitiated the Paladin seems like it should be a holy warrior, and the cleric the divine version of the wizard. Strong in faith but frail of body (basically cloistered Cleric). Except of course in practice the Cleric tends to make a better holy warrior than the Paladin does.

[NichG]

In thinking about it more, in the scheme of things, rhino's rush isn't really a necessary piece of the puzzle, there's just too many ways to boost charging already (valorous weapons, leap attack, etc.). If you remove rhino's rush, taking away the only thing really added by actual paladin class features (anyone can buy a horse to match the damage output), you're still going to one shot probably anything level appropriate.

Yeah, pretty much once you go high-op then the specific chassis you used isn't really relevant anymore. Most of what you're building is using a specific synergy, and the classes by themselves are only meaningful in that they give you parts of the synergy. My example was more to demonstrate that even a pure Paladin has ways to get in on this game without going too far out of their way (something like 3 feats and a few spell slots basically).

I left out Valorous weapon because its both moderately costly (so comes in at a higher level) and from a setting-specific book. Obviously it improves the results if you can get one of course.



When you start talking about charging in general, it's true that you can scale your potential damage faster than level appropriate encounters scale hit points. This will be true regardless of whether you use barbarian, paladin, fighter, ranger, ToB, and so forth. Pounce or some other method of free movement is arguably marginally more advantageous here, because while you lose a charge multiplier or two, you gain the ability to make multiple attacks. Then when you get to multiclassing, it gets insane, of course.


Well the point that is usually made is that if you can attain this level of damage output, its enough to put you in Tier 4 (e.g. the Dungeoncrasher Fighter). Basically you've satisfied the requirement of 'you are powerful as long as you remain within your primary focus' that underlies Tier 4.



The secret to breaking out of T5 with a charger is simply gaining the ability to land charges regularly (by getting ways to overcome things such as the straight line requirement, terrain, flying, confined spaces, and so forth), or becoming decent at many different things. This is possible, but paladins are going to have the hardest time doing this due to being feat starved and MADness.

This is why Travel Devotion and Animal Devotion were brought up earlier in the thread. They're easy ways for paladins to help with this problem. Getting a flying mount can also help. Confined spaces are the bigger problem - the solutions are annoying because they work against what the build is good at; e.g. using things that change your size category.



In fact, it's probably impossible without multiclassing, part of the reason why paladins/prestige paladins rightly have a reputation as a great class for dips. The only pure paladins posted so far are mediocre to decent at a few things without excelling in any.


Paladins are great dips, and a pure paladin also benefits a lot from starting as a non-paladin for a few dips. Marshal -> Paladin is wonderful, and I bet one could do something interesting with a Sorc/Monk/Paladin though the cost to pull it off might be a bit high.



It may be legal, but the fashion in which it is being used is overwhelmingly distasteful. Whether you like this reality or not, planned retraining isn't a concept that's going to interest a lot of people, no amount of arguing is going to make its stigma disappear from people's thoughts.

PHB2's section on retraining says that you may do it for OOC reasons of having made a bad choice, but it also gives several examples of IC reasons to want to do it. Retraining isn't purely an OOC mechanism.

Mechanically, it says you can do one type of retrain per level, and retrain one element of one class of thing (feat, class ability, etc). It isn't something you can do willy-nilly, but its certainly something you can plan around.
I don't see how this is really any different from when a Sorc can change out their spell selections or when a ToB character can change out their maneuvers. Its also not listed as an "Optional" sidebar the way that optional rules are usually listed - its right there as a full chapter of PHB2. Consider that some of the reasons given for retraining are not OOC - things like, your character has changed their focus. I think its perfectly reasonable for someone who couldn't afford a horse to not specialize in any horsemanship stuff, and then to turn around and spend time getting good at horsemanship once they acquire one (e.g. use the IC justification to retrain).

[Augmental]

I think its perfectly reasonable for someone who couldn't afford a horse to not specialize in any horsemanship stuff, and then to turn around and spend time getting good at horsemanship once they acquire one (e.g. use the IC justification to retrain).

...Or it means the character starts taking ranks in ride and handle animal, possibly picking up some mounted combat feats.

[Lans]

Mountain Hammer is Open Lock without the need to invest skill points or risk failing a roll (or buy a wand of Knock), and has some combat utility on top of that. A hammer is Open Lock with out needing skill points.





So the Paladin can be replaced with an attractive mannequin? Not exactly a ringing endorsement...
Level 1 commoner at the very least.


+1 to rogues typically not being able to afford that many social skills.

A rogue can grab any 8 skills he wants.


Whirling frenzy for an extra attack in a full attack and Spirit Lion totem for pounce.
The paladin really only needs to beat the stock barbarian.

[Carth]

I'm not a believer that dungeoncrasher is T4 generally. Or if it is, then fighter should be T4 to start with, as I don't see dungeoncrasher on its own doing raising or lowering its tier value. You can combine it with things like knockback, but otherwise it's generally going to be just as limited as charging, devotion feats, and so forth, because against large foes or foes that aren't near solid objects, it's not likely to be helpful. And even when you can use it, unless you have knockback or similar, you're using it lieu of an attack. In order to be T4 strictly through combat you should be able to hit with a big oomph most of the time, and all of these things are just too limited.

[DeltaEmil]

I'm not a believer that dungeoncrasher is T4 generally. Or if it is, then fighter should be T4 to start with, as I don't see dungeoncrasher on its own doing raising or lowering its tier value. You can combine it with things like knockback, but otherwise it's generally going to be just as limited as charging, devotion feats, and so forth, because against large foes or foes that aren't near solid objects, it's not likely to be helpful. And even when you can use it, unless you have knockback or similar, you're using it lieu of an attack. In order to be T4 strictly through combat you should be able to hit with a big oomph most of the time, and all of these things are just too limited.In a dungeon, it's actually a good idea to assume that the monsters are near solid objects because of the limited place.
In fact, interesting battles do have all sorts of terrain features like trees in a forest, walls in a city or dungeon, pillars in a big palace, or crumbled statues in ruins, where everyone takes cover, tries to block line of sight, and allows stealth and tactics.
D&D-battles of all kind are dreadfully boring if on a featureless flat plain (where the paladin might actually excel thanks to its mount - what an irony).
Also, the dungeoncrasher fighter does get one thing it can finally do outside of combat. Kick doors and walls down on like the raging barbarian does.

[Augmental]

A hammer is Open Lock with out needing skill points.

A normal hammer can't ignore hardness.


A rogue can grab any 8 skills he wants.

Not without sacrificing other skills. :smalltongue:

[DeltaEmil]

A hammer is Open Lock with out needing skill points.Using mountain hammer with a hammer is of course iconic. But mountain hammer can also be used with your fists/kick/headbutt/beer bottle/sock, so that's a plus. And you can still focus on using swords and rapiers or whatever, instead of having to use hammers.

[137beth]

I am not really defending it. Just smushing bad assumptions made against the class. It's not a good class, but I don't want to see it misrepresented.

What it's supposed to be is neither here nor there. :smallwink:

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that, when responding to a post which started with "Am I the only one who finds it ironic...", someone explicitly says that the paladin is not a good class, when they are obviously Good?

Honestly, I am having a hard time understanding why anyone thinks that the paladin is anything but tier 5. Everyone seems to be working from the assumption that the paladin is unusually optimized, while the other tier 4 classes are not, or that people have 35+ point buy, or some other weird assumption to favor the paladin.

[Karnith]

As a general reminder, something that everyone should keep in mind when discussing a particular class's placement in the tier system:
Q: Why is my favorite class too low? It should TOTALLY be much higher!

A: Remember, you're probably more experienced with your favorite class than with other classes. Plus, your personality probably fits well with the way that class works, and you probably are better inspired to work with that class. As such, whatever your favorite class is is going to seem stronger for you than everyone else. This is because you're simply going to play your favorite class in a more skillfull way... plus you'll be blinded to the shortcomings of that class, since you probably don't care about those anyway (they match with things that you as a player probably don't want to do anyway). As such, if I did this right most people should think their favorite class is a little too low, whether that class is Fighter or Monk or Rogue or whatever else.

[137beth]

As a general reminder, something that everyone should keep in mind when discussing a particular class's placement in the tier system:

Yea, that is basically what this thread seems to be about: people who have more experience with the paladin than with a barbarian or rogue think it is more powerful.

[eggynack]

I don't think it has been noted yet, but barbarians have access to some really good resources outside of damage. Sure, they're fantastic damage dealers for very little effort, but they have other things. They can get improved trip on the cheap, and are likely to have more dex than any given paladin, so a good AoO trip build is viable. Whirling frenzy and pounce don't take any feat investment, so they're already getting good damage without putting in many feats. Second, as is noted in the tier list, they have some great resources for intimidation. I'm not sure if it's on level with a zhentarim fighter, but they're right up there where the ability is concerned. Third, they have way more good prestige classes than the paladin. I don't know if it's taken into account in the tier system, but runescarred is great, and their other PrC's are pretty good too. Paladins can basically just deal damage. Their other abilities are extremely sub-par.

[Greenish]

That's a good point, raging is probably the best supported melee style in the game, at least when it comes to PrCs. Paladins do have a few (Fist of Raziel, Knight of the Raven, Bone Knight), even if most of them end up being better for the cleric.

[Snowbluff]

Well, paladin's have actually done quite well outside of their start.

Turn Undead is a class feature, remember? Devotions and Divine feats.
They can also drop their spell for more feats.

As for their "MAD", Paladin doesn't need 14 starting Wis, and Cha can be pretty low as well. If you go without any spells, which are apparently non-functioning according to the tier list, you could pick up more dex.

It's not like Monk, where you can't wear armor and it's difficult to function at all without 4 good stats.

EDIT: Whoops, forgot spellcasting improvements.

[WhatBigTeeth]

Eh. To be fair, Barbarian and Rogue aren't casting swift Polymorph or persisting Wraithstrike or Irresistible Force, no matter how hard they rage or sneak. They're stuck playing the noncaster game while the upper bounds of Paladins have spell effects comparable to the PsyWar's native list (even if endurance is still crap).

[eggynack]

Eh. To be fair, Barbarian and Rogue aren't casting swift Polymorph or persisting Wraithstrike or Irresistible Force, no matter how hard they rage or sneak. They're stuck playing the noncaster game while the upper bounds of Paladins have spell effects comparable to the PsyWar's native list (even if endurance is still crap).
I don't know if it counts for tier purposes, but runescarred barbarian allows for some pretty sweet casting. They get anti-magic field, which is just about as good as it gets. Paladins get 0th level spells at level 4, and 1st level spells at 8th. This is far beyond where any reasonable person would take the class, because they're nowhere near viable at that point. Their spells are gained at a high enough level so as to be relatively extraneous. They're ok, but it's just about the worst progression in the game. As to devotions and divine feats keyed off of turning, they get turning at level 4, and every devotion they get is costing them a feat. This is problematic, because paladins are quite feat starved. Compared to the travel devotion, which comes online at 4th, has limited uses per day and costs a feat, pounce comes online at 1st, works all day, and costs fast movement. When you start using devotion feats, you're putting so much more effort into your shtick than the barbarian is. Barbarians are good because they do these things through acf's at a low cost. Paladins keep requiring more and more work to get to the points you folk are listing.

As a second note, on dungeon crasher fighter, the reason it moves them from 5th to 4th is because they were already teetering on the edge of the line. Dungeon crasher pushes them over that line. Additionally, they also get access to zhentarim fighter which makes them just about the best intimidators in the game, and for free if I'm not mistaken. These things are just about the only things in the game that makes these mediocre melee classes usable beyond a 2 level dip.

[Snowbluff]

Paladins get 0th level spells at level 4, and 1st level spells at 8th.This is wrong, if anyone was wondering.


As to devotions and divine feats keyed off of turning, they get turning at level 4, and every devotion they get is costing them a feat. This is problematic, because paladins are quite feat starved.

They could drop the spell list you think is useless and pick up the extra feats.

A Paladin of Freedom could make his fifth level Lion Spirit Totem Barbarian. Level 4 is beyond where you would take the class, anyway.

[Lans]

A normal hammer can't ignore hardness.


How often do you need to deal with hardness? I find getting 2 swings in a round tends to deal more damage to an object than Mountain Hammer does.

[eggynack]

This is wrong, if anyone was wondering.


I... I'm looking at the table right now. They get 0 0th level spells a day at 4th, and 0 1st level spells at 8th. I guess it's wrong if the paladin doesn't get any bonus spells. I was just being charitable to the paladin, but if you want to do it based on when they get a spell without bonuses, go right ahead.

edit: I see it now. That's still pretty mediocre.

[Snowbluff]

I... I'm looking at the table right now. They get 0 0th level spells a day at 4th, and 0 1st level spells at 8th. I guess it's wrong if the paladin doesn't get any bonus spells. I was just being charitable to the paladin, but if you want to do it based on when they get a spell without bonuses, go right ahead.

My bad, I misread it as "0th level spells at level 4". :smalltongue:

EDIT: No, I am going crazy. I misread that as...
Anyway, this is exactly what I meant by it being misrepresented.

[eggynack]

My bad, I misread it as "0th level spells at level 4". :smalltongue:

EDIT: No, I am going crazy. I misread that as...
You were correct initially. They gain 1st level spells at 4th, and 2nd level spells at 8th. That still seems quite mediocre. They even need to invest 14 points in wis to gain access to that spell at 8th. Otherwise they have to wait til 10th. Even with my misconception, they still seem highly limited where casting is concerned, possibly to the level of pointlessness. In any case, the reason for the mistake is that I tend to assume that the first column in a spells/day list is 0th level. Seems obvious in retrospect, but there ya go.

[Snowbluff]

You were correct initially. They gain 1st level spells at 4th, and 2nd level spells at 8th. That still seems quite mediocre. They even need to invest 14 points in wis to gain access to that spell at 8th. Otherwise they have to wait til 10th. Even with my misconception, they still seem highly limited where casting is concerned, possibly to the level of pointlessness.
It does suck. The spell selection is better than nothing, since they can get access to Wizards spells and they can use wands without crossclassed UMD ranks.

If you do not like it, swap it for Divine feats (or a few fighter ones) at 4, 8, 11, and 16. The one at 4th is probably the most likely, but beating able to use wands like Rhino's Rush and Knight's Move is hard.

[eggynack]

Their spells are ok, but realistically you're only getting a single first level spell if they have decent wisdom. I don't think I've ever seen a build that had levels past 5, unless they were planning to fall and go blackguard, for the special mount. After that point, you're putting levels in paladin to get remove disease, smite evil and terrible spellcasting. If you're doing that, you're definitely not moving past tier 5, because those barely qualify as class features.

edit: Take remove disease off that list. x/week actually doesn't qualify as a class feature where I'm concerned. You're putting levels in for terrible spellcasting, and an extra smite every 5 levels. That's not even a class anymore. It's a reasonably good NPC class. Not a great NPC class, because adept exists, but probably the second best.

[Snowbluff]

Their spells are ok, but realistically you're only getting a single first level spell if they have decent wisdom. I don't think I've ever seen a build that had levels past 5, unless they were planning to fall and go blackguard, for the special mount. After that point, you're putting levels in paladin to get remove disease, smite evil and terrible spellcasting. If you're doing that, you're definitely not moving past tier 5, because those barely qualify as class features.

They do more than deal damage! :smalltongue:

But yeah, they do kind of suck. Not that the spell list is that bad, but you will be using more wands than your own slots.

[eggynack]

They do more than deal damage! :smalltongue:

But yeah, they do kind of suck. Not that the spell list is that bad, but you will be using more wands than your own slots.
If I'm doing that, I'd much rather put a dip into cleric. You take the magic domain, and get access to all of the wands. If their big selling point is that they can use wands to a middling level, then that's seriously depressing. I feel like before I had a regular rational distaste for paladins, and now I hate them more than ever.

[Augmental]

If you do not like it, swap it for Divine feats (or a few fighter ones) at 4, 8, 11, and 16.

What book is this ACF from? :smallconfused:

[Snowbluff]

If I'm doing that, I'd much rather put a dip into cleric. You take the magic domain, and get access to all of the wands. If their big selling point is that they can use wands to a middling level, then that's seriously depressing. I feel like before I had a regular rational distaste for paladins, and now I hate them more than ever.Enjoy not having the Cha to save and missing BaB. It's awful how a single BaB can prevent you from making those breakpoints.

Cleric 1 is a good dip for everything worth playing.


What book is this ACF from? :smallconfused:
Complete Champion, pg 49.

[eggynack]

Enjoy not having the Cha to save and missing BaB. It's awful how a single BaB can prevent you from making those breakpoints.

Actually, come to think of it, if you're only taking one level on a melee build you only lose out on hp for going cloistered. Thus, by going from paladin to cleric you're gaining knowledge devotion, all the wands, and whatever third domain you want. If you don't have pounce, travel is nice as you've noted. They also get more spells than a paladin is likely to ever have. One level cleric dip is super fun.

[Snowbluff]

Actually, come to think of it, if you're only taking one level on a melee build you only lose out on hp for going cloistered. Thus, by going from paladin to cleric you're gaining knowledge devotion, all the wands, and whatever third domain you want. If you don't have pounce, travel is nice as you've noted. They also get more spells than a paladin is likely to ever have. One level cleric dip is super fun.

Yeah, there's a handbook for that. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2773) Go crazy.:smallsmile:

The only real problem with this is that the cleric does everyone's job better. It's T1, and it's T1 for a reason.

[eggynack]

Yeah, there's a handbook for that. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2773) Go crazy.:smallsmile:
I was actually planning to post that one, but decided against it. I basically seek out situations where a cleric dip could work, so that I can break out the one level cleric dip handbook. I think my favorite handbook is probably Shax's indispensible haversack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148101) though. It's written really well, and is useful in a crazy number of situations. I've never gotten around to using a character that uses the whole thing though.

[Carth]

Paladins don't have a good enough skill list (knowledge: religion is their only class skill that deals with creatures) or enough skill points to make use of knowledge devotion, though. As for other devotion feats that keep getting mentioned (animal and travel mostly), they are best obtained at higher levels, because of the extremely low number of uses you'll get out of them in low levels. With a paladin's very minimal amount of feat slots, using up those low level feat slots on something you can't use more than 3-4 times a day is very iffy. At high levels you can basically buy turning attempts to power them with night sticks, but by higher levels the advantage offered by these feats is pretty marginal anyway.

[Augmental]

So, while I was looking up the ACF that replaces Paladin spellcasting, I saw Underdark Knight on the same page. Question: are all the abilities it gives you worth sacrificing your mount?

[eggynack]

The only real problem with this is that the cleric does everyone's job better. It's T1, and it's T1 for a reason.
Even then, the paladin is still only middling where wand use is concerned. There are classes out there that actually specialize in it, like warlocks and rogues. I'm not bringing artificers into it, cause they have the same problem. Second thing, I'm not sure what the line is, but at some point we're going to have poured too much optimization into this paladin. We may have already crossed it. At that point, the barbarian's probably going into runescarred, rendering him unreachable by the paladins meager attempts. It's pretty tough to gauge relative levels of optimization though.

[Darius Kane]

So, while I was looking up the ACF that replaces Paladin spellcasting, I saw Underdark Knight on the same page. Question: are all the abilities it gives you worth sacrificing your mount?
In Underdark? Sure. Most mounts are useless underground either way, unless you somehow manage to get yourself a mount that can burrow or something and/or you're small sized and have medium sized mount.

[Snowbluff]

Even then, the paladin is still only middling where wand use is concerned. There are classes out there that actually specialize in it, like warlocks and rogues. I'm not bringing artificers into it, cause they have the same problem. Second thing, I'm not sure what the line is, but at some point we're going to have poured too much optimization into this paladin. We may have already crossed it. At that point, the barbarian's probably going into runescarred, rendering him unreachable by the paladins meager attempts. It's pretty tough to gauge relative levels of optimization though.

This is assuming similiar optimization from the Paladin to that of the Barbarian, and this is not a duel (thank god, since either class would probably charge the other to death). If the Barbarian has ACFs, then the Paladin is using the rough equivalent in terms of power. The wands of the Paladin list are a baseline ability.

Did you know that Paladin can learn Earth Glide? LoE can be a real pain at times.:smallwink:

[eggynack]

This is assuming similiar optimization from the Paladin to that of the Barbarian, and this is not a duel (thank god, since either class would probably charge the other to death). If the Barbarian has ACFs, then the Paladin is using the rough equivalent in terms of power. The wands of the Paladin list are a baseline ability.

Did you know that Paladin can learn Earth Glide? LoE can be a real pain at times.:smallwink:
How do they learn earth glide? If it's what I think it is, it looks like an 8th level spell on the wizard and druid lists.

[Snowbluff]

How do they learn earth glide? If it's what I think it is, it looks like an 8th level spell on the wizard and druid lists.

The Underdark Knight ACF. Level 12, Earth Glide. It's not perfect, but it's really a pain.

[Carth]

The Underdark Knight ACF. Level 12, Earth Glide. It's not perfect, but it's really a pain.

Well, only if you assume that no longer needing to breath grants immunity to suffocation. Plus at some point you need to come out to actually do something.

[eggynack]

The Underdark Knight ACF. Level 12, Earth Glide. It's not perfect, but it's really a pain.
I just found a neat acf list online, so now I'll be slightly less dumb where paladin power is concerned. Still, you're getting that at 12th which is after I'd ever build a paladin. A 12th level paladin is never going to be higher than tier 5, and that's a given. You're trading away a powerful low level ability for a powerful high level ability, which is the opposite of what I want to be doing on a paladin. Basically, any plan that begins with, "At level 6 or above I get access to this," is a plan that doesn't work very well. Unless the ability compensates for how substantially mediocre high level paladins are, it doesn't make sense to go to those high levels. I don't think earth glide is enough to compensate, so for me at least it goes in the "irrelevant where power is concerned" pile.

[strider24seven]

I have not bothered to read through the last 7 pages, but I thought I would weigh in with my experiences with Paladins.

3.5 Paladins
Generally worse than a Fighter... feats tend to be better than Paladin class features. Outside of ubermount builds or two level dips for Divine Grace the Paladin is mostly useless and can be an active handicap to a party not devoted to Lawful Good. Variant Paladins from UA are a little less terrible, particularly the Tyranny and Slaughter variants, which are actually tolerable in CHA focused debuff builds, especially when combined with Hexblade, Blackguard, Unseelie Fey, and the like. Battle Blessing makes Paladin spellcasting less of a joke, but makes Paladins look like gimped Psychic Warriors. In short, they are Tier 5, and I would put them toward the bottom of Tier 5.

PF Paladins
This may sound weird, but despite being mostly strictly better than 3.5 Paladins, I would rate them as being relatively worse off in PF than in 3.5, by sheer virtue of the fact that they are not Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Half Elf Sorcerers, or Half Elf Oracles. While a PF Paladin may be more capable than in 3.5, mundanes got shafted horribly in PF... even worse than in 3.5. Especially at later levels, if your DM sticks to the PF DM guidelines, mundanes simply cannot pull their weight even against level appropriate challenges.

[TuggyNE]

Well, only if you assume that no longer needing to breath grants immunity to suffocation.

Perhaps I am mistaken in some way, but how on earth could you ever assume anything else? No, seriously!

[Snowbluff]

"At level 6 or above I get access to this," is a plan that doesn't work very well. Unless the ability compensates for how substantially mediocre high level paladins are, it doesn't make sense to go to those high levels. I don't think earth glide is enough to compensate, so for me at least it goes in the "irrelevant where power is concerned" pile.

By the same logic, Runescarred Berserker's spells are pretty useless as well. :smallcool:

Pounce doesn't do anything until level 6.

[137beth]

Perhaps I am mistaken in some way, but how on earth could you ever assume anything else? No, seriously!

Maybe because some people like arguing on forums from the assumption of 100% RAW.
Which I don't agree with, because even if we assume that powerful stuff isn't nerfed/banned (which is the assumption of the tier system), I don't think any DM would buy suffocation working on someone who doesn't breathe, even in a mostly RAW game.

[Carth]

Perhaps I am mistaken in some way, but how on earth could you ever assume anything else? No, seriously!

Pretty much anyone can hold their breath longer than 6 seconds. The fact that you start suffocating if you end your turn in dirt after using underdark knight's earth glide ability indicates to me that it isn't necessarily tied to breathing.

Edit: though frankly I agree with eggynack, that having to trudge all the way to paladin's 12th level for it just isn't worth it.

[eggynack]

By the same logic, Runescarred Berserker's spells are pretty useless as well. :smallcool:
I dunno if you're being serious or not, but this is untrue. You only need to take a single level of barbarian to gain access to the PrC, so until then you're fully able to take the optimal non-ToB melee route made up of tons of small dips and PrC's. Additionally, the runescarred berserker spell list seems more powerful than the paladin's does. A paladin, by contrast, has to take the highly sub-optimal route of paladin n>5. Also, I've said it before but antimagic field is the best thing of all time on a barbarian. It's so frigging sweet that I have no words to describe how sweet it is.

edit: I didn't see your edit when I wrote this, so here's an edit of argument. Pounce isn't particularly useful at first level, but it's made up for by the fact that a barbarian at level one is rocking a whirling frenzy. He's hitting twice every round, while everyone else is hitting once, and unlike the monk he's doing so at his full attack bonus, and while moving around. At second level, he's getting access to improved trip, which is one of the best melee feats in the entire game. You're not just sitting on pounce, waiting for awesome spells. You take pounce because it will be good later, while gaining other abilities that are also awesome.

[Golden Ladybug]

Hmm... consider the following:

To start with, Human Paladin. Not a particularly outrageous choice, in my opinion, and not really a particularly bad one. 28PB for Stats, as I believe is the norm for Tier Discussions.

Str 16
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 15
Cha 8

You pick up three skill points per level (admittedly, not too many, but it does okay) by being a Human, which means you can pick up Sense Motive, Knowledge (Religion) and Craft (Armorsmithing/Weaponry). Your good wisdom will make you better at detecting falsehood, and Knowledges are useful unto themselves. Craft lets you make your mundane gear on the cheap :smalltongue:

For our 1st level feats, lets go with Power Attack and Animal Devotion. Both Good Feats, and Animal Devotion's versatility has been noted in the thread so far. Flight, Strength Bonuses and a Con-Damage Bite Attack (Low DC, because of the low Charisma, but oh well). In combat, we'll be using Power Attack, Medium Armor (Heavy Armor is costly) and Two-Handing at the moment.

Instead of Animal Devotion, you can pick up the Shocktrooper feat-line easily enough, or take a Divine Metamagic route. You've got Turn Attempts, you can Persist things if you feel like it. Battle Blessing lets you rock the Swift Action spells far before the Wizard is getting access to it.

With a more permissive access of sources, you can pick up Bardic Music really easily and ride the Inspire Courage train, with lowers bonuses in exchange for a better combat chassis. Sword of the Arcane Order is open to you as well.

We pick up Divine Grace and Lay on Hands at level 2, nothing special right now, but we'll grow into them.

Level 3, we're immune to Fear and Diseases, but most importantly we get to pick a feat; we choose Serenity (while relatively obscure, its a published feat in an official book), which changes all the Charisma based Class Features we're packing and makes them Wisdom based. Awesome. Up goes the Saving Throws, Smite starts giving us a positive to-hit mod. Awesome.

Level 4, we start getting somewhere. We get our level 1 spells, Turn Undead (which means more Animal Devotion, at the moment) and a Caster Level. Welcome to Wandville! For our Attribute Point, its probably best to chuck it into Wisdom.

Level 5, instead of taking our Special Mount, we get ourselves the Divine Spirit ACF from Dungeonscape. Right now, this gives us a pet Healbot that can heal 30 Points of Damage (maybe more, if we've bought a +Wis Item). We can move it as a free action, and getting it to dispense that healing takes no action on our part.

Level 6, we take the Curse Breaker ACF and use Remove Curse 1/week instead of Remove Disease. Not really that major, but its better than nothing. Holla!

So, I could go on, but that's basically the end of this example :smallredface:

The Divine Spirit ACF and Serenity solve two problems that are apparently apparent in the Paladin; MAD and Dungeon Crawlin'. Wisdom powers all your class features, as well as your spells, so you can devote resources to it and Divine Spirit gives you some worthwhile in-combat healing. With Shield Other, you can easily increase the durability of your party members and keep your fingers on the pulse in combat.

You've got full-BAB, d10s and good Saving Throws all round (especially your fortitude and will, the two most important saves to have). You've got some supplementary Spellcasting, you're a good in-combat healer and you have reasons to keep taking levels in the class; Divine Spirit gives you some pretty potent abilities, and it makes your Lay on Hands awesome.

You can Nova quite well with Animal Devotion, Smite Evil, Spirit of Combat and Paladin Spells, which makes you decent at fighting as well as keeping the rest of your Party alive. It doesn't come online until level 3, but after that it can carve out a decent niche for itself.

That's got a fair shot at Tier 4, from where I'm standing.

[Snowbluff]

I dunno if you're being serious or not, but this is untrue. You only need to take a single level of barbarian to gain access to the PrC, so until then you're fully able to take the optimal non-ToB melee route made up of tons of small dips and PrC's. Additionally, the runescarred berserker spell list seems more powerful than the paladin's does. A paladin, by contrast, has to take the highly sub-optimal route of paladin n>5. Also, I've said it before but antimagic field is the best thing of all time on a barbarian. It's so frigging sweet that I have no words to describe how sweet it is.

1) It ain't barbarian.

2) AMF at level 16.

3) Your AMF shuts down your magic items, and any dedicated caster has ways around AMF by then. Even Invoke Magic is a thing at level 16.

A paladin could know those most of those spells as well, thanks to Sword of the Arcane Order. A single feat. This is a combo that potentially allows for Celerity without being Dazed.

[T.G. Oskar]

Paladin is, at best, a two-level dip. Maybe four, if you are going to be facing fear builds.

It's a great dip, don't get me wrong, but... well... even Monk is a good 2 level dip for some builds.

A straight Paladin sucks. A straight Barbarian is going to be decidedly superior in every encounter, because he will be dealing more damage, even against evil opponents. Which is generally what non-casters are stuck doing to get rid of opponents. A Barbarian also has a higher HD, less MAD so he can put his second stat into Con (first being Str) meaning even higher overall hit points than a Paladin, comes built in with some DR so he's even shrugging off hits easier.

A Barbarian doesn't cast, but a Paladin casting in combat is generally wasting his action. Case in point:

You get hit severely.

A Paladin might heal himself. Now your opponent has a chance to hit you again and undo that action

A Barbarian -will- curb-stomp his opponent, removing the threat entirely, and is able to recover at his leisure.

After that turn, the Paladin is still locked in combat with an opponent capable of harming him. The Barbarian... is not. Guess who gets hurt less in the long run?

For buffs, there's this class called a 'Cleric'. Most parties don't leave home without one. They generally get more of them, better ones, and sooner. And, yanno... funny thing about buffs... they tend to be able to be cast on allies. For example, Death Ward. He sees something that can dish out negative levels, he's probably going to drop that on the guy most likely to eat them. Of course, generally, to inflict negative levels, they'd need to hit. And it is kind of hard to do that when you just got roflstomped.

A Paladin spreads his focus out. A Barbarian doesn't. A Barbarian does one thing, but does it very well... that thing being 'hit things hard'. At any relevant CR level, a Barbarian is killing anything it hits. Not even 'on average', simply 'there is a 5% chance I might miss, but if I hit, it is dead'.

Hell, let's talk about Core Bard for a moment. At least a Bard gets some useful abilities. Particularly with splatbook help, Bards are vicious. DFI is absolutely BRUTAL, particularly since it is a group buff. IC can be set up to be tremendously useful even at low levels. And he's got Save or Lose spells on his list like Slow and Glitterdust. At a level that they are still meaningful and relevant. Bards also have tremendous out of combat utility. Party face, bluff-o-matic (Glibness FTW!), gather information... Bards get 6 + Int skills, and has a very generous list to choose from.

A Paladin, however, has very little utility out of combat. He might make a passable Party Face, but the Bard is so much better at it that there really is little comparison. Plus with 2+Int Mod (and Int is one of the few stats he can risk dumping), he's likely not got the skill points to devote to it.

Now let's talk Fighter.

Okay, so this is to see if the Paladin's class abilties are up to a feat every other level.

Well, a Fighter, again, is going to be focused on Combat. And has the feats to get quite a few options. A Fighter can fairly easily get tripping and disarming as options. A Paladin has to chose carefully... he *can* do that, but if he does, he's pretty much locked into it as his shtick. A Fighter? Can do that, AND pick up Power Attack, AND pick up Improved Initiative... all fairly early in his career. Paladin? Not so much.

Sure, the Paladin is a bit better at resisting spells, due to the Charisma mod to all saves. Of course, a Fighter is probably going to be able to pick up a Cloak of Resistance after a few levels to help offset that, and that might actually be a deciding difference against a sub-optimal caster. But realistically, after about fifth level when Casters start flying around, you're going to have a hard time hurting said wizard. Sure, you might be able to resist the magic... now what?

This actually goes more in Fighter's favor with splatbooks. Zhent Fighter 9 and Dungeoncrasher give Fighters single-target lockdown, when combined with Imperious Command. Swift action lockdown is very handy. Plus, he's got the feats for Spiked Chain Tripper + Combat Reflexes and still have enough bonus feats left over for Power Attack and Shock Trooper to one-shot kill just about anything he hits.

So yea... Paladin? Stinks. I wish they didn't. They've got awesome RP potential... but other than a two-level dip for resists, that's all they have potential for.

This post really offends me, for two reasons. First, there's a few things there that, for some reason, either lack a blue-colored font or are somehow wrong. Second...Shneekey, really? Coming from someone who did a great build based off a Tier 5 class?

The "Core Bard" thing is particularly offensive. I think you didn't really meant "Core" because, you see, if I were to consider "Core" Bard, I'd consider...IC will remain at a +1 bonus, and a decent but not spectacular list of spells. I mean, CLW isn't really surprising, and the gems there involve Charm Person, Grease and Sleep. And that's at 2nd level, when the Bard finally gets 1st level spells, and needs decent Cha to pull that off. Unless the Eberron Campaign Setting, Dragon Magic and the Magic Item Compendium are considered Core. Glitterdust comes online at level 4, which is just one level shy off the Wizard (and right in with the Sorcerer), but can only be used once per day. Slow comes at 7th level, which is two levels below Wizard and one below Sorcerer. This doesn't alter anything about the premise (the Bard can be better than the Paladin at Core because of what it offers), but it seems to exaggerate a bit.

Regarding the Barbarian...I presume that, for the Barbarian to "curbstomp the opponent", it must be using a two-handed weapon and Power Attack, right? And combined with Rage, of course. Two things I can consider: one, the Barbarian's main stat is Strength, so you want to optimize towards it, and that means gravitating for Power Attack; second, Rage further boosts Strength, so that means more damage. However, without PA, a Barbarian gets a net +2-+4 to attack and a +3-+6 to damage, the latter at 20th level. That doesn't really seems like "curbstomp" levels of damage. The trick, of course, is Power Attack, but as you know, PA relies on offsetting the loss of attack bonus. A +46 to damage is real "curbstomp" levels of damage, but at a cost of -20 to attack rolls, it becomes "one huge miss". However, and this is real important: you're depending on Power Attack for the bulk of your damage, not on your class features. Nothing whatsoever truly implies a Paladin cannot pull that off either, considering that Barbarians get the same amount of feats as Paladins do. The other thing that also adds power to the Barbarian, aside from PA and Rage, is Pounce, which requires replacing your Fast Movement through an ACF; just as anything that blocks a mount blocks the highest possible damage output of the Paladin, anything that nullifies a charge absolutely hinders a Barbarian (though not to the extent it'd hinder a mounted, charging Paladin). Now: besides Rage and Pounce, is there a way that a Barbarian can deal "curbstomp" levels of damage? Because you're basically suggesting that Power Attack is a Barbarian thing. I can consider ways on how a Barbarian can be better than a Paladin, and Rage is one of those, with "less MAD" and "4 skill points/level" more worthwhile. Because, for all I hate Remove Disease, I don't see how Trap Sense is a class feature that's better than what a Paladin offers.

Funny you mention the Fighter: this class has no Rage, but I think the "curbstomp" damage actually fits the Fighter more than anything. It has feats to do just the same as the Barb does (save for Rage and Pounce), and still get feats for lockdown. Technically, it can be efficient just from Core, but splats make it much better.

Which is, really, the true qualm with your post. For all it seems, you deem Paladins to suck, but you use typical, specific builds that require splats while attempting to convince people that Paladins don't have such love from them.

Now: this doesn't mean that, just because the examples felt somewhat biased, that this means the Paladin is a Tier 4 class by definition. It has issues, which are what send them to Tier 5 territory. Saying "a Cleric does a Paladin better" has its own set of troubles: using this argument has an added weight of using a Tier 1 class, which by definition can do several things better than classes that specialize in it. IMO, a better argument is comparing a Crusader with a Paladin, a Divine Mind AND a Soulborn, as all follow the same vibe of "divine champion".

The Paladin has potential to reach Tier 4, as its spellcasting and its use of Charisma opens concepts usually not available to martial characters. Take the role of face, for example; while it lacks the other three social skills of Bluff, Gather Information and Intimidate, it has both Diplomacy to make anyone friendly and Sense Motive to study peoples' attitudes. A Rogue can pull that off, sure, and so does a Bard; both are skill-monkeys, of course, and that is expected to be one of their many roles. I doubt a Barbarian or a Fighter can fulfill that role. Being a martial character, it should fulfill various combat roles: two-hand weaponry is part of the Paladin's arsenal, so it can go with the PA line just as well, Sword & Board is somewhat expected, and Mounted Combat is more than obvious. Its spells combine some healing and buffing, with some unique spells that can be pretty powerful, particularly those 4th level spells. What makes the Paladin remain in Tier 5 is that, for all the options it has, it can't reach the point where they're good enough to matter. I could make a full Paladin build that can reach half the Barbarian levels of damage (I'd obviously miss about 23-26 points of damage from Rage and Leap Attack, but a Paladin can easily get PA, Imp. Bull Rush and Shock Trooper as any other character if you seek to deal raw damage), but it's the fact that the Barbarian has ranks in Jump (and thus access to Leap Attack) means it won't reach full damage potential. Likewise, I could make it so that it works with a bare-bones lockdown build (Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, a guisarme), but its dependency on 4 scores makes Int a hard bargain to consider, and it won't have enough feats for Robilar's or Karmic Strike AND Stand Still. As mentioned, the Paladin can be a decent face, but it won't compare to a proper face because it lacks the skills that provide synergies and the skill points to make it a face and something else aside from it. That doesn't mean certain things can't be considered: I'm personally a big fan of replacing the mount for stuff like Divine Spirit which is wonderful, or Mystic Fire Knight for its better smite and pseudo-Dispelling Strike option plus its improved spellcasting abilities; likewise, the new spells from Spell Compendium, the access to sanctified spells from the Book of Exalted Deeds AND the Champions of Valor supplement, and spells from other books as well further beef up the Paladin. These examples show how the Paladin has the potential to raise up to Tier 4, but having the potential doesn't mean it IS Tier 4, as out of the box (speaking in Core only) it's difficult to handle.

I use Shneekey's post as an example of the many misjudgments within this thread. The Paladin isn't Tier 4 because, out of the box, it's not as easy to work with as other classes would. However, there's a LOT of hate flowing over here that I find unfounded and at best biased: it feels a lot like failed attempts at playing Paladins built this judgment. I mean...a Barbarian with a greataxe and using PA with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack IS a one-trick pony, and still people aren't bashing Barbarians because they're only worthwhile if they're built that way. I mean, just think about ALL the things that null PA...

[Gwendol]

Regardless, it looks like the paladin can be built to do the one thing well, which would push it to tier 4.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Actually, T.K., Takahashi is quite possibly the BEST example of what I am talking about...

A single highly optimized build which rises above the class's limitations does not equal that class being badass. Having created a fear lockdown build for the class doesn't make CW Samurai anything other than T6, although the build itself is T4... one-trick pony, but pretty good at its one trick.

And that is precisely what you are doing when you are saying that some Paladin builds can reach Tier 4. Sure, optimize it heavily enough, it can get there. But that doesn't mean the class itself is there.

The Paladin class itself... sucks. So does C.W. Samurai.

Healing in combat is a sucker's bet for a main combatant, when you can just kill your opponent and end the encounter, obviating the danger of not being able to heal faster than your opponent is damaging. Mounts don't work in cramped quarters, of which there is generally a plethora over the course of a campaign. The spell list is not impressive.

Granted, the Paladin class sucks LESS than the C.W. Samurai, which is why it is at T5 rather than T6. It is even an excellent dip for many different builds. But the class itself simply isn't versatile enough to be anything higher than T5.

[strider24seven]

Regardless, it looks like the paladin can be built to do the one thing well, which would push it to tier 4.

Except that you can do mostly equivalent damage with a Commoner, Power Attack, and a Valorous Weapon. And without Chicken Infested. Does this mean that Commoners are Tier 4 too?

Specific feats and items can push a class as high as Tier 1. See Eldritch Corruption, Magical Training, Heighten Spell, Earth Sense, Earth Spell, and Extra Slot. This does not make the class Tier 1.

Also, the Tier System mentions that specific builds may be up or down one or more tiers... does anyone even bother to read JaronK's OP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559) anymore before posting things like this?

[Snowbluff]

Regardless, it looks like the paladin can be built to do the one thing well, which would push it to tier 4.

I think I agree with this assessment.

Commoner can't even utilize Power Attack properly.

[eggynack]

1) It ain't barbarian.

This doesn't mean that much to me. A two level dip is the barbarian's bread and butter, in the same way that a one, two or five level dip is the mainstay of the paladin. You can take more of both, if you like, but as you do the classes are just going to do worse and worse. At the very least, the barbarian gets the upper hand in this exchange. Mid-level barbarian abilities are halfway decent when compared to the desert of shame that is the mid-level paladin.

2) AMF at level 16.

3) Your AMF shuts down your magic items, and any dedicated caster has ways around AMF by then. Even Invoke Magic is a thing at level 16.

A paladin could know those most of those spells as well, thanks to Sword of the Arcane Order. A single feat. This is a combo that potentially allows for Celerity without being Dazed.
Runescarred berserker has some pretty good spells before that point too. Divine favor, protection from x, and true strike are neat at first level, Invisibility is cool beans at 2nd, the majority of 3rd level spells seem good and everything but neutralize poison seems good at 4th. Their spell list also progresses faster and tends towards more slots when it gets them. Given entry at 8th, they start out with the same number of first level spells per day as the paladin, but without the 2nd level spells. By level 10, they've already surpassed the paladin with one more first level slot. It's all upside from there. The 16th level amf is just a super cool capstone. They also get polymorph, dimension door and heal at that level, which seems also full of cool points. Your sword of the arcane order plan is reliant on the paladin's extremely low number of spells per day, and equally slow general progression.

[Snowbluff]

You don't attack something with Celerity. You can't even think about it if you can never LoE.

As for it not being Barbarian, it's because it is not Barbarian. Sublime Chord.

[strider24seven]

I think I agree with this assessment.

Commoner can't even utilize Power Attack properly.

Except that they can because the Skillful Weapon property exists.

Dragonborn Water Orc using a Skillful Valorous Lance, riding any valid mount, with Shock Trooper, Spirited Charge, Headlong Rush, and wearing riding boots, can easily do hundreds of damage. Ergo Commoner is Tier 4?

[T.G. Oskar]

Actually, T.K., Takahashi is quite possibly the BEST example of what I am talking about...

A single highly optimized build which rises above the class's limitations does not equal that class being badass. Having created a fear lockdown build for the class doesn't make CW Samurai anything other than T6, although the build itself is T4... one-trick pony, but pretty good at its one trick.

And that is precisely what you are doing when you are saying that some Paladin builds can reach Tier 4. Sure, optimize it heavily enough, it can get there. But that doesn't mean the class itself is there.

The Paladin class itself... sucks. So does C.W. Samurai.

Healing in combat is a sucker's bet for a main combatant, when you can just kill your opponent and end the encounter, obviating the danger of not being able to heal faster than your opponent is damaging. Mounts don't work in cramped quarters, of which there is generally a plethora over the course of a campaign. The spell list is not impressive.

Granted, the Paladin class sucks LESS than the C.W. Samurai, which is why it is at T5 rather than T6. It is even an excellent dip for many different builds. But the class itself simply isn't versatile enough to be anything higher than T5.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly.

I said they had the potential because, if there were more synergies that could improve the options they have access to, they'd definitely get up a rank. Because they lack those synergies, they remain in Tier 5. Is that so hard to understand? I know that, while explaining, I might miss some things.

However, I'm not sure I suggested that "because builds, therefore Tier 4" at any moment. Perhaps it was interpreted that way. It's best explained in this way:

The Paladin's potential is comprised of a few things: its spellcasting, its martial prowess, and its Charisma focus (with Turn Undead a distant fourth). Because it has spellcasting abilities, that means it has access to metamagic and item creation feats; however, because of its small amount of spells and its low caster level, attempting to improve spellcasting through metamagic is inefficient; that doesn't mean it's not an option, nonetheless. With martial prowess, you have access to at least two or three fighting styles, but its dependency on many ability scores limits their effectiveness somewhat. Its Charisma focus makes it a decent face, but it lacks the skill points and synergies to make that option completely successful. They have access to Divine Feats (which only Clerics have access to, and other builds by means of PrCs), they can exploit Domain feats better because of their ability to Turn Undead. Note that, because of their use of Wisdom, they are natural for Combat Feats. However, between Fighter feats, Combat Form feats, Divine feats, Domain feats, Reserve Feats (they can cast a conjuration [healing] spell at 4th level, thus they have access to, at least, Touch of Healing), Metamagic feats and Item Creation feats, they are excessively feat starved.

Take away all the restrictions that make following those pathways cost-effective, and you can see what I mean by "potential". However, because I consider those reasons why some of these options aren't as effective, I still peg it at Tier 5, instead of mentioning "it's Tier 4". It's obvious that, with enough optimization, you may raise the worth of the build up a Tier but the class out-of-the-box still doesn't justify being that Tier; that's what everyone is debating at, and that's not what I was debating. My argument was inclined towards a hypothetical: the way the class is built, it could have dealt with various situations, but because of the way it's built, it has several limitations that make it incapable of exploiting those builds' potentials to their fullest. In that, it resembles the Monk: "several class features, but no synergy between them", though in this case, is "few class features with little synergy between them, but improving slowly".

I tried my best to distance from the argument of "because builds, therefore Tier 4". Apparently, I wasn't successful. I don't wish to believe it was because of lack of reading comprehension, so I respond in order to clarify a bit more. Hopefully, this'll work to clear things out. I'm just irked that there's so much hatred and loathing towards Paladins that feels unfounded, as people are willing to ignore issues of other classes in order to bash the poor Paladin.

[Snowbluff]

Except that they can because the Skillful Weapon property exists.

Dragonborn Water Orc using a Skillful Valorous Lance, riding any valid mount, with Shock Trooper, Spirited Charge, Headlong Rush, and wearing riding boots, can easily do hundreds of damage. Ergo Commoner is Tier 4?Skillful: When you wish you could be only 5 BaB behind at level 20.

How much of that is commoners class features? A paladin can benefit can be doing this quite well, in very few levels, utilizing class features (mount and spells). Paladin specific options allow them to improve this ability or branch out.

Commoner can not use Shock Trooper until level twelve. They require magic items to function. They are considerably behind any melee when it comes to the feat progression. I think being bad at their one trick would be an apt description.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly.

I said they had the potential because, if there were more synergies that could improve the options they have access to, they'd definitely get up a rank. Because they lack those synergies, they remain in Tier 5. Is that so hard to understand? I know that, while explaining, I might miss some things.And I agree, IF those synergies existed, they'd go up. But they don't. Which means the class stays at T5.


However, I'm not sure I suggested that "because builds, therefore Tier 4" at any moment. Perhaps it was interpreted that way. It's best explained in this way:

The Paladin's potential is comprised of a few things: its spellcasting, its martial prowess, and its Charisma focus (with Turn Undead a distant fourth). Because it has spellcasting abilities, that means it has access to metamagic and item creation feats; however, because of its small amount of spells and its low caster level, attempting to improve spellcasting through metamagic is inefficient; that doesn't mean it's not an option, nonetheless. With martial prowess, you have access to at least two or three fighting styles, but its dependency on many ability scores limits their effectiveness somewhat. Its Charisma focus makes it a decent face, but it lacks the skill points and synergies to make that option completely successful. They have access to Divine Feats (which only Clerics have access to, and other builds by means of PrCs), they can exploit Domain feats better because of their ability to Turn Undead. Note that, because of their use of Wisdom, they are natural for Combat Feats. However, between Fighter feats, Combat Form feats, Divine feats, Domain feats, Reserve Feats (they can cast a conjuration [healing] spell at 4th level, thus they have access to, at least, Touch of Healing), Metamagic feats and Item Creation feats, they are excessively feat starved.You have pretty much summed up my argument. It tries to do too many things, and fails at all of them.


Take away all the restrictions that make following those pathways cost-effective, and you can see what I mean by "potential". However, because I consider those reasons why some of these options aren't as effective, I still peg it at Tier 5, instead of mentioning "it's Tier 4". It's obvious that, with enough optimization, you may raise the worth of the build up a Tier but the class out-of-the-box still doesn't justify being that Tier; that's what everyone is debating at, and that's not what I was debating. My argument was inclined towards a hypothetical: the way the class is built, it could have dealt with various situations, but because of the way it's built, it has several limitations that make it incapable of exploiting those builds' potentials to their fullest. In that, it resembles the Monk: "several class features, but no synergy between them", though in this case, is "few class features with little synergy between them, but improving slowly".The problem that I am having with this statement is that it is one which implies changing the Paladin class to make it T4. Those restrictions do exist, and they are largely insurmountable. Trying to mitigate one problem only exasperates another. Quite frankly, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Yes, you can make a Tier 4 build with a Paladin. In fact, there's a few ways to do it. Ubercharger is one. Battle's Blessing + access to the wizard spell list is another.

I will agree that it is better than Monk. After all, Monk is a Tier 6 class, Paladin is Tier 5. So yes, it is a full tier above Monk. However, I don't see how this comparison is relevant to the discussion at hand.


I tried my best to distance from the argument of "because builds, therefore Tier 4". Apparently, I wasn't successful. I don't wish to believe it was because of lack of reading comprehension, so I respond in order to clarify a bit more. Hopefully, this'll work to clear things out. I'm just irked that there's so much hatred and loathing towards Paladins that feels unfounded, as people are willing to ignore issues of other classes in order to bash the poor Paladin.

I wouldn't say hatred so much as disappointment. It had potential... but was ultimately hamstrung by itself.

I guess the problem with Paladin is that there is no role in which the Paladin class is something that would be your first pick. Do you want a damage build? Rogue or Barbarian do a much better job, and Rogue has out of combat utility as well. Do you want a gish build? Bard does a much better job, and Ranger is also generally better at it. Do you want to build a healer? Anyone with a wand and CLW on their spell list (or UMD) will do as well.

It doesn't stand out on its own for being good at anything other than being the easiest class to lose class abilities from.

[eggynack]

I will agree that it is better than Monk. After all, Monk is a Tier 6 class, Paladin is Tier 5. So yes, it is a full tier above Monk. However, I don't see how this comparison is relevant to the discussion at hand.


I agree with most of the stuff you say, but this is an untruth. Monk is at tier 5, and is thus at the same power level as the paladin.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I agree with most of the stuff you say, but this is an untruth. Monk is at tier 5, and is thus at the same power level as the paladin.

There is no way a straight Monk could manage to match the Paladin in terms of power. Granted, a Paladin would need to decide what he is going to do, but he could at least do it. A Monk can't even do that much.

Pardon, before I see a ridiculous example, allow me to clarify this:

A Paladin is, at the same level of optimization, more powerful than a monk on every metric other than skill ranks. They have a higher BAB, higher damage output, higher HD, and more multipliers available to them.

And please... go ahead and try the 'partially charged wands' argument. I implore you...